(from article on truth dig)
BANGKOK. For the most part, American bankers whose rash pursuit of profit brought on the 2008 global financial collapse didn't get indicted. They got bonuses.
Odds are that scandal would have played out differently in Vietnam, another nation struggling with misbehaving bankers. The authoritarian Southeast Asian state doesn't just send unscrupulous financiers to jail. Sometimes, it sends them to death row.
Amid a sweeping cleanup of its financial sector, Vietnam has sentenced three bankers to death in the past six months. One duo now on death row embezzled roughly $25 million from the state-owned Vietnam Agribank. Their co-conspirators caught decade-plus prison sentences.
In March, a 57-year-old former regional boss from Vietnam Development Bank, another government-run bank, was sentenced to death over a $93-million swindling job.
According to Vietnam's Tuoi Tre news outlet, several of his colluders were sentenced to life imprisonment after they confessed to securing bogus loans with a diamond ring and a BMW coupe. And last week, in an unrelated case, charges against senior employees from the same bank allege $47 million in losses from dubious loans.
None of this would impress Bernie Madoff, mastermind of America's largest ever financial fraud scheme. The combined amount from all three Vietnamese cases adds up to less than 1 percent of his purported $18-billion haul.
complete article - http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/vietnams_solution_for_corrupt_bankers_firing_squads_20140403
The idea of executing American executives, politicians, and wall street moguls and insiders -- anyone who allows the emotion of greed to overwhelm their decisions in life to the extent that it destroys the economy for the citizens of this country -- would be a sound policy. After all, as a consequence of greed and corruption, as perpetrated by some corporate leadership, bankers, and wall street and governmental insiders, many millions of our nation's workers have suffered immeasurably -- and some citizens, by the fallout of the destroyed economy with its resulting economic dysfunctions, have suffered death. I suspect that we've not seen the end of economic decline.
Therefore, given the often extreme suffering to citizens, and even the death of some, it seems just and proper to render death the those ultimately causing it. By this measure, there would be pressure for integrity, pressure for transparency, and pressure for concern for one's fellow man. And by executing those judged guilty by the courts, there would be a gradual decrease in the population obsessed with wealth, and an increase in the population seeking fairness and concern for their fellow man.
A recent history of executions would cause these beasts of greed to consider seeking life's purpose not in grossly enhancing one's wealth at all costs to honesty and integrity, at any cost to one's fellow man - but to offer concern for one's fellow man, to consider moderation in wealth, and to avoid decisions forced by greed, which ultimately destroy the economy to the degree that the average worker and citizen cannot find work, and therefore, cannot survive with dignity -- and occasionally, cannot survive at all.
I prefer that the courts render death by firing squad to the convicted, as the message would be clear ... the spectacle quite interesting to our politicians and corporate executives inclined to extreme obsessions of greed.
considering that 32 states, the US military and the federal government have death penalties statutes it is not a stretch to get this on the books.....do not forget Enron and the lasting impact of the actions of Kenneth Lay and the others that conspired with him....you bring up some very valid points and there has to be some other penalty other than country club prisons and book deals with movie options.....
The key phrase stated was "moderation in wealth".
Bill Gates lied to get DOS all to himself, because he was greedy and wanted the IBM deal all to himself. Then he lied a few more times to the DOJ about his behavior, and why? Because he was greedy.
Should we have hung him?
Now he takes those billions he earned off the backs of his lies to run his foundation and help lots of people.
When does one judge that moderation has been exceeded? What standard do we use to make the claim?
Quote from: spuwho on April 04, 2014, 02:40:37 PM
Now he takes those billions he earned off the backs of his lies to run his foundation and help lots of people.
So the ends justify the means?
Quote from: finehoe on April 04, 2014, 03:55:01 PM
Quote from: spuwho on April 04, 2014, 02:40:37 PM
Now he takes those billions he earned off the backs of his lies to run his foundation and help lots of people.
So the ends justify the means?
So we only hang the unrepentant? What if you threaten to hang them and they change like Bill Gates did?
Does the good done absolve the sin of greed?
Or do we just convict for the greed?
Quote from: finehoe on April 04, 2014, 03:55:01 PM
Quote from: spuwho on April 04, 2014, 02:40:37 PM
Now he takes those billions he earned off the backs of his lies to run his foundation and help lots of people.
So the ends justify the means?
People don't change?