this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
404 points (93.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

43990 readers
913 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is a genuine question.

I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.

P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let's be civil.

And if you're a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.

(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I also believe he should face an appropriate sentence. What's the sentence for hunting without a licence in NY?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I don't want him prosecuted, but not because I think killing people is good or forgivable (though it couldn't really happen to a better person) but because the criminal justice system is awful, especially in the US.

If the death penalty is on the table, then I don't think I need to explain why that's bad, but I fundamentally disagree with imprisonment. I'm no expert, but there are better ways to handle harm and justice, and I feel the current system is unjustifiably evil in it's treatment of convicts.

I should probably point out that I'm not making a judgement about what he's done. More that depending on the context and why he's done this, there will need to be a different more nuanced response than the judicial system is capable of.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

From an ethical perspective, killing is often justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond aversely to death, but that reaction is grounded in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I am a pacifist, and I recognize the danger of encouraging/pardoning vigilantism. There are people I feel are heroes, who others view as villains. People should argue, debate, and put pressure as much as possible with non violence... but that is clearly not working for the ultra wealthy who are so insulated from 99.9% of what we can do.

The murdered man was, even by US capitalist standards, excessively evil. In a functioning and just system he would have had life in prison with no chance of parole for 1000+ counts of at the very least man slaughter for the millions of people whose health care was delayed or prevented. The world is a slightly better place without that level of extreme greed and heartlessness in it.

I also feel like the main point of prison "SHOULD" be Prevention and Rehabilitation. Which if the Attacker was personally harmed by a CEO and lashed out, I don't think prison can accomplish either for him. I guess the US gov probably disagrees and thinks he should be rehabilitated as someone who is okay with being exploited by CEOs.

But I do want all evidence laid out, I want a jury to determine if he's unhinged and a danger to others, or someone who was hurt on a fundamental level and lashed out. We of course assume it's the second one, but we don't know yet.

Juries and judges will sometimes use the kid gloves when dealing with people who kill their abusers, and I think a light sentence with the message of "murder is wrong... but so is allowing thousands to die to increase profits. So maybe don't be so evil people wouldn't mind giving up 10 years of their lives to see you removed from this world" would be fine.

... but also if this becomes another one of a million unsolved cases, I won't lose a wink of sleep about it.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

In an ideal system the jury would decide the sentence, and give him one day community service (time served).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

No, and if they do find him, the jury should vote not guilty and utilize jury nullification.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I want them to put an effort to find the guy, but ultimately I hope they never catch him. This dude is a hero, even if not for what he did, but the fear that he instilled in evil executives. It's much bigger than just the one guy. It's already made blue cross/blue shield change a fucked up policy. Even if this type of vigilante justice never happens again, the possibility of it must be in the back of every executives mind, and that alone should be enough to make the world slightly better. Even if just a little.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

If he did it to instill fear in health insurance executives as a deterrent, then that means it was an act of terror. As an act of terror, that means the murdered CEO's life insurance company does not have to pay out. Claim denied.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I would definitely want to see them prosecuted. However, the sentence should probably be light. I'm not perfectly familiar with the justice system, so I don't know how much of this is currently the case, but I think vigilante justice should result in smaller punishments than for example if the reason of the murder was personal gain. If it can actually be proven that the murder victim did those terrible things they were killed for, depending how terrible those things are, the sentence should be reduced. If for example someone killed Hitler, there should be no punishments for this murderer.

Of course that allows murderers for personal gain to claim they did it for vigilante justice, but they would have to find something they can actually prove their victim to be guilty of. This will probably be hard. But I think if they actually find something on the victim, as twisted as it sounds, I think it's actually fine if the sentence gets reduced. Because in the end I think the murder of an unpunished morally bankrupt person is less bad than the murder of a completely innocent person.

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

No.

Failing that, jury nullification is always an option - jurors have the right to return a not guilty verdict even if a defendant is clearly guilty.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Depends on the justice system and if I respect it. If the justice system isn't prosecuting the people responsible for deaths nation wide due to lack of prosecution, it cannot be respected. Specially given the state of the Supreme Court and the government.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago
[–] Rogue@feddit.uk 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Actions have consequences. It's important we have precedents that the world is just

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

As much as I take some degree of delight in this CEO’s death, yes, his killer should face justice. Vigilante revenge should not be allowed in a civilized society. If we condone that, we open the floodgates for all forms of reprisal. As justified as I and others may feel this murder is, the CEO still should have had his day in court.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Nope, but the shit CEO is the root cause.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Yes. I have no sympathy for the CEO but murder is still murder

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Is it though? The US still has the death penalty, and the person who commits those killings just gets paid and goes home.

And none of those people of death row are responsible for even a small fraction of the evil private health insurers are capable of.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Then he should of already faced the death penalty for the thousands (millions?) of deaths he caused.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Yes of course he needs to be prosecuted.

I get that people hate insurance companies but at the end of the day this was a brutal and cold blooded murder.

As unhappy as we may be at the state of the world, the last thing anyone should want is for things to be determined by who has the gun and is willing to shoot.

Having said that though, maybe things are getting beyond the point of no return. Democracy in the US seems to be a joke, and the billionaire class have unfettered power. I worry we're on trajectory towards violent revolution.

The ambivelence and even open celebration of a shocking violent murder is a warning sign of how bad things are right now. Across the democratic world countries are devided and in flux because the political class is not listening to voters and in hoc to the billionaires.

Trump in the US will be a mess. But France and Germany are also in political flux. What we are lacking globally at the moment is an outlet for this mess or a solution. People seem to be divided and unable to coalesce around a solution to the problems. I worry that means more chaos and ultimately violemce to come.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 10 months ago

I want his story to be told then have a jury nullify the case. But I don't see how any of that will happen.

[–] thawed_caveman@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (7 children)

I want to live in civilization and i enjoy its benefits, so no, i can't go around saying someone should be acquitted because the crime was based. We've collectively agreed to put the law above our feelings, that's a good thing, i wish it was done more, so i'm doing my part and preparing to send him cigarettes in prison.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Of course, it's still murder, that's why there is a judiciary. But, the system should also be better, and not allow people to be cheated out of their lives by profiteering goblins.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›