You're trying to approach from the wrong side

it's not a question of "prosecute this one or the other person" - it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"

thus celebration that at least something got done

▲

grvbck 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I understand that perspective to some degree, but imagine a hypothetical country with say, two parties in power, where prosecutors only crack down on white collar criminals if they are supporters of one party and not the other. We would call that system corrupt, and probably not celebrate that at least some of the criminals face justice.

Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessarily better if the selection is made politically. That moves the needle from "at least something got done" to "law is just a tool of oppression".

▲

NooneAtAll3 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

again, you're approaching it from perspective "both sides get caught" being a possibility

when in actuality the choice is between "both sides steal" or "one side steals"

and allowing both sides to steal is in no way better

---

the main way desired "both sides get caught" state becomes a thing is after "one side" splits in two - still being close in horizontal connections to stabilize, but with developed instruments for either half to guard against the other

▲

fellowniusmonk 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How else do you propose a system that is fucked like that ever gets unfucked?

▲

thewebguyd 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To unfuck a system like that you have to have a clean reset of sorts. It will feel unjust because past criminals will all go free, but you have to prioritize future stability. You offer amnesty for past crimes in exchange for absolute transparency and massive structure reforms moving forward.

Or, you do what the democratic party in the US has been afraid to do: Rip the bandaid off, accusations of weaponization of the DOJ be damned. The parent's hypothetical situation is precisely what is happening in the US right now where Garland failed to prosecute, and the entire democratic party was far too afraid of appearing to weaponize the justice system meanwhile the opposition has no qualms about doing so. Yes, the public will view it as entirely partisan but there's no other path forward.

But if you just do nothing at all, eventually the social contract breaks. The cost of the corruption becomes too high and the state fails, or you get a forced regime change.

	▲	cindyllm 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

AnimalMuppet 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You start with one party - doesn't matter which - getting in power, and then prosecuting corruption on both sides, not just on the other side.

	▲	blooalien 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You start with one party - doesn't matter which - getting in power, and then prosecuting corruption on both sides, not just on the other side. The day this happens is the day that 90% (or more) of our "leaders" find themselves suddenly in prison.

▲

palmotea 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

> thus celebration that at least something got done

Is it really something to celebrate if:

1. Someone got sentenced to death because they lost some internal power struggle, and bribery was falsely used as the public reason?

2. The guy's getting killed as a scapegoat, or because he pissed off his superiors by not sharing more of his bribes, etc.?

	▲	vkou 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		#1 is a net-better outcome for everyone else than doing nothing.

▲

glenstein 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"

Even that assumes a normal of being lucky that anything is prosecuted, ever. So it's good but against a low bar rather than rising to the bar parent commenter suggested.