• Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make.

    I didn’t say that laws should be selectively enforced (even though they already are, due to prosecutorial discretion) nor did I say that this guy should not be tried for every crime he may have committed that we have evidence for. I said that the net effect of going to prison as punishment for breaking the law will be the same, regardless of which conviction put him there.

    If, hypothetically, Trump went to jail over tax fraud, I wouldn’t cry because it wasn’t over the documents case, or the attempted coup, or interfering in Georgia’s elections.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wat.

      You accuse me of making an argument against something you didn’t say (I didn’t), and now you bring up Trump out of no where.

      The fuck?

      I guess to pay your very silly argument some attention, I’ll bite. Tax evasion is a serious crime and should be prosecuted. Hanging a sign on an overpass isn’t.

      In Al Capones case, tax evasion was the least of what he was suspected of, but it’s what they could prove. It doesn’t mean tax evasion shouldn’t be a crime, and the cops were abusing a nothing law.

      • Djtecha@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is very much a purest vs ends debate. Ideally we enforce what’s on the books regardless of who you are, but shy of that it’s better to have these morons off the street for one of the offenses they commited.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whoops, that’s on me. I edited and changed my reply to you a few times and lost the plot. Hopefully it makes more sense now.