I think it's hard to understand these numbers for a lot of people. They go from 12.5 billion to 44 billion. That's not some petty cash, that's 3-10% of Vietnam's GDP. This is money that, if lost, warrants budget cuts by the government, costing people quality of life. All for the enrichment of herself and her cronies.
Sure, death is hard. But she didn't think about the lives of thousands if not millions of others either.
Imagine how many people had to suffer, or even died, because of her and her ilk. That amount of money can play for a lot of life saving procedures, repair unsave roads, improve sanitation of many.
Imagine how many people were involved enabling this theft.
12.5 BILLION?! Yeah, wall. And before that a thorough investigation how this could happen in the first place. I'd make Beria look like a saint clearing and cleaning up that shitshow.
Wouldn’t life in prison be a better option under socialism/communism instead of the death penalty? I understand the reasoning, but I don’t really see the purpose in executing someone in general, especially over such a crime.
“Setting an example”. Wouldn’t life in prison accomplish the same exact thing?
I'm not sure, but it's in line with what the Soviets did:
spoiler
In the first place there is no prison sentence longer than ten years, and few offenders serve that long. The authorities figure that a maximum ten-year constructive program will fit anybody for proper living unless he is irredeemable. There will be some cases, of course, where there is failure, but the idea is to fit the régime to the majority. Right here there will be the question always forthcoming as to what they would do with our own gangster type. Give them a ten-year sentence? Not at all. They have few of them and for armed robbery one may be sentenced to death. No arguments are listed here for or against punishment by death, but in order to understand the absence of a long prison sentence it is necessary to be informed as to what happens to those who would ordinarily be the recipients of such a term. The fellow who murders in a jealous rage or great anger may find himself in for a long treatment in a place for mental abnormals, or he may, if judged sane, be given a sentence of ten years or less. They do not consider this type of murderer to be, usually, a further social menace.
With those disposed of the formulators of the policy believe that a longer sentence for others is not needed. They see no aid anywhere in having one languish in prison beyond that point where a sentence ceases to have the possibility of being constructive and begins to dull the senses and perspective of the prisoner so that he is worthless anywhere. Some of our penologists have said that it is better to keep a man either a brief period or for his life because after a certain time it is practically impossible for him to fit into a society of which he has no knowledge.
The argument this is making is that if you sentence a person for 20-40 years, then they’ll be entirely unable to reintegrate back into society once they finish their term; so there’s no point giving someone with an armed robbery charge 25 years, as you inevitably do more social harm then good.
So we’re still back at square one as even your source states that you might as well imprison someone for life.
Also, the source isn’t arguing for or against the death penalty, and they explicitly state that they don’t want to make a stance on it. Instead, they’re saying that a judge should either sentence for 10 years or under, or simply execute a person as there is no societal difference between 25 years in prison or death.