Government Corruption

[local]

I'd bet it's his political views the Chinese wanted to execute him for. In a few weeks he'll probably just disappear.

[Oakie]

I'd bet it's his political views the Chinese wanted to execute him for. In a few weeks he'll probably just disappear.

If they come and take him does that make him a Chinese Takeaway?

[Banditbandit]

Well, isn't all rational Morality?

No.

To quote Star Trek:



I mean, Absolute Morality is one of the Corner stones of most Religions and a brief review of history shows how 'Moral' they turned out.

When I come to make a decision, I like to review the data at hand and account for each of the factors and let them weigh on my decision.

Your response would indicate that your morality is values-based, which may or may not be situational ethics, but is probably closer to Aristotelian ethics.

[Ocean1]

I don't think its 'corrupt'. Essentially he has paid a huge fine in an agreed settlement. Mediated settlements happen all the time and its a bit like that. Call it corrupt if the judiciary were not involved at all or the government denied it happened ... but they haven't hidden or denied it. A nice wee win for the Consolidated Fund.

"He fled China in 2000, and was considered an enemy by the Government for his links to the Falun Gong and pro-democracy movements."

In which case how much faith can we put in subsequent Chinese accusations?

"In 2012 Mr Yan was found not guilty of immigration fraud."

So he's a Kiwi. And he's not a criminal. But hell, we should probably ship all of our "undesirables" off to China to be dealt with.

And if you find NZ corrupt, (a country that routinely tops the least corrupt nation list) than you've never at any time been anywhere else.

If there's anything dodgy going on here it's the gratuity he's paid. Either he's guilty of a crime and he should be treated accordingly, or he's not, in which case let him get on with his life.

[Banditbandit]

"He fled China in 2000, and was considered an enemy by the Government for his links to the Falun Gong and pro-democracy movements."

In which case how much faith can we put in subsequent Chinese accusations?

"In 2012 Mr Yan was found not guilty of immigration fraud."

So he's a Kiwi. And he's not a criminal. But hell, we should probably ship all of our "undesirables" off to China to be dealt with.

And if you find NZ corrupt, (a country that routinely tops the least corrupt nation list) than you've never at any time been anywhere else.

If there's anything dodgy going on here it's the gratuity he's paid. Either he's guilty of a crime and he should be treated accordingly, or he's not, in which case let him get on with his life.

He has been accused of a crime - he has avoided a trail by paying $43million.

Any other person accussed of a crime would have to stand trial - UNLESS now they can pay $43million and not face trial.

Pity Scott Watson, David Bain, etc did not have that kind of money ...

If they'd paid $43million to walk free you would hit the roof ..

[TheDemonLord]

Your response would indicate that your morality is values-based, which may or may not be situational ethics, but is probably closer to Aristotelian ethics.

Possibly - Philosophy and Ethics is an area where I have not read much, So I'll take your word for it.

Out of interest though, Values based and Aristotleian (based on the little I know of Aristotle) sounds like a good place for building a set of ethics - how would you rate those schools of thought?

[mashman]

Oi, Akzle... A sovereign being supposedly buying his way out of justice

[Ocean1]

He has been accused of a crime - he has avoided a trail by paying $43million.

Any other person accussed of a crime would have to stand trial - UNLESS now they can pay $43million and not face trial.

Pity Scott Watson, David Bain, etc did not have that kind of money ...

If they'd paid $43million to walk free you would hit the roof ..

But he hasn't been found guilty of a crime.

And even if Scott Watson or David Bain had the money they would still have gone to trial and been found guilty, the difference here is the crown doesn't have the evidence needed to convict him.

As I said, if the case against him is sound then send it to trial, if found guilty then sentence him accordingly, if not then he walks. I see no rationale behind any fine or half arsed sentence until that happens.

There are, however legal mechanisms that allow property to be seized under suspicion, and that's where the potential for corruption lies. Like the US law that allows state cops to keep anything they seize related to suspected interstate drug running, and yes there's a bunch of seriously dodgy police behaviour associated with that particular rule.

[Katman]

As I said, if the case against him is sound then send it to trial, if found guilty then sentence him accordingly, if not then he walks.

I'm assuming the crimes he's accused of happened over in China.

Why would we try him here?

[Banditbandit]

Possibly - Philosophy and Ethics is an area where I have not read much, So I'll take your word for it.

Out of interest though, Values based and Aristotleian (based on the little I know of Aristotle) sounds like a good place for building a set of ethics - how would you rate those schools of thought?

Top of my list - I teach Aristotelian Ethics ...