[gruez]

>right, because clearly hn comments is exactly the place where one would present in legalese their case against possibly a global cartel or at least a conspiracy between politicians and corporations to shift the blame for their externalities onto consumers, reaping the immense profits and directly and indirectly causing millions if not tens of millions of deaths.

So let me get this straight, you don't know what exact crime has been committed, nor do you have any evidence for such conspiracy existing, but you still think they should be "investigated" and "executed". How is this not crank territory? At least q-anon is cogent enough to specify they're pedophiles or whatever.

[midnight_eclair]

> you don't know what exact crime has been committed

we can start with:

Conspiracy to defraud is an agreement between two or more people to act dishonestly to deprive someone of property, cause them financial loss, or expose them to economic risk. It is a criminal offense, and the conspirators can be prosecuted even if the actual fraud is never executed or no loss occurs.

but i'm also ok with creating a separate crime against the environment and applying it retroactively to top management and politicians whose work and decisions have inflicted most damage.

> evidence for such conspiracy existing

that is exactly what should be investigated.

> should be "investigated" and "executed"

obviously executed when found guilty (i could be convinced that other forms of punishment are sufficient). why are you inventing things to get outraged about?

[gruez]

>Conspiracy to defraud is an agreement between two or more people to act dishonestly to deprive someone of property, cause them financial loss, or expose them to economic risk. It is a criminal offense, and the conspirators can be prosecuted even if the actual fraud is never executed or no loss occurs.

But "you should use paper straws to help the environment" isn't fraud, because it does help the environment in some sense. You might argue there's higher priority or more effective measures, but that doesn't make it fraud. It's not fraud in the same way that ads for sports cars isn't fraud, even though they're terrible value for money.

>obviously executed when found guilty (i could be convinced that other forms of punishment are sufficient). why are you inventing things to get outraged about?

You can't be executed for fraud, so proposing it as the first option makes it sound like you already have a conclusion in mind. I'd be similarly outraged at someone who suggests we should round up homeless people for a suitable crime, then "execute" them.

[midnight_eclair]

> isn't fraud .. can't be executed for fraud

it'll be special kind of fraud, fraud against the planet, execution is ok for that one

[gruez]

Retroactively interpreting laws to prosecute people and giving exceptional punishments goes against the very idea of rule of law. In other words, you're describing a kangaroo court.