• @pinkdrunkenelephants
    link
    English
    010 months ago

    “On oil and gas companies who have spent decades burning fossil fuels - ramping up the world’s carbon emissions - Mehta said the law couldn’t go back in time and punish past activities."

    Are they fucking serious? Why have any legal system at all then? People would just be allowed to rape and pillage as they please under that auspice.

      • @pinkdrunkenelephants
        link
        English
        010 months ago

        It needs to change then, at least for stuff like this. It’s too serious to let off on a technicality.

        Letting criminals off on technicalities is one of the things that put us down this dark road in the first place. Justice is far more important and letting them off is not justice, I don’t care how the original U.S. system was set up.

        It needs to go.

        • @Spedwell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          410 months ago

          Well the general principle is that you can’t be punished for behavior that was legal when you did it. Otherwise you open the door to “doing X is illegal now” and then locking everyone who was documented doing X in the last several years.

          Which maybe sounds nice when it’s destroying the climate… but it’s less nice when it’s gay marriage, alcohol consumption, owning X book, etc.

          • R0cket_M00se
            link
            fedilink
            English
            310 months ago

            Which maybe sounds nice when it’s destroying the climate… but it’s less nice when it’s gay marriage, alcohol consumption, owning X book, etc.

            Funny how quickly people forget that they’re supporting authoritarianism just because it happens to line up with their belief system in one instance.

          • @pinkdrunkenelephants
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            If you have a government that is willing to do that, then they’ll just tyrannize and abuse you in any other way they see fit and you already have huge enough problems for which not having a provision like the kind I’m talking about would not prevent.

            You can’t stop tyranny at the expense of injustice. It simply doesn’t work that way. You’ll cause the very tyranny you hope to prevent by destroying people’s faith in a system like that – that’s actually what’s been happening here.

    • AngrilyEatingMuffins
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      No. They’re saying, “these weren’t laws when these people were breaking them, so we can’t punish them for breaking laws that weren’t yet laws.”

      I’d normally agree with that statement but annihilating the environment is a violation of all laws of nature. Also these fucks broke plenty of other laws so…

      Genocide wasn’t a de jure crime until after WWII but we killed the fuck out of a bunch of Nazis, because it was super obvious that while no laws were on the books, that shit ain’t allowed.

      • @pinkdrunkenelephants
        link
        English
        110 months ago

        I don’t really think this is a situation that can be handled by normal laws. We might have to do what was done at Nuremberg when dealing with oil company execs. The crimes of those organizations span at least a hundred years and it’s too important to let them off on a technicality.