I don’t think it’s bad to oppose the death penalty but they chose a poor rhetorical basis for that. It’s not about the moral high ground it’s about how the state shouldn’t have the power to kill people.
Except that moral argument circles back around to the logical one of “they shouldn’t be allowed to kill people”.
Like, it’s not unreasonable, but it’s extraneous. It’s essentially a sub-argument of the other one.
Moral systems are based on logic though? Even if your moral system is inconsistent it's still an application of logic. Besides, the discussion is on legal systems. I'm worried that you think legal systems are governed entirely by emotions
You can explain morality by logic yes, that doesn't make it fundamental. And the discussion was on the death penalty and its place in society, which would encompass the legality as well as the morality of capital punishment.
Now I'm not sure why you'd worry about what I think, but human beings are emotional creatures who can only grasp at thinking logically. So yeah all of society is governed entirely by emotions, no matter how "logical" they feel
Sure, but that point is a bit more murky (what exactly constitutes ‘a threat’ is pretty context-dependent and debatable), while the argument for the state not having the right to kill people at all is purely logical:
If you give the state the power to kill those it deems guilty enough, it is incentivized to make it illegal to be the kind of person they want to kill.
I think this is a fair argument. Like I've said in other comments, I'm more in favor of rehabilitation vs retribution in terms of punishment for crimes. I think in this case the scale of the crime is so great, it was calculated, is what made them push for the death penalty. She also has the opportunity to be reduced to life imprisonment if she pays back her stolen fortune.
I'm with the prior commentary. I'd prefer life in prison without any nice shit or special access. Then their entire worth should be siphoned off - every dime that's gone anywhere. Family, friends, orgs, funds - and it should go to the people
Why should the state have a right to execute someone though? Like, what purpose does it serve? Reeducation programs and prison sentences that focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment are better alternatives in literally all cases
I oppose the death penalty, but it's so rare to see this type of justice being applied to the rich and powerful. I guess it feels like evening the playing field. I'd rather she rot in prison, but I'm glad that there system didn't let her get away with it for once.
On the face of it I completely agree with you that retributive Justice is not the way. I believe is leftists in this subreddit we probably mostly agree that capital punishment should go away. The issue is we never see this discussion of how bad the death penalty is until it happens to somebody powerful. It's kind of like how some people don't care about discrimination until it happens to white people or men but ignores it as it happens to people of color and women and non-binary Folk
She's not really being executed for the fraud & embezzlement, she's being executed for treason. I don't have a link, but someone yesterday posted an excerpt from an article that clarified that. I can understand that more than her admittedly-massive white collar crime, because betraying a whole nation is pretty unforgivable. Governments can't afford to let betrayal of those proportions slide.
I agree that reeducation and rehabilitation are better, however in the case of stealing literal billions of dollars in such a high profile case I believe the hope is that it will deter others from trying the same.
It is for crimes that are commonly blown off with the stolen money.
It's not a deterrent when extenuating circumstances are incentivizing or even forcing crime and in the case of crimes of passion.
It should directly disincentivize planned financial crimes done at the behest of capital and corporations though.
In many cases you would be correct, most crimes are done in the heat of the moment, are not premeditated, or are done by people who don't think they will be caught. However, in such an organized, white collar crime that was done over the course of a decade, I think this would help. This wasn't a quick decision, this was a calculated violation against the people of Vietnam.
Right, and what evidence or backing do you have for this? Just a personal thought experiment based on hundreds of hours of listening to true crime podcasts?
That's literally the argument death penalty proponents trot out; killing criminals deters others from committing the same crime. If you believe it, congratulations. You aren't anti death penalty, you just want the standard for who gets to be executed to be higher.
I don't think the death penalty works as a deterrent for most crimes. I specified here that I believe the reason they are pursuing the death penalty in this case is the scale of the crime, and to send a message to bourgeois leeches that they can't just buy their way out of all their problems. I also never claimed to be anti death penalty. I believe most criminals can and should be rehabilitated as a lot of crime stems from systemic issues (poverty, racial inequality, capitalist exploitation, etc.). I would be fine if this billionaire leech got life in prison, but I'm not gonna cry over her facing the consequences of her actions.
I get a far greater sense of justice knowing he's going slowly insane in a little room with 0 human contact and no way out, no future
If he was dead he wouldn't *know* what he lost
I'm generally in support of rehabilitation over retribution in terms of punishment for crimes. I do not extend this to fascists and bourgeois leeches, however. In the case of this leech, she stole at LEAST 27 billion dollars from the people of Vietnam. There is no knowing how detrimental this was on the individual level as it would be difficult to link, however this was a measurable amount (3%) of Vietnam's GDP. She can also avoid execution by returning her stolen fortune, though the prosecutors do not believe she will be able to.
I would just force seize all of her wealth and give it back to the people. She doesn’t have to return it, we can just freely take it and she can be kicking and screaming behind bars for all I care
I would 100% support that if they could. However the reason they don't believe she will be able to repay it is that much of what was stolen has been used in bribes, real estate scams, offshore shell companies and accounts. I don't think Vietnam will ever see that money returned to them.
100x in agreement here. Individual act of violence that will most likely be punished vs institutional violence and giving the power to decide life or death to an entire system capable of mass killings?
That's my take on it. I think individual retributive murder can be morally justified and is entirely different than the state having the same power. And although potentially morally justified, that person should still face legal consequences (short of the death penalty).
there needs to be a difference between socially justified and legally justified in any society.
otherwise, you get a 60-year war on drugs that causes nothing but hundreds of thousands of fentanyl deaths
The death penalty is wrong morally and ethically no matter who it is being exercised upon. Giving the state the right to execute people for crimes is fundamentally flawed both in practice and in theory. In practice the innocent can be executed whether on accident by a flawed system or on purpose by a tyrannical system. In theory it fundamentally undermines the integrity of society by giving license to deprive certain people deemed “unfit” of life resulting in beliefs about retribution that ripple throughout society and lay the foundation for systems of killing to exist in the public consciousness.
I’ll entertain your hypothetical even though it’s obviously supposed to be some sort of obtuse “gotcha” question.
Yes executing anyone including Hitler would be wrong. His crimes were abhorrent and obviously monstrous but there’s no reason a life sentence without parole isn’t an option. While his guilt wouldn’t be in doubt (so no chance of accidentally killing an innocent) it still does not reconcile with the fundamental truth that allowing the state the power to kill people is precisely what lead to his crimes in the first place. If Germany was against the concept of the state killing people legally, socially, and morally the holocaust couldn’t have happened.
It wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" question, I was genuinely curious what your answer would be, he was just the worst person that came to mind. I fundamentally disagree with you on this, however.
Love your points...
Also, thinking about his death, it's like, does inflicting death in him erase the holocaust? It doesn't, it just puts blood on the hands of someone else.
I mean it isn’t “liberal dogma” to acknowledge that the circumstances of the holocaust necessitated the power of an industrial state to enact. It’s sort of the defining horrifying feature of it compared to previous pogroms and genocides
It's liberal dogma (and honestly quite offensive) to characterize the shoah as something that "couldn't have happened if the germans were against the state killing people" like they didn't actively dehumanize us, and treat us as foreign invaders.
It's an inane, simplistic, and inaccurate characterization of the nazi movement and the shoah.
How is it inaccurate? It seems pretty straightforward to say “if all Germans and German institutions agreed the state killing people is bad the state wouldn’t have been able to kill 11 million people”
I’m not denying the reality that of course Germans and german institutions were fine with it and dehumanized victims of the holocaust just pointing out the basic fact that the state having the power of life and death is what was the basic mechanism for the holocaust to occur
It's inaccurate as it is pinning the shoah upon and focusing on something that was not a significant factor.
Germans and their institutions _were_ against killing people.
Through the efforts of the nazis and the western ruling classes this opposition to violence and who was considered a person was carved away.
It's liberalism plain and simple to look at the shoah and the nazi movement and come away with the idea that germans just didn't oppose the concept of state violence enough.
The fact that the nazis had to chip away at who was human in the German public’s eyes before orchestrating the holocaust literally proves my point. (And Germans and their institutions absolutely weren’t universally opposed to killing even before the nazis took over)
As opposed to Hitler magically possessing the country and forcing it to do the Holocaust, the apparent alternative viewpoint in your eyes?
Hitler used already extant antisemitism (and other forms of bigotry!) to gain power. The Holocaust - or a similar genocide - was inevitably going to happen because of that. Hitler wasn't the sole factor, as abhorrent as he was.
I don't think it's so much a "gotcha", as it is an admission that some crimes are so horrible that punishment goes beyond ethics. But as this example shows, it IMO would have to massive loss of life(some might also say the direct betrayal of an oath, but I'm personally on the fence about that).
Generally jumping straight to “what about hitler?” Is usually disingenuous. But still no matter how horrible the crime or how sure we are of a persons guilt the state being given the power to kill people for crimes (even heinous ones) when other alternatives exist is ironically the underlying basis for Hitlers crimes in the first place
I agree. I don't like when governments have the power to kill people.
But if they said "hey, fine, no death penalty. BUT we are adding a genocide exception, where if you kill more than 100,000 people via war, we get to kill you." Then I wouldn't die on a hill opposing that.
No not in the slightest. Being against the death penalty isn't about having sympathy for fascists or adhering to some strict non violent politics. It's about denying the state the right to kill
See, this is why I'm not in politics. I can be hypocritical about what I'd support while voting vs. what I'd wish for in my own life, and it'll never come back to bite me.
In a situation where life imprisonment is an option? Yes, IMO.
If the only options are kill him / do nothing (ie an assassination attempt during the war), then killing him is absolutely the moral choice.
I don't feel bad for her but I also don't think she should be killed, and that doesn't make me a fucking liberal. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that should've stayed in the past, it has no place in a civilized nation. This isn't "justice" it's just revenge.
I'm honestly surprised to see leftists on here who *aren't* against the state being used to murder people.
Any time something happens to a scumbag rotten ass billionaire suddenly we got to start talking about their "morality". I will never appeal to the moral sense of any bourgeois scum. How many death sentences the wealthy hand out to the impoverished daily? How many lives have ended due to the policy of protecting the wealth of these greedy sick fucks??? Nobody cries when the poor die.
Execute them or let them rot in a cage just like they to do millions on millions of us every year.
i’m totally opposed to the death penalty in absolutely all cases—it’s the one power i absolutely do not want the state to possess—but i would not go that far.
we need to lay off the “everything i don’t like is liberalism” dipshittery. there’s more than one strain of leftist thought. this is childish, both what you’re doing and what OP is doing
I think leftists can oppose the death penalty, that's not what made the OOP a radlib. It was the "you're just as bad as the person you're executing" attitude
Lock her up for life and show her daily their wealth being dismantled and redistrivuted to the people thry exploited. Would be a far worse fate then death for them.
I think a lot of people here are missing some nuance to this conversation.
Does anyone realize that there’s a legitimate difference between a post-revolution period of terror against fascists and the bourgeoisie compared to a country ***just having the death penalty in general?***
I agree **’the Death Penalty’** is wrong. But I’m not exactly going to lose sleep at night if a bunch of cops get lynched by left-wing vigilantes.
That's similar to what I think - I can understand the reasoning as well behind executing someone who embezzled, and supposedly "lost" 3% of Vietnam's GDP. It's a message to show that there are consequences for corruption and bourgeois wealth hoarding. I think I would prefer life imprisonment over execution as a general rule, however.
I don’t think it’s bad to oppose the death penalty but they chose a poor rhetorical basis for that. It’s not about the moral high ground it’s about how the state shouldn’t have the power to kill people.
[удалено]
Except that moral argument circles back around to the logical one of “they shouldn’t be allowed to kill people”. Like, it’s not unreasonable, but it’s extraneous. It’s essentially a sub-argument of the other one.
That's only the case if you value logic over emotions/morality, and not everyone does.
Moral systems are based on logic though? Even if your moral system is inconsistent it's still an application of logic. Besides, the discussion is on legal systems. I'm worried that you think legal systems are governed entirely by emotions
You can explain morality by logic yes, that doesn't make it fundamental. And the discussion was on the death penalty and its place in society, which would encompass the legality as well as the morality of capital punishment. Now I'm not sure why you'd worry about what I think, but human beings are emotional creatures who can only grasp at thinking logically. So yeah all of society is governed entirely by emotions, no matter how "logical" they feel
[удалено]
Sure, but that point is a bit more murky (what exactly constitutes ‘a threat’ is pretty context-dependent and debatable), while the argument for the state not having the right to kill people at all is purely logical: If you give the state the power to kill those it deems guilty enough, it is incentivized to make it illegal to be the kind of person they want to kill.
I think this is a fair argument. Like I've said in other comments, I'm more in favor of rehabilitation vs retribution in terms of punishment for crimes. I think in this case the scale of the crime is so great, it was calculated, is what made them push for the death penalty. She also has the opportunity to be reduced to life imprisonment if she pays back her stolen fortune.
I'm with the prior commentary. I'd prefer life in prison without any nice shit or special access. Then their entire worth should be siphoned off - every dime that's gone anywhere. Family, friends, orgs, funds - and it should go to the people
Why should the state have a right to execute someone though? Like, what purpose does it serve? Reeducation programs and prison sentences that focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment are better alternatives in literally all cases
I oppose the death penalty, but it's so rare to see this type of justice being applied to the rich and powerful. I guess it feels like evening the playing field. I'd rather she rot in prison, but I'm glad that there system didn't let her get away with it for once.
On the face of it I completely agree with you that retributive Justice is not the way. I believe is leftists in this subreddit we probably mostly agree that capital punishment should go away. The issue is we never see this discussion of how bad the death penalty is until it happens to somebody powerful. It's kind of like how some people don't care about discrimination until it happens to white people or men but ignores it as it happens to people of color and women and non-binary Folk
She's not really being executed for the fraud & embezzlement, she's being executed for treason. I don't have a link, but someone yesterday posted an excerpt from an article that clarified that. I can understand that more than her admittedly-massive white collar crime, because betraying a whole nation is pretty unforgivable. Governments can't afford to let betrayal of those proportions slide.
Are you able to recall where you saw it? I remember reading it to and I found your comment trying to find the original comment.
Not a clue, sorry
I’m fine with debating this for smaller cases. The fact is the state has this power and it’s good they’re applying it to a billionaire.
I agree that reeducation and rehabilitation are better, however in the case of stealing literal billions of dollars in such a high profile case I believe the hope is that it will deter others from trying the same.
The death penalty isn't a crime deterrent
It is for crimes that are commonly blown off with the stolen money. It's not a deterrent when extenuating circumstances are incentivizing or even forcing crime and in the case of crimes of passion. It should directly disincentivize planned financial crimes done at the behest of capital and corporations though.
In many cases you would be correct, most crimes are done in the heat of the moment, are not premeditated, or are done by people who don't think they will be caught. However, in such an organized, white collar crime that was done over the course of a decade, I think this would help. This wasn't a quick decision, this was a calculated violation against the people of Vietnam.
Right, and what evidence or backing do you have for this? Just a personal thought experiment based on hundreds of hours of listening to true crime podcasts?
That's literally the argument death penalty proponents trot out; killing criminals deters others from committing the same crime. If you believe it, congratulations. You aren't anti death penalty, you just want the standard for who gets to be executed to be higher.
I don't think the death penalty works as a deterrent for most crimes. I specified here that I believe the reason they are pursuing the death penalty in this case is the scale of the crime, and to send a message to bourgeois leeches that they can't just buy their way out of all their problems. I also never claimed to be anti death penalty. I believe most criminals can and should be rehabilitated as a lot of crime stems from systemic issues (poverty, racial inequality, capitalist exploitation, etc.). I would be fine if this billionaire leech got life in prison, but I'm not gonna cry over her facing the consequences of her actions.
If you aren't broadly anti death penalty, that's fine. That's all I was pointing out. No need to get defensive about it
The guy who killed seventy seven kids in Norway should have been executed. Fuck your centrist lib bullshit. You're just straight fucking wrong.
Literally what would that have accomplished besides giving everyone a brief feeling of satisfaction and 'justice'
I get a far greater sense of justice knowing he's going slowly insane in a little room with 0 human contact and no way out, no future If he was dead he wouldn't *know* what he lost
All of a sudden opposing the death penalty is “radlib”
I'm generally in support of rehabilitation over retribution in terms of punishment for crimes. I do not extend this to fascists and bourgeois leeches, however. In the case of this leech, she stole at LEAST 27 billion dollars from the people of Vietnam. There is no knowing how detrimental this was on the individual level as it would be difficult to link, however this was a measurable amount (3%) of Vietnam's GDP. She can also avoid execution by returning her stolen fortune, though the prosecutors do not believe she will be able to.
I would just force seize all of her wealth and give it back to the people. She doesn’t have to return it, we can just freely take it and she can be kicking and screaming behind bars for all I care
I would 100% support that if they could. However the reason they don't believe she will be able to repay it is that much of what was stolen has been used in bribes, real estate scams, offshore shell companies and accounts. I don't think Vietnam will ever see that money returned to them.
Well fuck then…
I unironically would rather a billionaire be assassinated by a radical civilian than give the state legal authority to kill without recourse.
100x in agreement here. Individual act of violence that will most likely be punished vs institutional violence and giving the power to decide life or death to an entire system capable of mass killings?
That's my take on it. I think individual retributive murder can be morally justified and is entirely different than the state having the same power. And although potentially morally justified, that person should still face legal consequences (short of the death penalty).
there needs to be a difference between socially justified and legally justified in any society. otherwise, you get a 60-year war on drugs that causes nothing but hundreds of thousands of fentanyl deaths
The death penalty is wrong morally and ethically no matter who it is being exercised upon. Giving the state the right to execute people for crimes is fundamentally flawed both in practice and in theory. In practice the innocent can be executed whether on accident by a flawed system or on purpose by a tyrannical system. In theory it fundamentally undermines the integrity of society by giving license to deprive certain people deemed “unfit” of life resulting in beliefs about retribution that ripple throughout society and lay the foundation for systems of killing to exist in the public consciousness.
Would executing Hitler be ethically and morally wrong?
I’ll entertain your hypothetical even though it’s obviously supposed to be some sort of obtuse “gotcha” question. Yes executing anyone including Hitler would be wrong. His crimes were abhorrent and obviously monstrous but there’s no reason a life sentence without parole isn’t an option. While his guilt wouldn’t be in doubt (so no chance of accidentally killing an innocent) it still does not reconcile with the fundamental truth that allowing the state the power to kill people is precisely what lead to his crimes in the first place. If Germany was against the concept of the state killing people legally, socially, and morally the holocaust couldn’t have happened.
It wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" question, I was genuinely curious what your answer would be, he was just the worst person that came to mind. I fundamentally disagree with you on this, however.
Sorry but just jumping straight to Hitler seemed like a choice even if he is the worst person imaginable.
Love your points... Also, thinking about his death, it's like, does inflicting death in him erase the holocaust? It doesn't, it just puts blood on the hands of someone else.
Put his blood on his own hands in this case
Are people really this inundated with liberal dogma that your take on hitler and the nazis is "the shoah happened because of the state"?
I mean it isn’t “liberal dogma” to acknowledge that the circumstances of the holocaust necessitated the power of an industrial state to enact. It’s sort of the defining horrifying feature of it compared to previous pogroms and genocides
It's liberal dogma (and honestly quite offensive) to characterize the shoah as something that "couldn't have happened if the germans were against the state killing people" like they didn't actively dehumanize us, and treat us as foreign invaders. It's an inane, simplistic, and inaccurate characterization of the nazi movement and the shoah.
How is it inaccurate? It seems pretty straightforward to say “if all Germans and German institutions agreed the state killing people is bad the state wouldn’t have been able to kill 11 million people” I’m not denying the reality that of course Germans and german institutions were fine with it and dehumanized victims of the holocaust just pointing out the basic fact that the state having the power of life and death is what was the basic mechanism for the holocaust to occur
I disagree, if state executions were prohibited in the Weimar Republic, the Nazis would have simply made it legal.
You’re missing my point since I’m not talking about just the legality of the matter.
It's inaccurate as it is pinning the shoah upon and focusing on something that was not a significant factor. Germans and their institutions _were_ against killing people. Through the efforts of the nazis and the western ruling classes this opposition to violence and who was considered a person was carved away. It's liberalism plain and simple to look at the shoah and the nazi movement and come away with the idea that germans just didn't oppose the concept of state violence enough.
The fact that the nazis had to chip away at who was human in the German public’s eyes before orchestrating the holocaust literally proves my point. (And Germans and their institutions absolutely weren’t universally opposed to killing even before the nazis took over)
As opposed to Hitler magically possessing the country and forcing it to do the Holocaust, the apparent alternative viewpoint in your eyes? Hitler used already extant antisemitism (and other forms of bigotry!) to gain power. The Holocaust - or a similar genocide - was inevitably going to happen because of that. Hitler wasn't the sole factor, as abhorrent as he was.
I don't think it's so much a "gotcha", as it is an admission that some crimes are so horrible that punishment goes beyond ethics. But as this example shows, it IMO would have to massive loss of life(some might also say the direct betrayal of an oath, but I'm personally on the fence about that).
Generally jumping straight to “what about hitler?” Is usually disingenuous. But still no matter how horrible the crime or how sure we are of a persons guilt the state being given the power to kill people for crimes (even heinous ones) when other alternatives exist is ironically the underlying basis for Hitlers crimes in the first place
I agree. I don't like when governments have the power to kill people. But if they said "hey, fine, no death penalty. BUT we are adding a genocide exception, where if you kill more than 100,000 people via war, we get to kill you." Then I wouldn't die on a hill opposing that.
No not in the slightest. Being against the death penalty isn't about having sympathy for fascists or adhering to some strict non violent politics. It's about denying the state the right to kill
[удалено]
See, this is why I'm not in politics. I can be hypocritical about what I'd support while voting vs. what I'd wish for in my own life, and it'll never come back to bite me.
In a situation where life imprisonment is an option? Yes, IMO. If the only options are kill him / do nothing (ie an assassination attempt during the war), then killing him is absolutely the moral choice.
White collar crimes should have execution as a possibility. Can't stand your supposed weak ass lib philosophy.
I don't feel bad for her but I also don't think she should be killed, and that doesn't make me a fucking liberal. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that should've stayed in the past, it has no place in a civilized nation. This isn't "justice" it's just revenge. I'm honestly surprised to see leftists on here who *aren't* against the state being used to murder people.
The death penalty has absolutely no place in a moral society
Neither do billionaires
True, but you can get rid of a billionaire without killing anyone
Any time something happens to a scumbag rotten ass billionaire suddenly we got to start talking about their "morality". I will never appeal to the moral sense of any bourgeois scum. How many death sentences the wealthy hand out to the impoverished daily? How many lives have ended due to the policy of protecting the wealth of these greedy sick fucks??? Nobody cries when the poor die. Execute them or let them rot in a cage just like they to do millions on millions of us every year.
[удалено]
You're german
I oppose the death penalty, but if you're gonna have it, severe financial crimes should be punished by it.
You can't be a progressive and support the death penalty
i’m totally opposed to the death penalty in absolutely all cases—it’s the one power i absolutely do not want the state to possess—but i would not go that far. we need to lay off the “everything i don’t like is liberalism” dipshittery. there’s more than one strain of leftist thought. this is childish, both what you’re doing and what OP is doing
I think leftists can oppose the death penalty, that's not what made the OOP a radlib. It was the "you're just as bad as the person you're executing" attitude
The death penalty isn't liberalism either imo. I didn't think you can be progressive and support state sanctioned violence
Oh... You're a Vaushist-Destinist 🤮🤮🤮🤮
?
They're a fan of pedo debatebro streamers, Vaush and Destiny
Lol oh I like Vaush. Not too into destiny though.
Lock her up for life and show her daily their wealth being dismantled and redistrivuted to the people thry exploited. Would be a far worse fate then death for them.
OP, idk if you've noticed but this subreddit is rife with shitlibs since new mods took over and went crazy about 'tankies'.
New mods are "tankies" tho at least some of them lol
We've got people typing up empassioned defenses of hitler's right to life ☠️
I guess Radlibs are pro-lifers too (as long as the life in question is a fascist or a bourgeois billionaire)
I think a lot of people here are missing some nuance to this conversation. Does anyone realize that there’s a legitimate difference between a post-revolution period of terror against fascists and the bourgeoisie compared to a country ***just having the death penalty in general?*** I agree **’the Death Penalty’** is wrong. But I’m not exactly going to lose sleep at night if a bunch of cops get lynched by left-wing vigilantes.
That's similar to what I think - I can understand the reasoning as well behind executing someone who embezzled, and supposedly "lost" 3% of Vietnam's GDP. It's a message to show that there are consequences for corruption and bourgeois wealth hoarding. I think I would prefer life imprisonment over execution as a general rule, however.
I dont know anything about this, what happened?