that travel to countries like North Korea, Iran etc., should be told before they go, don't expect us to rescue you if you are arrested. I'm tired of people traveling to these dangerous countries thinking it's okay, I'll be rescued if I get in trouble. No more.

Whether or not you agree with the sentence for his crime it still occurred. No one would be defending him or feeling sorry for him if it were a more serious crime. His sentence wasn't death but it is his own fault he was in a place where his injury occurred and wasn't able to possibly get better treatment. We don't even know if that was possible.

Don't do the crime if you cannot do the time.

"No one would be defending him or feeling sorry for him if it were a more serious crime."

So perhaps it is relevant that it was NOT a more serious crime? What are you trying to say? That the seriousness of the crime should not be relevant to our analysis?

Where exactly does it say that he was tortured? Yes, the sentence is unduly harsh by US standards, but he was not in the US. He was in N. Korea. A place with a regime known to be hostile to Westerners - US citizens in particular. A place with re-education camps for their own citizens. A place where rich white boys cannot use the affluneza defense, the boys will be boys defense or get themselves bought out of trouble by rich white parents. All facts he should have kept in mind while in a foreign country with not the best relations with the US.

If his incarceration in the US led to his death I would expect an inquiry and if there was fault on the part of the state I would expect reparations. That is irrelevant because he was not in the US.

You still miss the professor's accurate point. US citizens, wealthy, privileged or famous young white men in particular, have a tendency to act as if they are truly exceptional. As if they are not obligated to follow the same rules as everyone else. There is a reason we have cases like Stubenville, Ohio, Sandusky at Penn State, Ryan Lochtee in Brazil. The professor is rightly pointing this out.

Actions have consequences. When kids like Warmbier escape consequences for most of their lives because their parents or others make excuses for them or buy their way out of trouble they damage the kids. It is a rude awakening when they no longer have the net under them and have to fly on their own.

Whether his treatment by the North Korean authorities (causing fatal loss of brain tissue that led to his death) is typical or normal in North Korea really has no bearing on whether that treatment is "deserved," wouldn't you say? Would you extend that logic to any other practice by any other country, against any person, so long as such treatment is "known" and common?

Or might you draw a line somewhere, and say that certain treatment for certain crimes is actually not deserved, even if that treatment is known and common?

And if you would draw such a line somewhere, how in the world does the situation here not fall on the "most definitely not deserved" side of the line? How would a moral calculus that called this "deserved" not be decidedly warped and unhinged?

I'm also curious on why your logic isn't equally applicable to the numerous police shootings of African Americans who committed petty crimes. After all, such incidents are well known to anyone who follows the news. I abhor such violence, even if the victim stole a poster or candy bar, and even if such a theft was a necessary condition for the shooting to take place. But the reason I abhor such violence (and certainly do not claim such violence is "deserved&quot is because I actually look at whether the outcome is proportional to the crime (not just based on how well known the type of outcome is).

If Wambier had been tossed off of a building for being gay, I am sure you would be protesting his mistreatment at the hands of the authorities...

Then, if someone said to you "Don't do the crime if you cannot do the time.", you would know that they were...well...something I cannot type here on DU without getting myself banned.

Equating being gay with vandalism and theft is absurd. You cannot logically compare the two as you have done.

Being gay is a natural state that should not be criminalized. Making the willful decision to vandalize and steal from the state is a crime in every nation. As it should be.

You just don't agree with the how the severity of the crime is treated by one nation over the way it is treated in the US and you've apparently bought into the US propaganda that everything N. Korea does is bad. Otto was not in the US. Otto was in a country known for its repressive regime. Otto committed a crime of vandalism and theft. If he committed the same crime in the US he would have been punished - or maybe not. Maybe his parents would buy him out of trouble or pull some strings in the good 'ole boys club. Boys being boys you know.

The professor was equating his poor decision making and the causes behind it with that of so many privileged kids with whom she deals. I suspect if this had been the child of Trump or the Koch brothers or the WalMart heirs your feelings about his actions would be quite different. I suspect you would agree with the professor that the child of privilege was feeling untouchable by the rules and laws of a nation - therefore they would have had no cares about their criminal misbehavior.

Otto made a poor decision and stole state property. Otto got a harsh sentence. This put Otto in the position of being in the time and place where he suffered a brain injury. The family refused an autopsy so we don't know if it was torture that caused it or if it was some accident or a nature.

In any case, Otto's decisions put him in the place where he ended up. He is responsible for that. Perhaps, as the professor asserts, his parents enabled him with privilege and were a proximate cause.

What if he crime was not "being gay", but rather "promoting homosexuality", perhaps for wearing a shirt? Or maybe just for talking about homosexuality, which is a crime in Russia (under a tortured enforcement of their laws against promoting homosexuality to kids, if I recall correctly.).

If his crime had been mere speech, we would be horrified at the punishment. Once again, if anyone came along and said "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" (as you did), they would be considered an a**h***.


Furthermore, this little quote just does not compute: "you've apparently bought into the US propaganda that everything N. Korea does is bad. Otto was not in the US. Otto was in a country known for its repressive regime."

You acknowledge that NK has a "repressive regime", but you criticize me for also acknowledging it? I want to be very clear here: It is disgusting that any nation sets the penalty for theft of a poster at 15 years hard labor. Your attempt to defend this punishment is both contradictory and absurd.


Finally, you disgust me with the following claim about me: "I suspect if this had been the child of Trump or the Koch brothers or the WalMart heirs your feelings about his actions would be quite different". Why exactly do you suspect this? Merely because I am a liberal? Have you "apparently bought into the" propaganda that all liberals HATE the children of Trump or the Koch brothers merely because of who their parents are?

So, it just happened, all by itself?

Full disclosure: I jaywalked last Tuesday. I saw the red crossing walk light. I saw the last express bus of the day, about to get a green. It was jaywalk, or miss the last express bus.

Death penalty for that?

Vincent Winslow broke the law in America and received a life sentence for selling $20 of pot. I suppose it is his own fault as well...

Yesterday's post has scrolled off the first page of GD. People post duplicates all the time, and attract readers who didn't see the previous post. It's OK to do that here.

the "new post" form had "Good citizens check for duplicates!" at the bottom. Not sure when that went away; I wouldn't mind seeing it brought back, personally.

so the guy stole something. yet this alleged professor includes "young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women". indict the parents who were not there when the alleged professor has no clue how the kid was raised.

Just because you think the crime does not merit the punishment doesn't make him any less of a lawbreaker than a rapist or murderer. He either broke the law or he did not.

He was not in the US so N. Korea (or any other foreign nation for that matter) was perfectly within their rights to lump him in with any other type of criminal they wished.

Normally, no, I am not this black and white about things. But this is a case where the professor is being harshly criticized rather than her point being logically discussed. It should be discussed because she has a rather sound basis for it.

He stole a poster. No, he did not deserve getting locked up for several years for that. One petty act of crime like that is routinely dealt with cautions, suspended or community sentences, in civilised countries. A foreigner would get deported. But the official sentence was draconian. As for what actually happened to him - death, after either medical neglect or torture - for her to say he "got exactly what he deserved" is a gross example of being a complete piece of shit.

"He either broke the law or he did not..."

And lumping him in with mere speeders and jaywalkers (other lawbreakers, you see) would not fit particular narratives-- hence rape and murder, as reducto ad absudum is a trendy and popular fallacy, most efficient at reinforcing biases.

for doing something stupid... I'm curious what did they do to him to mess up his brains like that...
m

just outright supports the North Korean regime. One of your countrymen is murdered by a brutal, totalitarian regime and you take their side. You people make me sick.

he stole a fucking poster and was apparently​ tortured to death for it. Remember the kid that got the caining for vandalizing cars? That punishment was over the top but I could understand people shrugging and saying "well that's what he gets" but this is way beyond that.

but saying he deserved to die for it is even dumber.

especially dumb when you are a professor who will likely lose your job for saying something so offensive to most people.

that he did what NK claims he did?

I can totally see me doing this 30 years younger

tempted to grab such a souvenir, and most would surrender to the temptation.

I'm not saying it's OK to steal things as souvenirs, but I do think many, perhaps even most, young American males would do it and consider it no big deal if it was something like a poster.

Of course, the fact that he did that in NK indicates a woeful lack of knowledge about something that has been in the news a lot--i.e., NK's brutality and their tendency to imprison visiting US citizens whenever they can.

No one should go to authoritarian and corrupt countries if they have not bothered to inform themselves about the risks. Unfortunately, too many Americans think the world is like a big Disney Theme park and that nothing can happen to them because they are US citizens.

Hope it was worth it.

I don't care what she meant, what she said was indefensible

stealing a poster.

Would such a person "get what they deserved?"

This victim blaming is utter garbage.

Not having followed this story too closely - it sure makes it seem from the quote that he raped someone...

Maybe in the US, where young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women. Not so much in North Korea.

This young man was executed in the most cruel and unusual terms.

Seriously.

Warmbier died on Monday and her comments were posted the following day.

And how exactly do you interpret "got exactly what he deserved", given the fact that he had just died?

it was commented at the time he was taken. I apologize. She is a loose cannon and has really harmed her reputation.

All we have is what NK said he did. No one knows if he did it or not, and he most certainly did not deserve to die for it if he did do it.

There was a really interesting point made by Bill Richardson or the other guy helping the family that shortly after Wambier was grabbed, NK launched a missile test. Whoever it was speculated NK arrested him as sort of a human shield/hostage against any possible US retaliation.

The doctors who examined him concluded he suffered some sort of cardiac event that lead to his coma and subsequent loss of brain tissue that lead to his ultimated death. IOW, he was a vegetable for many months before being returned to the US to die.