But it is absolutely not cynical to assume that for each criminal person (forget politicians) who gets caught and charged, there are almost certainly more who didn't get caught or didn't get charged.
It is not cynical to assume that law enforcement has a less than perfect ability to prosecute criminals; it's just realistic.
Rather, it is naive to assume otherwise: What process, in any domain, has a 100% success rate?
Note: I'm not taking the "all politicians are corrupt" position, just "it is almost certainly true that corrupt politicians are often able to get away with their corruption". So, maybe we're not actually talking about the same thing.
Corrupt politicians, it seems, are like cockroaches: if you've confirmed the existence of one, then there are certainly several whose presence is as yet unconfirmed.
This sends the signal that in Europe, corruption can come back to hurt you.
Nah, it just creates an in-group ("we know that corrupt politicians can get away with it"), and an out-group ("let's avoid corruption, since we'll get caught").
> the trick is not not looking
Unintentional double negative there, I think.
Anyway, regardless of their intended meaning, my point about in- and out-groups stands.
You interpreted it pretty differently from what I mean: Investigation-less corruption is often unofficially known/suspected, but can't be acted on. Investiation enables acting on it.
Of course the laws need to he tight on corruption in the first place. The kinds of corruption seen in the US are typically perfectly legal (we also have loopholes that should be closed, which makes me wonder why people often choose the illegal forms of corruption).
Or is that innocent until proven guilty not a thing any more?
Let me guess Scandinavian?
You argument is similar to the US argument, not all police is bad.
Technically it’s true, but when the percentage of politicians that are corrupted is high enough, for all practical purposes you can consider them all corrupted when looking for a solution to the problem.
We’ve seen that in the US where judges appointed by a politician will/can rule against them in court cases.
Yes, it helps to know the system and the people in it. You’ll find that businesses, charities, and pretty much any other organization pick CEOs in a similar fashion.
Yes. The cases where they have more to gain for their career and status by not aligning with the politician, or where the politician is seen as dead weight they cannot benefit from anymore...
Plenty of judges rule unpopular rulings without any consequences based on the law (as it should be).
let me guess this will end up with lengthy process and in the end she won't serve any time
plus just because other politicians let her get arrested doesn't mean they are not corrupted too, it can just mean they wanted to get rid off competition (see Xi Jin Ping corruption fight theatre play)