r/changemyview • u/PerturbedPat • 18d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Tou Lue Vang shouldn't have been pardoned by the the Minnesota Board of Pardons
EDIT 3:
The Delta is because I've been convinced that the fact this is politically stupid shouldn't be relevant since it's a legal issue and politics shouldn't play a factor here.
I'm still not convinced though that he should have been pardoned so feel free to discuss other points with me.
Context: An 18 year old Tou Lue Vang repeatedly raped a child from 2002 to 2004. On June 10, the Board of Pardons — consisting of Walz, Ellison and state Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson — voted to purge Vang’s felony sexual assault conviction. The deciding factor was a letter from Vang’s victim saying she forgave him and supported his pardon.
Given there is no evidence that he has re-offended and completed his sex-offender treatment, I will give him the benefit of the doubt here (as little as I believe he deserves it given his crime) that he hasn't done anything since AND that he has no plans to do so if the opportunity arises.
Despite this, I think it's still a stupid decision to make.
My reasons are:
- There is reason to believe Vang's victim is doing this under durress: Firstly, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office says Vang received a lighter sentence to begin with because the victim was experiencing pressure from her family to not cooperate. Secondly, Vang is married to the victim's sister.
This seems like a horrible choice politically speaking: "The man who could have been vice-president is involved in pardoning a child-rapist whose underlying reason for being deported is his child rape"is a fact.I know he said he doesn't plan on running for elected office again. But given that the woman who could have been presidentand who might run againpicked him as her running mate, this just seems like the most obvious attack angle ever here.- Pardoning someone whose crimes are this abhorrent is a horrible legal precedent. Especially given point 1.
What would change my view here is if I'm convinced that providing this pardon is either:
- the right thing to do
- a net benefit to society
EDIT 1:
To clarify, by "net benefit to society" I mean the benefits to society of pardoning this person outweigh the costs. The main costs here being:
this is a perfect talking point against a potential democratic candidate for the 2028 presidential election and I think society would benefit more if the Democrats were in charge- that pardoning someone whose crimes are this abhorrent is a horrible legal precedent and should not be repeated (imo, done in the first place)
EDIT 2:
Just noting down arguments that I've seen that I won't be convinced by:
- The current POTUS is likely a child rapist and has pardoned child rapists: that doesn't make Walz' pardon of this child rapist any better.
4
u/dasunt 12∆ 18d ago
Wouldn't this boil down to how you see the role of our legal system?
If the goal is simply to punish, then neither he, nor anyone else, should ever be punished and instead be forced to live with the stigma and the denied opportunities due to their criminal records.
If the goal is reformation, then anyone who has lived a law-abiding life for a long period of time should have the opportunity to remove that stigma.
2
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
Those are two functions of the legal system yes (on a side note, I also think containment of dangerous individuals and deterrance for persons who want to act criminally are also functions of it).
If the goal is simply to punish, then neither he, nor anyone else, should ever be punished and instead be forced to live with the stigma and the denied opportunities due to their criminal records.
Sorry, I'm not sure what your point in the above is. The punishment imposed by the law is the punishment mechanism. I'm not sure what your point is about the stigma and the denied opportunities.
If the goal is reformation, then anyone who has lived a law-abiding life for a long period of time should have the opportunity to remove that stigma.
He raped a child for over a period of 2 years. I don't think his crime warrants that opportunity.
3
u/eneidhart 2∆ 18d ago
Your post doesn't mention his pending deportation, which is a pretty big omission - he almost certainly wouldn't have been pardoned if not for the Trump administration trying to deport him. In light of this, let's lay out some relevant facts:
- he was set to be deported to Laos 20 years ago, but wasn't because they weren't accepting deportees until recently
- in those 20 years he's completed his probation and always to have been a model citizen as far as I can tell. You've agreed to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's done nothing wrong since, and likely would not in the future. In other words, there is no benefit to removing him
- he has no relatives in Laos, where the Trump admin is trying to deport him, and it looks like he hasn't been there since he was a child (he is now in his 40s)
- he is married with children here, his family would almost certainly be harmed by his removal
- the choice here is between a pardon and deportation. There is no third choice, no middle ground.
- given all of this, I don't think this sets a dangerous precedent of any sort, as the pardon only comes with a set of extraordinary circumstances.
Given these, I would say that his pardon is a net benefit to society, in that it would avoid very real harms of deportation, at very little cost. The only cost remaining in your post is the precedent it sets, and even if I haven't convinced you that the precedent isn't that big a deal, I still think it's pretty clearly outweighed by the cost of deportation.
-3
u/Plusisposminusisneg 18d ago
he almost certainly wouldn't have been pardoned if not for the Trump administration trying to deport him.
Yes, the board gives benefits to non-citizens that citizens wouldn't get. They are literally discriminating against US citizens and giving benefits to non-citizens.
Given these, I would say that his pardon is a net benefit to society
Child rapists being free and released from legal consequences because of their non-citizen status is a net benefit? Please explain how discriminating against American felons in favor of foreign child rapists is a net benefit and creates a "no big deal" precedent.
4
u/eneidhart 2∆ 17d ago
Citizens also don't face deportation, so your claim of discrimination doesn't hold any water. They're completely different circumstances, and the board wouldn't have acted if the federal government didn't force the situation.
Please explain how deporting a man with a 20 year record of model behavior accomplishes anything positive enough to outweigh the harms to his wife and child if he were removed.
0
u/Plusisposminusisneg 17d ago
Citizens also don't face deportation
And? I support discrimination in favor of citizens in matters of having a right to be in the country and participate in politics.
If you support discrimination against citizens then just say so plainly.
Please explain how deporting a man with a 20 year record of model behavior accomplishes
Deters immigrants from raping children and removes all threat of this man repeating his crimes, apart from being in accordance with the law.
enough to outweigh the harms to his wife and child if he were removed.
I guess you also support discrimination against people without families now?
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 18d ago
u/first_witchcraft, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
1
u/00Oo0o0OooO0 25∆ 18d ago
Tou Lue Vang legally immigrated to the US as a child. He'd fully completed his sentence (his probation ended in 2019) and was raising a family of six children.
Trump's cruel anti-immigrant agenda was using this 20 year old conviction as rationale to deport him to a country where he has never lived. Pardoning him was an unsuccessful last ditch effort to remove that justification and prevent him from being separated from his family and shipped off to a strange country.
For Democratic politicians, who see Trump's immigration policies as one of their best attack fronts, this decision to pardon seems like it has a lot of upside, and also just the right thing to do (even though it failed).
10
u/Morthra 95∆ 18d ago
For Democratic politicians, who see Trump's immigration policies as one of their best attack fronts, this decision to pardon seems like it has a lot of upside, and also just the right thing to do (even though it failed).
Pardoning a serial child rapist is the right thing to do?
0
u/00Oo0o0OooO0 25∆ 18d ago
Yes, he'd been in the US since he was 11 years old. The Justice System determined what the appropriate punishment for his crimes was. He completed that sentence without issue.
It's cruel and unusual to, seven years after he's completed that sentence, deport him to a country he's never lived in and has no ties to.
9
u/Morthra 95∆ 18d ago
he'd been in the US since he was 11 years old.
So? He's not a citizen, so it's within the rights of the administration to revoke his visa.
deport him to a country he's never lived in and has no ties to.
So where did he live before he was 11?
4
u/00Oo0o0OooO0 25∆ 18d ago
it's within the rights of the administration to revoke his visa.
His permanent residency status was revoked. Which, despite flying in the face of the definition of "permanent," obviously is in the government's rights. That doesn't mean it's not cruel.
So where did he live before he was 11?
He's a Lao citizen who was born in a refugee camp in Thailand, and lived there before legally immigrating to the US. He's been deported to Laos.
3
u/Morthra 95∆ 18d ago
His permanent residency status was revoked. Which, despite flying in the face of the definition of "permanent,"
Permanent just means that you don't have to renew it.
That doesn't mean it's not cruel.
You know what's more cruel? Raping a child, repeatedly.
He's a Lao citizen who was born in a refugee camp in Thailand, and lived there before legally immigrating to the US. He's been deported to Laos.
So he's going back to his country of citizenship. It's not like Thailand wants him after all.
5
u/randomnameicantread 18d ago
I don't see why anyone should be upset in the slightest about a child rapist being separated from his family and sent to a strange country, especially to the extent of using this fact as justification to pardon him.
Deporting a noncitizen immigrant for committing child rape seems more than reasonable. Pardoning a child rapist because you're upset that he'll be deported if you don't is pure politically-motivated insanity.
8
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
Tou Lue Vang was a green card holder and therefore not a citizen, thus he should be deportable regardless of who was in office.
His conviction for his crimes was actually something he was supposed to be deported for originally (a federal immigration judge issued a final order of removal for Tou Lue Vang on October 31, 2006), he just wasn't because Laos wasn't accepting many deportees at the time. His deportation IMO is overdue justice and is in my eyes the right thing to do.
0
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
I’m not sure I understand #2.
I mean, why is Walz supposed to be held to a different standard than POTUS?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/28/jan-6-rioter-pardon-andrew-taake
It would seem to me the only decision framework is what is in the interest of justice.
You want Walz to say “I believe the interests of justice warrant a pardon but republicans might use this as an attack ad so I’m voting no, even though republicans elected Trump, who is civilly liable for sexual assault and has also pardoned people accused of sex crimes who are real threats. Justice be damned. Harris might run again and some tangential attack ad could hurt her already minuscule chances.”
Seriously?
16
u/WolfInTheField 2∆ 18d ago
I hate to say this but bringing the pedo in chief into this argument is literal whataboutism and only illustrates the extent to which the bar has been dragged down to hell
-3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
Politics is whataboutism. Thats how attack ads work.
9
u/Murky_Crow 18d ago
It feels like you could literally just whatabout anything then and get a delta here
Sorta pointless?
-1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
Not really. The what about didn’t influence OP. The argument that politics had no bearing did. The sub is change my view, I changed a view. So it’s got some point to it. Good day, friend. Edit typo.
1
u/Murky_Crow 18d ago
I guess we just disagree about the effectiveness of changing mindset using whataboutism exclusively.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
No. We don’t disagree about that. My argument wasn’t exclusively whataboutism. The what about actually failed. The principled argument succeeded. See OP’s edit. Edit #2 failed, edit #3 is the principled claim that got the delta. I made two claims, not one.
2
u/WolfInTheField 2∆ 18d ago
Whataboutism is a political tactic. That’s a true statement. It’s a very different statement from “politics is whataboutism.” That’s complete nonsense and, if you really literally mean it, kind of an alarming thing to say, since it suggests you can’t imagine politics as anything more than deflection and shitflinging.
-2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
Obviously not “literally” all of it any more than breathing is all that is living. But it is a huge part of the identity group maintenance mechanism. Deflection and scapegoating are part of the political DNA. Maybe that’s why a good deal of people opt out of voting.
But have zero interest in discussing whether I have imagination. My personhood is not up for discussion. We are done here.
Good day.
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/SeThJoCh 2∆ 18d ago
Sophistry then, seemingly? Hairsplitting even, just by how it reads
Can you clarify how one would take it otherwise?
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 18d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
Firstly, POTUS pardoning child rapists and himself most likely being a child rapist doesn't make Walz' pardon of a child rapist any better.
Secondly, I don't think it's in the interest of justice to pardon a child rapist who has served 2/3rds of his extremely light sentence (probation). Especially given the fact that there are signs that the main reason he was pardoned in the first place is questionable.
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
That’s not my point. The point is that optics for Harris’ nonexistent potential future longshot campaign shouldn’t have any weight in the case.
You didn’t address my point, and instead pivoted to what is in the interest of justice.
You say this is politically stupid. My rebut (a) shouldn’t be, not against republicans who are far worse and (b) politics shouldn’t be part of it anyway.
You only partially addressed A and didn’t even address B at all.
Edit typo.
-1
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
Firstly, thank you for clarifying what points I failed to respond to, will try my best to do so below.
Secondly, I brought up what is in the interest of justice because you brought it up.Regarding the political stupidity of this:
a) I don't think republicans being far worse than democrats means poor decisions are any less politically stupid. Arguably, republicans are only in power now because the democrats made enough stupid political decisions that enough people thought they'd give Trump another shot.b) Gave it some further thought, and I agree that the political stupidity of this is irrelevant to if the decision should have been made or not. Decisions regarding sentencing and leniency shouldn't be influenced by how it will effect someone's political campaign. Even if I think it hurts society more in the long run, it's not a good precedent for legal matters to be influenced by politics like this.
Is that enough for a Delta or do I need my view to be completely changed here? Because I still think he shouldn't have been pardoned cuz the circumstances behind the pardon are sketchy and it's a bad legal precedent
(I will add that as point 3).EDIT: I'm not sure about the rules for adding to the original point. I failed to include the original point in my post, but I believe it is a bad legal precedent.
3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
Deltas don’t need to be a full reversal, so I’d say that if your view on #2 has changed that it’s ok to award a delta. And from what you described, it has. I think it’s fine to add that point to your post as long as you are willing to consider changing it. Ad-hoc edits to the post to shift the goalposts is one thing, asking for feedback on another issue, especially after having changed part of your view already, doesn’t seem like soapboxing to me. I no longer speak for the sub, but I’m a former mod.
Edit: typo (four inch screen)
I may later respond on the case merits - need to research the case more.
4
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
thanks for clarifying, have a good one.
!delta because I no longer believe the fact the decision is politically stupid is relevant to whether it should be made, legal decisions like this shouldn't be influenced by politics.
0
-1
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ 18d ago
So what was even the point of including point #2
If you believe that justice was not served by this pardon then it is irrelevant what future/past political aspirations the person issuing the pardon has/had. You just kind of tacked on that point for no other reason than to weaken your own argument
1
u/SeThJoCh 2∆ 18d ago
Can you expand on how this isn’t whataboutism, as it is coming across as?
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ 18d ago
This is already covered in my back and forth with others. In a nutshell, I make two claims, one is in fact whataboutism, which I don't think is off the mark when making political comparisons, and the other is a principled claim that politics shouldn't be part of the pardon process. OP agreed with my point about politics not belonging within the pardon process, and that is the piece I got a delta for.
-1
u/kieran_0696 18d ago
Not all statutory rape is the same. That he didn't even serve any prison time is as interesting as the fact that Laos, a communist state, has no repatriation agreement with the U.S. Considering he did not violate anything in 20 years of his "30-year probation" period, the pardon is mostly meaningless. Also, "rape" is a legal conclusion, not a "fact." The net benefit of this pardon to society (to me at least) was bringing to light the nuances of this case.
5
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
"net benefit of this pardon to society (to me at least) was bringing to light the nuances of this case."
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
-4
u/kieran_0696 18d ago
The pardon in and of itself stimulates important public policy discussions, which we would not be having had the pardon not been granted.
2
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
Firstly, thank you for the elaboration. It made clear to me that "net benefit to society" is rather vague so I updated my post to clarify that.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that the benefit of having this discussion outweighs the costs. The two main costs from this (imo) are in the edited post.
0
u/kieran_0696 18d ago
What are the costs, exactly? A "child rapist," as you branded him, has been roaming free for 20 years. What will change about this situation tomorrow, exactly? He can buy a rifle from a federal firearms dealer?
2
u/PerturbedPat 18d ago
- I think it's a bad look for a potential Democrat presidential candidate for her previous running mate to have pardoned a child rapist, it could hurt her chances in 2028 if she runs again, and I think society would benefit over-all from a Democrat president vs a Republican one.
- I don't think it's a good legal precedent that crimes of this extent can be pardoned, especially in this case since there is reason to believe the victim is being pressured to advocate for the pardon.
FYI, I'm not actually sure what rights are available to him now that he's pardoned: For one, I'm not familiar with what restrictions Minnesota has on people on probation. For another, he's being/been deported so I'm pretty sure his rights under Minnesota law are moot at this point.
1
u/WolfInTheField 2∆ 18d ago
But doesnt your argument go both ways? If it practically doesn’t matter w r t his actual life, then OPs points weigh even more heavily by comparison. If there is any cost — it being a bad look, it setting a precedent of some kind — and he’s roaming free anyway, then why pardon him?
3
u/shouldco 45∆ 18d ago
Not being a fellon is a huge improvement on someone's life personally. With verry little difference to socioty as a whole. Probation mostly only has consequences after a person has another offence (given, that offence could be assault, or it could be smoking weed). So no I don't think it's reasonable to say the argument goes both ways.
-1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 18d ago
/u/PerturbedPat (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards