>

It is a fact that Russia used the Griner as leverage and entered the negotiations with bad faith. However, this doesn't change the fact that every person, regardless of their citizenship must abide by the law of the country they are in, whether they reside or travel. You enter the country knowing that you might be punished to the full extent of the law if you commit a crime. IF you don't know that, you don't know what traveling is.
Russia might be unjust with this punishment, yet we only say it's unjust because it is unjust in our culture and standards. Russia also punished Marc Fogel for the same crime and he is serving 14 years in their prison.
/u/veryveryundude (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 >

While I have mixed feelings about the Brittney Griner situation, I also think most people don't know how Russian "laws" work.
The way crimes are prosecuted in Russia isn't always black and white. In some cases, the government is aware that you are breaking the law, but only acts for political (Putin's) gain.
In essence, they use the fact that they know you committed a crime, as an invisible gun to the back of your head that they can fire at any time for any reason.
For example:

Nearly ALL of Russias elites engage in corruption
Corruption is illegal in Russia...like over a decade in prison illegal
The Russian government likely knows who all of the high profile corrupt officals are
They do not immeadietly prosecute corrupt officals when they find out

The point being that whenever Putin feels like it, he can remove an elite and say they were corrupt, and would actually have real evidence. But he isn't going after these people because they re corrupt and he wants to clean up the country...he is doing it for some arbitrary reason that benefits himself.
So on the one hand, it is plausible that if Brittney Griner had drugs on her, she likely did this before, and the Russian's knew about it.
But the fact that they chose to act now, was likely political in nature. They were about to do something that would be condemned internationally, and wanted ammunition to shoot back.
So while yes, Britney Griner broke the law and should be called out on it, that doesn't change the fact that her detention was most likely politically motivated.  And if it was politically motivated, a political solution isn't all that absurd or a sign of "American Privilege" >


So on the one hand, it is plausible that if Brittney Griner had drugs on her, she likely did this before, and the Russian's knew about it.

We can not attest to what likely happened in criminal case circumstances. This argument would not hold anywhere. It is just an assumption. I invite you to argue with the data that is shared with us, instead of conspiracy theories.
​

But the fact that they chose to act now, was likely political in nature. They were about to do something that would be condemned internationally, and wanted ammunition to shoot back

We also do not have data to state whether they waited to act or Griner was caught red-handed. Not trusting Russia is a trait you and I both have but conspiracy theories are not arguments. >

Also the harshness of the sentence was pretty clearly politically motivated, if a russian guy went in the US and beat someone up breaking a couple bones and exactly after the invasion of Ukraine he gets a life sentence you would call that an unfair and politically motivated sentence >

There are people in the USA arrested for having weed. Right now in federal prison for the last 20 years >

Simple cannabis oil not accused of trafficking? 
I mean that is bad but it doesn't prove Britney isn't a political sentence it just shows the US is too harsh on marijuana charges >

Russia has weed banned federally. USA has weed banned federally. It’s stupid. We all know why USA did it. To appease the BLM people. >


Britney Griner got arrested for breaking Russian law

First, you're right that she was arrested for breaking Russian law. To the extent that you claim that alone, you're right.

demanding her being brought back was American Privilege
Demanding Griner back was disrespectful to every single country in the world.

It is not disrespectful for countries to demand the return of citizens that were prosecuted in another country. This is true even if Russia did not have a kangaroo court system that routinely ignores its own stated internal rules when prosecuting American citizens. This happens all the time, it doesn't mean each nation condemns or is disrespectful of the other nation. Do you think it's necessarily disrespectful for Russia to demand the return of it's nationals?

It was a message to the world: "Our nationals do not have to respect your laws if it's not like ours. But you can't do the same thing to us. We can do this because we are strong." 

A prisoner exchange, which is what occurred after the verdict in the Russian kangaroo court system, sends a different message: "We are willing to negotiate for the release of our citizens, even if it means trading someone who committed far worse crimes in our land, because we value rule of law and our citizen was punished in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law." 

Also, in the future, if an unpopular US citizen is arrested because of the same reason in a foreign country and the government does nothing about it, that would not just be hypocritical, it would mean that means that popular individuals are more important than other citizens. Isn't that concerning?

That would be concerning. Luckily, as the Washington Examiner and other outlets have reported, that is not the case under this administration's state department. Other prisoner exchanges have occurred that don't involve anyone nearly as famous - which is probably why they aren't as reported on. >


our citizen was punished in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law."

As if we dont  imprison people for marijuana here >

Honest question for you: do you think she would have been charged with "trafficking" and not just "possession" if not for the current US/Russia political climate?  Or better yet, is it reasonable for people to believe that? >

So the problem is her sentence? Would you be okay if the sentence was 5 years but not 13 years? Or just write your number. 
Every country has a different approach to drugs. Russia for instance is extremely suffering from drug addiction and alcoholism. If you triple the amount of the worst places in America, that would give you the best place in Russia. Maybe they are harsher because of that? Not just only the US-Russia political climate (which was never good). 
Every country has unique reasons for the severity of its law. Many US states grant you to kill the people who trespass on your yard. In my opinion, letting someone get away with killing someone else just because of trespassing is extreme. Many other countries do not allow that, including Russia. If you kill someone in your yard, you're in for murder. So, I don't think, as Americans, we have the position to dictate what is harsh or not. >

The problem in this case is the REASON she was sentenced the way she was.  I am not asking "Is her punishment reasonable from Russia's point of view" I am asking "Is her punishment harsher than it should be because she is American?"  For example, she had a vape cartridge, and they said she was trafficking a significant amount of cannibis.  Do you agree that people who view her as being charged harder because she is american have a reason to want her back, but not a person arrested in the UK who was arrested for breaking the law with nothing indicating there was a "prosecute the american" element to it? >


Demanding Griner back was disrespectful to every single country in the world. It was a message to the world: "Our nationals do not have to respect your laws if it's not like ours. But you can't do the same thing to us. We can do this because we are strong."

But they did do the same thing to us, we released a Russian who broke our laws. The facts do not comport with your assessment. >

It was a trade proposal we initiated. >

Irrelevant. Russia would just say no if they respected US law. Russia respects no laws, not even their own. >

Russia played politics from the very first opportunity.
That made her valuable.
A wnba player of good quality who was openly gay ticked alot of boxes for the creation of an example for the Russian people to see. It also pissed off alot of americans.
We got the better deal... and the Russian people know we will take care of our own regardless of sexual orientation.
note: Russian womens basketball will take a hit come international play whenever Putin's stupid war is over. >

Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy that is in a rivalry with America and you trust them to a) not make up charges and b) not overcharge for anything that did happen? >

So what view are you explaining here and open to changing? Because I assumed the title was your thesis, but you don't seem to reference "American privilege" ever again and seem to veer into a lot of unconnected topics. >

Depends on how holistic you read my entry. Obviously, you can understand that the American Privilege is demanding a negotiation or a trade for a convicted American felon in another country just because the punishment is considered harsh by American standards. It's America-centrism. Thinking that the world revolves around America? >

Well the rules of the sub here are to foster productive conversations and help people change views. If you don't provide a clear thesis and clear evidence that supports it we have nothing to dispute to undermine your view. 
I don't see what's unique to America about this situation. Pretty much every country will negotiate to get their own citizens released from other countries. >

Thank you for responding to me in a civil and non-insulting manner. Rare values as long as I've seen.
​

I don't see what's unique to America about this situation. Pretty much every country will negotiate to get their own citizens released from other countries.

The United States did not seek justice for its citizen who was trying to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip but was killed by Israeli soldiers. If we talk about politically motivated deeds, the US does that too. Griner was not the only American who was sentenced to prison time for drug charges. When did we hear the US government negotiating a trade with another country to save its citizen? In my opinion, Griner was a popular citizen and the government was afraid of backlash. My point is, I don't believe in justice for the popular. I believe in justice for everyone. >

One of the first pieces of advise I heard about travelling abroad is to know the embassy contact information in case you are accused of a crime, run into trouble, or are a victim of a crime. Embassies help out citizens in foreign countries all the time. Sometimes they are successful. Often they are not. The only reason you heard about Griner is that it was high profile and controversial. >

This would suggest she did NOT get arrested and receive the sentence in large part because she was american.  Given that the max sentence in russia for possession is a couple of years at most and typically some community service only, yet  griner got a sentence of 9 years it would seem to me it's at least plausible she was made an example of.
So...I think your view should change here because you're ultimately suggesting that the political response to a political action isn't reasonable.  What I'd suggest you're doing is looking at it as if it's a criminal action being responded to with a political action.
In your example, what would you think of someone who was put in jail for 10 years for polygamy when the normal law is simply to not be granted a license for marriage? >


Given that the max sentence in russia for possession is a couple of years at most and typically some community service only

She pleaded guilty to "possession without intent to sell and traveling into Russia with a controlled substance" >

Lol. She had 0.7 grams of cannabis oil. In a vape cartridge. 
And you believe she had intent to sell? As in she would travel halfway across the world to sell $30 worth of cannabis oil and make like....$5?
Give me a break. >


Lol. She had 0.7 grams of cannabis oil. In a vape cartridge. 

.7 grams of hash oil, which has trace amounts of cannabis oil in it. >

That’s not how it works. Hash oil is a cannabis extract. Hash oil and cannabis oil are basically the same thing. You have some minor distinctions between different extraction techniques and post processing, but there’s not a “hash plant” or some other unique plant that hash oil comes from. >

Sorry, I was going by the article OP linked to (I think...small chance it was a different NPR article) >

The only way it would have trace amounts is if it was a CBD vape. From “hemp”. Even though hemp is still the cannabis plant, just with strains that have less than 0.3% THC.
No need to apologize. It’s a distinction that isn’t common knowledge. >


Demanding Griner back was disrespectful to every single country in the world.

I don't think demand is the right word.  It was a deal, and Russia arguably made out better on the deal. >

Arguably? We traded the Merchant of Death who was supplying arms to terrorist organizations for a WNBA player. What exactly did we gain there? >

A former arms dealer we were only going to hold for 6 more years, he was eventually going to be freed. If he runs back to try to sell weapons again after 15 years he was probably going to do it after 21 too. >

The judge who sentenced Bout supported the trade. >

The thing about inequalities is that you can flatten them upward or you can flatten then downward, and downward is rarely better. In a perfect world, no one would be subject to the notoriously awful Russian prison system, let alone for a minor drug charge. Saving the people we can when we can and the political will to do so exists is better than the alternative, even if it highlights broader problems. >

Non-US countries do it all the time though, so I don't see how this is "American Privilege". Prisoner swaps occur most frequently during war, but even without active conflict they occur. No countries like to see their citizens imprisoned in a foreign country for reasons they perceive to be unfair. >

Only the countries that can muscle other countries can do this, and THAT is a privilege. Do you think the US would let Russia or Iran or any other country nose in their punishment guidelines? Demand a trade because they think the US punishment is too harsh? 
Other countries do not have a "stand your ground law". So if you kill a foreign national because they are trespassing on your lawn, and you don't go to prison, does the victim's country and their nationals have the right to dictate the US that imprisons the person who killed their citizen because of their law, it's not "standing your ground" it is murder? >


Do you think the US would let Russia or Iran or any other country nose in their punishment guidelines? Demand a trade because they think the US punishment is too harsh?

I don't get what you're asking. Griner was exchanged for somebody who Russia thought the US was punishing too harshly. So the answer is yes, obviously. >

"Russian law" is is really a misnomer. You can be arrested and imprisoned for things that don't appear in any law. There is no knowing Russian law because it is implemented on a political basis, not as a matter of legal doctrine or jurisprudence. Russian law is whatever the FSB says it is and that can change from situation to situation. There is no separation of powers between the executive and judiciary and jury trials are increasingly out of reach. 
Basically, Russia is never going to reasonably apply its laws to American citizens, so there is no expectation that an American could abide by the law in Russia without becoming some sort of state asset. >

I appreciate your comment. Especially that is in a non-insulting tone. 
I agree with you. I truly do. It is important to save a citizen from unjust courts. However, if we don't do that to all of our citizens that means that some citizens are more valuable than others. And people can say whatever they want as Griner was not a celebrity. She was. That's why we know her. She was the best player in WNBA for years. >


However, if we don't do that to all of our citizens that means that some citizens are more valuable than others.

Or it means it is more feasible to retrieve certain citizens because the circumstances of their detention are vastly different.
The Russians are far more likely to negotiate for a basketball player on a trumped up "drug" charge than someone they think is a spy, for example. This says nothing about the value of our citizens, but the nature of their situations. Can you name another American basketball player held in Russia for less than a gram of pot that didn't get the same negotiating action? If not, you're really comparing two utterly different things and saying they are identical situations. 
It's like saying murder and pot possession are equivalent crimes. We wouldn't expect someone charged with pot possession to face the same punishment as a murderer and we wouldn't expect both criminals to be released on identical terms either.

And people can say whatever they want as Griner was not a celebrity. She was.

Only because she was arrested. I don't think most people even knew who she was until she was arrested. That goes for basically every American arrested abroad. They become media sensations which makes them popular. You're putting the cart before the horse here. 

That's why we know her. She was the best player in WNBA for years.

And I only know that because you just told me despite being a 30 something American dude with sports interests. The only reason I know her name is because she was arrested in Russia. >

Thank you very much for your insights. I understand better now. Truly. I see your points and I think they are very reasonable. I thank you for showing me a different perspective from the one that I have. Finally, I got the thing that I hoped for from this subreddit.
I'm not joking or something. I truly appreciate the argument. >

Would you say you've changed your view? >


The Russians are far more likely to negotiate for a basketball player on a trumped up "drug" charge than someone they think is a spy, for example. This says nothing about the value of our citizens, but the nature of their situations.

Yes. This line did the trick. Now it is up to the future to see if the US would do the same thing again. I have pessimistic beliefs, but my beliefs cannot be an argument. >

As rule 4 of the sub dictates, you should award a delta if your view is changed, if you please.
You can do that by including in your comment a "!" in front of "delta" as a single term. >

Δ
Wow. Giving delta is labor. This user's response on pointing out the difference between criminals with different charges counters my argument of Griner vs other convicts. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Biptoslipdi (74∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Not sure how much you know about the case you are building your view on, but one of the facts is "she was carrying vaporizer cartridges containing less than a gram of hash oil. In Arizona, she had been prescribed medicinal cannabis, which is illegal in Russia".  
She was sentenced to 9 years.
Many agree this was intentionally holding a high profile hostage in order to negotiate with US in the middle of sanctions on Russia.
The family appealed to an organisation that specialises in bringing home people arrested abroad.  
Given those facts, I think the arrest was calculated and she was not a criminal deserving the treatment she got, regardless of the laws.  
In principle one must respect foreign laws, and your polygamy example is sound, but incomparable with this political move. >

We don't know if the arrest was calculated though. Are you suggesting Fogel's arrest was calculated as well? >

The sentence is speculated to be so, and 9 years for a gram of oil?  I know weed smokers in russia and they usually get ignored by the police. >

Im’a stop you right there with the title
Because it’s never this simple, and it’s not an absolute one way or the other. With this argument does the rest of your logic therefore fall apart at worst and be flimsy at best >

No serious philosopher considers moral relativity as a meaningful position. If a law is bad, it is morally just to break it. No amount of moving over imaginary lines on a map alters that. >

Anyone believing in existence of law as Americans understand it in Russia - is deliberately delusional. >

It was a trade. The Merchant of Death was released too. It was an exchange between two parties. Being part of a trade isn’t a display of privilege. >

I can see the argument that the US negotiating that trade is a privilege.  That said, I believe she was sentenced so harshley because she's from the US, so the US was responsible for getting her free as a result. >

In many countries, carrying drugs means capital punishment. It's their law, it is their country. It is not in our power to dictate to them what is harsh or not. >

Hypothetical for you: Let's say they 100% treated her harsher than they would a Russian BECAUSE they wanted a pawn to use against the US.
Do you agree that because she got a harsher punishment because of the US/Russia political sphere, that it's wouldn't be hypocritical to negotiate her release, but not a person who just broke the law in the UK and got the same punishment a person in the UK would have had? >

It would have been an interesting topic to discuss if she didn't plead guilty. 
However, we can argue if her plea deal was by force or not. But that would be diving into conspiracy theories. I think we can only discuss the information that is shared with us. >

"Today BG pleaded guilty. It was her decision informed by discussion with her legal defense team in Russia. Brittney sets an example of being brave. She decided to take full responsibility for her actions as she knows that she is a role model for many people. Considering the nature of her case, the insignificant amount of the substance and BG’s personality and history of positive contributions to global and Russian sport, the defense hopes that the plea will be considered by the court as a mitigating factor and there will be no severe sentence."
That's from the article.  They gave her 9 years out of a possible 10.
Also, from that article:

Many said they see the guilty plea as a route to a potentially more lenient sentence in a country that has a conviction rate that is higher than 97 percent. Meaning, no matter if she admitted guilt, she was — in all likelihood — going to be found guilty.

Think about that, a 97 percent conviction rate...why would you fight it?
Additionally:

Added St. Julian-Varnon: “You don’t see prisoner swaps with Russia, usually until the foreigner has admitted guilt. So, I think if there is a prisoner swap, this would be the first step.”
Understanding the two charges

So, that's another reason to admit guilt: to have a chance of getting set free.

while traveling into the country with a controlled substance carries a harsher five-year minimum to 10-year maximum sentence, though judges can choose a lesser penalty if they so decide.

She got 9 years, close to the maximum sentence for .702 grams of hash oil, which has trace amounts of cannibis oil.
Does a person who goes "I never mean to do this crime, it was an accident, and I plead guilty" deserve close to the maximum punishment?  Or does it appear that she is being prosecuted so harshley for another reason?
Are all the things I mentioned "conspiracy theories?" or does the fact that she was arrested right before Russia invaded Ukraine supposed to be ignored because russia never said "we are doing it to hurt America"? >


She got 9 years, close to the maximum sentence for .702 grams of hash oil, which has trace amounts of cannibis oil.

We cannot say that it was unjust punishment for their country. They followed their guidelines and she got her sentence that is in the books. 
My argument is, again, YOU say it's a harsh punishment. Other countries may have different views, if you do not respect that and demand her back, it is out of privilege and entitlement to nose your way into other countries' affairs.
What a person say and what they deserve are unrelated things. Courts are run by evidence. 
In my opinion, in a case where a foreign citizen is killed by an American because of trespassing and tell the victim's country to suck it it's our law when freeing the killer, we do not have the right and position to say what is harsh or not. >

I'm saying it's a harsh punishment USING THEIR STANDARDS!
What case deserves a minimum sentence more than "trace amounts of cannibis in less than one ounce of oil that a person didn't mean to bring with them"?
Answer that question.  Give me a situation where minimum should be used to better show that this isn't a trumped up charge against an american. >

Griner committed a crime. She got punished. Was her punishment way to big? Yes. Does she know that Russia is massively corrupt and has a cold relationship with Americans? Yes, she does. Is she in the wrong for committing a minor crime in a country she know she can be jailed in because of her nationality? Yes, i mean how stupid can you be? She knows all this, then why bother doing it and then creating all the drama when you could just avoid doing it or even going there in the first place? She is in the wrong and I agree with OP that the US thinks that they are better then everyone else when in reality their country is not good at all.