4 ms·

no. people are better off with a quick resolution because professional attorneys at the SEC decided that the legal case against Holmes is not strong enough to

no. people are better off with a quick resolution because professional attorneys at the SEC decided that the legal case against Holmes is not strong enough to waste taxpayer money trying to PROVE she committed a crime. Calling their decision into question without a shred of evidence that they did something suboptimal, based on your political beliefs alone, is what I am advocating against. EDIT: Which part of this statement are the downvoters disagreeing with ?

pron 9y ago
I am not saying you are wrong, only that you're making a political statement. Determining when to bet on a court case and when not to is a political decision -- do you draw the line at 85% chance of conviction? 60? 30? It can certainly be pragmatic with respect to certain metrics, but choosing those metrics, e.g. deciding that the aim should be the minimization of public expense and risk of failure is very much political. The metrics we need to optimize aren't chosen for us by the laws of nature, but by our political values.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  no, I am not. Attorneys at the SEC made this determination based on everything they had on Holmes. Calling their decision biased against poor people vs rich people, etc, political rather than legal, etc. without any evidence is bullshit.
  - pron 9y ago
    > based on everything they had on Holmes ... and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved. Not only is the decision on the threshold political, but the risk itself is determined by the resources at the defendant's disposal. I am not saying that their decision is necessarily biased against poor people, but I am pointing out that there is a political stance involved no matter which way you come down on this issue.
    - sseveran 9y ago
      Nah, the SEC rarely actually prosecutes someone (or more correctly works with DOJ to indict them and try them.) It is just how the SEC typically does business. They, (and other regulators, CTFC, SROs) take these little actions all the time in the financial industry. I think when see a case where they really try and nail someone then you look for the politics.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      "and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved" - you are alleging that in this specific case there was politically determined something - without any evidence whatsoever.
      - wolf550e 9y ago
        You two are using different meanings of "political". There is no allegation of pulling strings and getting SEC lawyers to decide something based on her name, her connections. They act according to policy, based only on objective measures of the case. But, it can be the policy of the SEC to objectively consider chances of winning (or getting a fraud conviction) and proceed to trial only if the chances are better than 90%, and it can be the policy of the SEC to go to trial on even 10% chances of winning, to generate as many fraud convictions as possible (at great expense to the tax payer). Both policies are valid (I think), and the choice is political (subjective). A presidential candidate might get elected on a platform that includes going harder after well connected rich people doing white collar crimes, and then appoint a new head of the SEC to enact this new policy of being willing to spend more money to try to get people in jail for fraud.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        "might". But we are talking about a specific case here. Does anyone have any evidence that SEC attorneys used considerations other than legal strategies in their decision to settle with Holmes? No? I rest my case.
stordoff 9y ago
Deciding what constitutes "wast[ing] taxpayer money" IS a political decision. Clearly there is a difference between easily and well proven cases and cases with scant evidence, but determining precisely where the line lies is a political decision. Do you investigate weak cases to send the message that things won't be overlooked, or do you pass over them to minimise public expenditure, for example.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Actually I'm relying on the SEC's statement that she was an active participant in a large multi-year fraud. True, I've always thought Theranos was Too Good To Be True and had doubt about la Holmes' probity. But I think you're getting downvoted because you're arguing that white collar crime, even at scale, isn't worth prosecuting, and ignoring the perverse incentives that result from such decision-making.
- mnemonicsloth 9y ago
  It isn't just white-collar crime. The justice system isn't equipped to prosecute any crimes at scale. That's why prosecutors rely on plea bargains (and their over-broad, under-scrutinized powers in negotiating same) for the vast majority of cases. The courtroom is for the small minority who can afford representation and are willing to risk a very bad outcome.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  that's a bizarre reading of what I said, given that I am talking only about her specific case.

pron 9y ago

I am not saying you are wrong, only that you're making a political statement. Determining when to bet on a court case and when not to is a political decision -- do you draw the line at 85% chance of conviction? 60? 30? It can certainly be pragmatic with respect to certain metrics, but choosing those metrics, e.g. deciding that the aim should be the minimization of public expense and risk of failure is very much political. The metrics we need to optimize aren't chosen for us by the laws of nature, but by our political values.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
no, I am not. Attorneys at the SEC made this determination based on everything they had on Holmes. Calling their decision biased against poor people vs rich people, etc, political rather than legal, etc. without any evidence is bullshit.
- pron 9y ago
  > based on everything they had on Holmes ... and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved. Not only is the decision on the threshold political, but the risk itself is determined by the resources at the defendant's disposal. I am not saying that their decision is necessarily biased against poor people, but I am pointing out that there is a political stance involved no matter which way you come down on this issue.
  - sseveran 9y ago
    Nah, the SEC rarely actually prosecutes someone (or more correctly works with DOJ to indict them and try them.) It is just how the SEC typically does business. They, (and other regulators, CTFC, SROs) take these little actions all the time in the financial industry. I think when see a case where they really try and nail someone then you look for the politics.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    "and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved" - you are alleging that in this specific case there was politically determined something - without any evidence whatsoever.
    - wolf550e 9y ago
      You two are using different meanings of "political". There is no allegation of pulling strings and getting SEC lawyers to decide something based on her name, her connections. They act according to policy, based only on objective measures of the case. But, it can be the policy of the SEC to objectively consider chances of winning (or getting a fraud conviction) and proceed to trial only if the chances are better than 90%, and it can be the policy of the SEC to go to trial on even 10% chances of winning, to generate as many fraud convictions as possible (at great expense to the tax payer). Both policies are valid (I think), and the choice is political (subjective). A presidential candidate might get elected on a platform that includes going harder after well connected rich people doing white collar crimes, and then appoint a new head of the SEC to enact this new policy of being willing to spend more money to try to get people in jail for fraud.
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        "might". But we are talking about a specific case here. Does anyone have any evidence that SEC attorneys used considerations other than legal strategies in their decision to settle with Holmes? No? I rest my case.

stordoff 9y ago

Deciding what constitutes "wast[ing] taxpayer money" IS a political decision. Clearly there is a difference between easily and well proven cases and cases with scant evidence, but determining precisely where the line lies is a political decision. Do you investigate weak cases to send the message that things won't be overlooked, or do you pass over them to minimise public expenditure, for example.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Actually I'm relying on the SEC's statement that she was an active participant in a large multi-year fraud. True, I've always thought Theranos was Too Good To Be True and had doubt about la Holmes' probity. But I think you're getting downvoted because you're arguing that white collar crime, even at scale, isn't worth prosecuting, and ignoring the perverse incentives that result from such decision-making.

mnemonicsloth 9y ago
It isn't just white-collar crime. The justice system isn't equipped to prosecute any crimes at scale. That's why prosecutors rely on plea bargains (and their over-broad, under-scrutinized powers in negotiating same) for the vast majority of cases. The courtroom is for the small minority who can afford representation and are willing to risk a very bad outcome.
vasilipupkin 9y ago
that's a bizarre reading of what I said, given that I am talking only about her specific case.