3 ms·

> She committed a much larger fraud and lost people huge amounts of money. She is spending exactly zero days in prison. She is getting a $500,000 fine - which T

> She committed a much larger fraud and lost people huge amounts of money. She is spending exactly zero days in prison. She is getting a $500,000 fine - which Theranos is probably paying for - and a slap in the wrist[1]. 1. Holmes is not out of the hot water yet. DOJ could still press charges and seek jail time. 2. What makes you think Theranos is paying her fine? 3. Holmes also loses 18.9 million (probably worthless) shares. > Meanwhile Shkreli - who's "victims" lost zero money - is going to spend 7 years in jail and has lost at least $10 million because the government decided to take it over. 1. "no one was hurt" is never a valid legal defense. Not if you break into a company's networks. Not if you break into someone's house. Not if you sell drugs. And not if you commit fraud. In the case of fraud laws, the reason for this is actually obvious and rational: deterrence. No one ever thinks they're going to lose it all. If we only punished fraud that didn't work out in the end, the law would not have its intended deterrent effect. However, "no one was hurt" can act as a mitigating factor in sentencing! However... 2. Character and remorse also matter in sentencing. As does settling. Who knows how much lighter Shkreli's sentence could've been if he settled. Or at least managed to just go home and shut up during sentencing. Some of these observations might be troubling (e.g., being punished for exercising your right to a trial; going to jail for an extra year because you're an asshole in public) but they aren't gender issues. > I would love to see people complaining about gender gaps addressing the huge gender gap in our justice system, because cases like this are a slap in the face. This is a real problem [1]. But if you want to push the dial on this, maybe find someone other than Shkreli as your victim figure? (Also, the best way of closing this gap is probably less time for men, not more time for women.) [1] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...

perl4ever 9y ago
Saying it's "obvious and rational" that we want to deter people from committing fraud is not a good defense of those involved with Theranos. I say this, not as someone who will ever invest in private companies, but as someone who occasionally gets blood tests. I think it's extremely misguided to regard fairness to criminals or defending them as victims as the goal here - the important thing is, as you seem to sort of agree, to deter bad actors and encourage good ones.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Saying it's "obvious and rational" that we want to deter people from committing fraud is not a good defense of those involved with Theranos Oh, I didn't intend that as a defense of Theranos. I intended that as a justification for punishing Shkreli. > the important thing is, as you seem to sort of agree, to deter bad actors and encourage good ones. I think punishment has many societal functions, some of them more rational than others, but all legitimate in their own way.
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    I'm more comfortable with a utilitarian idea of justice, where retribution and intuitive feelings about justice being satisfied come as side effects and not explicit goals. Deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation are the goals. Punishment needs to be shaped by those. I would certainly not say that all functions of punishment in society are legitimate. There was just a news article about someone whose exculpatory DNA evidence will not prevent them being executed. Assuming that sort of thing happens occasionally (regardless whether it's true as reported in this case) then it certainly serves a societal purpose to avoid admitting prosecutorial error, but it's not legitimate.

perl4ever 9y ago

Saying it's "obvious and rational" that we want to deter people from committing fraud is not a good defense of those involved with Theranos. I say this, not as someone who will ever invest in private companies, but as someone who occasionally gets blood tests. I think it's extremely misguided to regard fairness to criminals or defending them as victims as the goal here - the important thing is, as you seem to sort of agree, to deter bad actors and encourage good ones.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Saying it's "obvious and rational" that we want to deter people from committing fraud is not a good defense of those involved with Theranos Oh, I didn't intend that as a defense of Theranos. I intended that as a justification for punishing Shkreli. > the important thing is, as you seem to sort of agree, to deter bad actors and encourage good ones. I think punishment has many societal functions, some of them more rational than others, but all legitimate in their own way.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  I'm more comfortable with a utilitarian idea of justice, where retribution and intuitive feelings about justice being satisfied come as side effects and not explicit goals. Deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation are the goals. Punishment needs to be shaped by those. I would certainly not say that all functions of punishment in society are legitimate. There was just a news article about someone whose exculpatory DNA evidence will not prevent them being executed. Assuming that sort of thing happens occasionally (regardless whether it's true as reported in this case) then it certainly serves a societal purpose to avoid admitting prosecutorial error, but it's not legitimate.