11 ms·
Ex-Theranos CEO Holmes puts mental state at issue
- g42gregory 6y agoI would think she suffers from psychopathy. Would it matter in court?
- tw04 6y agoIf it does I'd say that there needs to be a psych eval and appropriate corrective action for a large swath of the Fortune 500 executive staff(s).
- DetroitThrow 6y agoPsychopathy is not a valid insanity plea. Killing someone and feeling good or nothing is inequivalent to not comprehending your own actions.
- perl4ever 6y agoOf course your first sentence is correct, I assume. But...you're saying feeling bad is not a type of comprehension? That is, empathy is not comprehension?
- filleduchaos 6y agoEmpathy is a possible consequence of comprehension, not comprehension, yes
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pdonis 6y ago> empathy is not comprehension? Not in the sense in which the law requires you to comprehend the consequences of your actions. An insane person could feel bad after killing someone because they respond with empathy after the fact, but still not have comprehended before the fact that what they were doing was going to kill someone. The latter, if established beyond a reasonable doubt, would mean they would not meet the legal comprehension requirement. And, conversely, a psychopath could comprehend perfectly well before the fact that what they were doing was going to kill someone, but feel nothing because they don't care. They would still meet the legal requirement for comprehension. (Disclaimer: IANAL.)
- perl4ever 6y agoI think you're implying that somehow one has comprehension only before, and empathy only after. Why can't you have either in either order?
- pdonis 6y ago> I think you're implying that somehow one has comprehension only before, and empathy only after. No, I'm just saying that to establish legal comprehension, you can't look at empathy, because they're two different things. They might go together--in normal, sane people they almost always will go together, both before and after--but you can't rely on it, since the people you are going to ask the question about in the first place--the people for whom you might have to evaluate a possible insanity defense--are precisely the people in whom you can't rely on them going together.
- filmgirlcw 6y agoIn the US, the insanity defense is almost never used because it is so rarely successful and because the statutes are so high (especially since laws were passed in 1984 in response to the acquittal of John Hinckley, the man that shot President Reagan. He was committed to a psychiatric hospital instead and was released in 2016 (though there are strict rules around his release)). The Andrea Yates case [1], was the last time I can remember it being argued in a high profile case. This was the woman that drowned her five children. She was convicted in her first trial (though the jury refused to give her the death penalty) and that was overturned a few years later, after one of the prosecution’s psychiatrist admitted to giving materially false testimony. She was found not-guilty by reason of insanity in the retrial and confined to a state mental health facility. The Yates case is a good example of how high the burden of proof of an insanity defense is in a murder case. No one on either side disputed that she was severely mentally ill at the time of the killings. The state’s argument was that despite that, she knew the difference between and wrong enough to be legally responsible. There was a whole bunch of stuff in that case too — and it is truly tragic situation for everyone involved (there were reports that after Yates was properly medicated in prison awaiting trial and found out/remembered what she did, she became highly suicidal/went into shock), and there is an argument to be made that she was not given the proper care by her doctors leading up to the murders - but my point is more to say, in what as an outsider, appears to be a textbook case for successfully using the insanity defense, it was still unsuccessful until appeal and retrial, in part because of the question of comprehension. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates
- filmgirlcw 6y agoAlmost certainly not. The statute for an insanity defense is extremely, extremely high. This isn’t the same as a murder trial or anything, but the standards a defendant needs to meet are usually at a level that would preclude the individual from being able to function in society, something Holmes has done quite well. Moreover, the government would really only need to be able to successfully argue/show examples where Holmes did, for example, know the difference between right and wrong. My guess — and I’m not a lawyer — is that her lawyers are hoping to make this a mitigating factor as part of sentencing.
- himinlomax 6y agoIt should matter as in it should be used to send someone straight to jail, for the good of society.
- bra-ket 6y agooh, the good old "i'm not a criminal, i'm just crazy" story. Actually fits the profile of someone who sends an army of lawyers to intimidate a whistleblower.
- seibelj 6y agoWhat could the mitigating mental issue be? She’s clearly not incompetent. She’s crazy like a fox!
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoThe only crazy is how she’ll probably get away with it.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoIt would be that she was a young girl terrorized by her partner into doing terrible things. Its a defense that works better for pretty little blonde ladies than large, dark, homely men.
- haram_masala 6y agoI read John Carreyrou's book on the Theranos debacle, and I know someone who worked there. At risk of violating the Goldwater Rule, I'd say Ms. Holmes has some serious psychological issues that make her incompetent, primarily her capacity for self-delusion. And not just the "I'll skip my workout today and run extra tomorrow" type of self-delusion that so many of us are capable of, I mean a truly bizarre distortion of reality as she sees it. I also read an article about her childhood and family life. It was sad, overwrought with anxiety, and a formula for the exact kind of pathology she appears to have had at Theranos. Even if she had lost my investment capital instead of other people's, I'd still feel sorry for her rather than angry.
- lostmsu 6y agoSo what are the examples of delusions?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- apta 6y agoThe typical cop-out excuse.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- perl4ever 6y agoIf people would read the article, it says "The defense expert, Mindy Mechanic, is a California State University at Fullerton professor specializing in psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization, including violence against women, and often testifies in cases involving interpersonal violence," ...which might give a clue as to what the mitigating mental issue could be. Obviously they are not going to say she's a psychopath.
- filmgirlcw 6y agoRight. As I wrote in another comment, this seems to be a way to argue diminished capacity, probably by arguing that she was a victim of battered spouse syndrome. It’s the modern day Twinkie defense.
- perl4ever 6y agoI think that's probably trivializing it. I happen to be reading the (or a) book about Theranos, "Bad Blood", and it seems like something worse might be the issue. Maybe not just with one person either. She founded the company at like 19. And had a relationship very early with Sunny who was like twice her age.
- benmmurphy 6y agoWhat is the decision procedure for distinguishing between a woman who is being taken advantage of and a woman who is exploiting those around her? If she doesn’t flag as an exploiter is our decision procedure useful?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- perl4ever 6y agoI don't think those things are mutually exclusive in a given person, and may or may not happen at the same time. I'm not sure I understand the question overall.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago> Davila authorized the examinations after Holmes’ lawyers said they intended to introduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist “relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on the issue of guilt.” > > The defense expert, Mindy Mechanic, is a California State University at Fullerton professor specializing in psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization, including violence against women, and often testifies in cases involving interpersonal violence, according to her university biography. Ok, so my theory is that based on the expert her lawyers are calling, they are going to argue that Sunny groomed/abused Holmes over the course of their relationship (probably by calling attention to the age difference/power dynamic difference when they first met), which left her with trauma that led to her making the decisions she made. So “Battered Woman Syndrome” [1] but applied to fraud instead of assault/murder. If that’s the case, it really seems like they aren’t going to argue that Holmes didn’t deceive and commit fraud, but that her PTSD is a defense. Novel. This may have worked in the 1980s, the era of the the Twinkie defense [2] and other ways of arguing diminished capacity, but I’m not sure it’ll be successful here. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_syndrome [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
- donmcronald 6y agoIt's pretty crazy how rich people get to argue they have mental health issues, but poor people can't. If she were a poor person that robbed a convenience store it would be straight to jail and no one would care about any past trauma. I also think it's kind of BS to be honest. To me it feels like one step away from "the defendant is a psychopath that feels no remorse, so never developed the ethics needed to understand that murder is wrong, so they shouldn't be culpable." It's rich people paying "experts" to skew the perception of what's right and what's wrong.
- taurath 6y agoAnd yeah, if someone who doesn’t have enough to eat steals from a grocery store we throw em in jail. I’d venture most people in prison were traumatized at some point. Take into account their circumstances. This is an educated privileged woman who defrauded everyone around her for years. I expect her to get community service, frankly. The only reason she’d end up in jail is that she took rich peoples money.
- joshu 6y agoI saw something on twitter about her ... pet horned beetle eating her other pet horned beetle?
- edoceo 6y agoYou send me on a wild Google chase and I found nothing.
- timavr 6y agoLook I don't mind that defence. But can we like all get such good defence. Where do I sign up or who to vote for so every American citizen gets a legal representation like this. Normally if you defraud somebody, you are going to prison for a long, long time very very quickly.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoNot sure I understand. Any defendant could claim this defense and get psychologically evaluated.
- throwaway2048 6y agoGood luck if you don't have the money for a good lawyer
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoyou know the public defender legally has to do what you say right. you can insist on this psychological defense and they have no choice but to put it forward even if they think you're an idiot
- xenihn 6y agowhat do you do when your public defender doesn't do what you tell them to do and you have no money?
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agothen you file a grievance with the court and you get a new trial
- filmgirlcw 6y agoOf course. But how successful is that argument going to be when the public defender is juggling a dozen cases or more at once, meets with the defendant a handful of times before trial (if you’re lucky you can talk to a paralegal), and doesn’t have the resources of either time or money to dedicate to your case? Putting forward the defense is one thing. Crafting a compelling argument, writing an amazing brief that cites past case law and/or is persuasive enough to argue how something fits the required statues, and obtaining the best expert witnesses to bolster the argument is something else entirely.
- bsder 6y ago> I’m not sure it’ll be successful here. "Affluenza" worked as defense for a white male. The defense is betting on the fact that practically anything will work for defense for a young white female.
- troughway 6y agoAlways refreshing to see race baiting on HN. Keep up the good work.
- pstuart 6y agoDo you really think that justice is blind?
- BlueScreenDeath 6y agoIt is the absolute truth. If you want to deny that a young white woman is treated differently then say, a middle age black man, you are not being honest. If in 2020 we are talking about the legal system the most important question is the race and gender of the defendant.
- brandonl222 6y agoThe most important question is the size of the defendants bank account.
- chillwaves 6y ago> (CNN)Widespread outrage has erupted over a California judge's decision to give a former Stanford University swimmer a six-month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. Critics are blasting the decision as far too lenient. > Prosecutors had asked that Brock Turner be sentenced to six years in prison for the January 2015 assault. https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-stanford/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turne...
- ekianjo 6y ago
- gorgoiler 6y agoIf the state puts you on trial, do you automatically qualify for state-provided mental health services? I assume incarceration also comes with psychiatric care. If I went to prison I’d probably need a lot of therapy even if I accepted my punishment. More, if I didn’t.
- greesil 6y agoBeing a high functioning sociopath is not a valid defense.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoIANAL, but what I haven't seen mentioned here is that, in my understanding, in US federal court "diminished capacity" is not a defense against guilt, but only a factor that can result in a lower sentencing guideline. This seems like a real Hail Mary from the defense, I'd be shocked if she is able to avoid jail time.
- hetspookjee 6y agoWell, if I'm putting on my rose glasses I'm just hoping that if she wins by this argument, she might just set a precedent for all the youth offenders of crime? Why would this case be any different of say, someone that grew up in an extremely poor neighborhood and had most of their life working against them, and then turn to crime. Instead of just throwing such young offenders into jail for a long time, a lawyer might argue that this high profile case is a precedent for the young offenders - because they couldn't help themselves. It feels really unfair, though.
- dmix 6y agoWhat is unfair here exactly? There hasn’t been anything close to a ruling. These hypotheticals in this thread are getting way ahead of reality here. It sounds like the courts are preempting the defense strategy by forcing a gov psych review instead of one paid for by the defendant. In criminal law cases it’s not an instant get out of jail free card if you’re found to have some mental issues. Nearly every lawyer brings up mental states in serious crimes. These judges aren’t stupid.
- staticman2 6y agoJudges don't decide cases, juries do. There are some people with medical degrees in this world who will say anything for money. Wealthy people pay these individuals to try to get them out of jail. Normal people can't afford that.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Judges don't decide cases, juries do. Even with jury trials, that's not really true, except that alignment with the jury verdict is required for criminal conviction (but not acquittal, or any civil judgement.) Because summary judgement/judgement as a matter of law/judgement non obstante veredicto is a thing, and even if one isn't issued in a particular case, it's because either no one petitioned the judge for it (unlikely) or the judge decided against it.
- gkoberger 6y ago
- foobar1962 6y agoAssuming this strategy works, or almost works, will a requirement need to be implemented that every year company directors must declare they are of sound mind, and have that signed-off by a medical expert (so they cannot claim that their mental unsoundness caused them to make a false declaration)?
- yalogin 6y agoHolmes swindled and loooted from the VCs and her employees now the lawyers are going to take it from her.
- 55555 6y agoYes but there is a chance of them actually providing an incredible service in exchange.
- ryanchch 6y agoNice to see they're bringing the Theranos scandal to the next level.
- cblconfederate 6y agoHere's to the Crazy Ones