11 ms·

Ok I'm not American so perhaps my perspective is different... More than 10 years would be utterly barbaric. The 65 years mentioned in another comment chain woul

by mdoms 5y ago

Ok I'm not American so perhaps my perspective is different... More than 10 years would be utterly barbaric. The 65 years mentioned in another comment chain would be well beyond the pale. I'm no fan of Holmes, but what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades?

tptacek 5y ago
It'll be over 10 easy, because she burned a zillion dollars, and wire fraud sentences scale with losses.
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  The BBC said she faces upto 20 years, but predicts she will get a much lower sentence because she has no criminal history and she is a first time mother with a young child.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Google "federal sentence table". The "no criminal history" thing is directly expressed on the chart (she'll be sentenced from the first column); each cell in the table is a range of months, and the first-time mother thing might get her the lower end of that range. The crimes she's convicted of are so severely sentenced that it's hard to see her not getting double digit years. With all the charges grouped, including the conspiracy charge, we'd be looking at an offense level around 35 --- 168 to 210 months.
    - Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
      Federal judges must calculate the guidelines and consider them when determining a sentence, but are not required to issue sentences within the guidelines. So I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a downward departure from the guidelines. I'm not saying I agree there should be a downward departure (imo, her pregnancy came across as a "Pregnancy Of Convenience"), just that there could be.
  - microtherion 5y ago
    A sentence of 10 years or longer seems excessive in my personal opinion as well, but I can't help thinking that the baby only entered the picture when she was already facing those criminal charges, so there might have been an element of calculation involved.
    - bruceb 5y ago
      She is in her late 30s, she was probably going to have a child either way, just good timing.
      - microtherion 5y ago
        True, her age may have factored into her decision.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I feel like having a baby when you know you have a high likelihood of going to jail is even more evidence of her selfish mindset.
        bruceb 5y ago
        the alternative is maybe never having a baby.
        creato 5y ago
        And? Never having a baby seems better than having a baby you won't be able to be a mother to for 10-20 years. It's not unlikely the kid would hate you when you get out of prison.
        bruceb 5y ago
        Ideal no, but she isn't going to be in prison 20 years, most likely not 10 either. Kid will be raised by father and family, won't be poor, and it is unlikely kid will hate his mom.
  - wdb 5y ago
    Why would having children be a factor? Would the same apply for a man with a young child?
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      you should expect leniency if you had a young child and it was a first time offense. I would also expect leniency if you got the child after you were charged, even though that implies people could just get kids to look for leniency, there is the idea that once someone gets a child they calm down and become more cautious. Maybe not so important in cases of non-violent, monetary crime. However as it is commonly thought in society, and backed up by science ( https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/o... ), that women take on a more nurturing role for the children and the absence of a mother would be more traumatizing (statistically, in the case of my son he freaks out if I leave but doesn't care much about the mother), the father can expect less leniency than a woman.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Why should having a child give any sort of leniency? Actually the aim of harming that child should increase the penalty. I believe in equality, giving discounts on crimes because family just seems absolutely unquestionably evil and immoral. If we really think of it, shouldn't single person get leniency because him being in jail doesn't hurt others. So that can be considered in thinking about planning of crime. As others clearly aimed to hurt their families and friends by getting in jail in first place.
  - PKop 5y ago
    Why would a woman get treated better just cause she's a woman?
    - WillPostForFood 5y ago
      Because you are now punishing her, and the child who will be deprived of a mother. <- not endorsing this, but that's what may be considered.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        abyssiana 5y ago
        “Acted an criminal act with aim to harm the child.” Don’t see anyone suing her for that one - as an evil human being, of course- except for online underdogs screaming “crusify her!”
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Well, because she's a rich white woman. If she were a poor black woman, having children would probably result in worse treatment. Having children after being charged might get her child taken away; clearly someone who has a child while facing significant prison time would be an unfit mother.
- budge 5y ago
  Agreed. Also the federal government is generally keen on appearing “tough on tech” these days
nakedshorts 5y ago
You do realize actual patients got completely wrong results on their blood tests, thereby potentially jeopardizing their ongoing treatment for pretty serious conditions? How is it a "non-violet" crime when we're talking about potentially killing patients due to fraud?
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  I agree with you from a moral perspective, and think that's far more important than the financial aspect. But she was convicted of other crimes. Perhaps the judge can factor that kind of thing into the sentencing; I'm not sure. In an ideal world (not that we live in anything resembling a perfect world) it seems to me that the harm you're talking about would be remedied in separate criminal and/or civil trials. Certainly, unless I'm mistaken, the victims of the fraudulent tests could still file civil suits. I'm not a lawyer, in case it wasn't blindingly clear.
  - md_ 5y ago
    She was charged with defrauding patients and acquitted of those charges!
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      Thank you for the correction.
- drexlspivey 5y ago
  > How is it a "non-violet" crime when we're talking about potentially killing patients due to fraud? Because words have meaning and fraud is non-violent no matter how much you stretch it
- voltagedivider 5y ago
KumoriNova 5y ago
"More than 10 years would be utterly barbaric." False. 65 years in prison would be a fair sentence for her. Homeless people in America have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100. Holmes stole an order of magnitude more than that. The US justice system needs to send a clear message to the would-be fraudsters that there are indeed some very serious penalties for being a criminal in this society.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Homeless people in America have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100. Holmes stole an order of magnitude more than that. No. SIX OR SEVEN orders of magnitude.
- 41b696ef1113 5y ago
  >Homeless people in American have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100 Using an existing injustice in the US to defend another does not make it right. I am no fan of Holmes or what she did, but locking away people for life is clearly not a winning strategy.
  - KumoriNova 5y ago
    I'm claiming Holmes is a criminal that deserves to be sentenced to the full extent of the law for the crimes she has committed. The US needs to hold criminals accountable for their actions. Otherwise we will continue to have a society full of criminals who exploit the justice system's leniency. 65 years in prison is completely fair for everything she did. In my opinion anyone who believes otherwise either doesn't care about the damage she has caused or doesn't fully understand the damage she has caused.
    - abyssiana 5y ago
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    >>Homeless people in American have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100 > > Using an existing injustice in the US to defend another does not make it right. While that is true, it is also true that the law must be fairly enforced on everyone. Having some people receive lighter sentences for similar-in-intent but larger-in-scale crimes is not fair enforcement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pharrington 5y ago
American prison terms, in general, are utterly barbaric. People can get 10 years for drug possession in this country. Our system is ludicrous, but within its current bounds, over 10 years would be just.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I'm no fan of Holmes, but what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades? “non-violent” criminals can do much more widespread damage individually than violent criminals are likely to, but are also more likely to be rationally deterrable with a sufficient consequences (which anything you'd willing gamble against the potential upside of the massive crime is not.)
- bee_rider 5y ago
  > “non-violent” criminals can do much more widespread damage individually than violent criminals are likely to How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like a difficult argument to support. In terms of human life, probably not, right? I mean hypothetically the investors could have gone on to spend their money on lifesaving ventures and charities but that seems like a roll of the dice.
  - danmaz74 5y ago
    Not saying this is the case for Holmes', but scams can definitely destroy people's lives. It's not just about being financially ruined - which isn't a small thing - but also the feeling of guilt associated with having fallen for the trick.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Are we allowed to include executives who lie about the dangers of tobacco, asbestos, climate change, or politicians and bureaucrats who lie about the evidence they use to justify wars, things of that nature -- all lies for profit which materially damaged others -- in the non-violent bucket to answer your question? They may not not technically be criminals because the government and judicial system protect this class of people, so in the interest of liability let's not allege they committed any crimes, but in the context of the the question yes white-collar or non-violent "whoopsie daisies" can do much more widespread damage.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      It does, I guess, technically answer my question in isolation. In the context of the broader discussion here, though I find it unsatisfying -- Holmes was specifically found guilty of defrauding the investors, and (as far as I've seen) acquitted of defrauding the patients. I don't think the main punishment for tobacco, etc company execs should be based around, hypothetically, ripping off investors (actually I guess their investors don't feel ripped off in many cases). The main victims, in the case of tobacco and asbestos, seem to be people who've essentially been poisoned. This ought to be considered a violent act in my opinion. Unfortunately the legal system seems to see it differently, so again you are correct, but again I'm left a bit unsatisfied...
PKop 5y ago
deterrence and punishment. it was pretty barbaric of her to screw with people's health and blood no?
- bambax 5y ago
  Deterrence doesn't work. And she was NOT convicted of screwing with people's health (she may or may not have -- but she was not found guilty of that).
  - PKop 5y ago
    >Deterrence doesn't work Absurd statement. Of course it does, if the punishment is harsh enough.
HWR_14 5y ago
> what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades? If you're stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, is anything less than a decade really a deterrent? Especially since sophisticated actors are the most likely to be deterred by long prison sentences. Heck, does it really do any good to lock up someone who comes home to find his wife cheating and kills her and her lover for 20-plus years? I would contend that locking up the white-collar criminal does more good. But I'll take on your specific example. Any crazy rich people out there, I will serve 5 years in a minimum security Western European prison for 143MM USD safely accruing interest in accounts for when I get out.
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  Wait, what, does she get to keep the money she fraudulently acquired?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I doubt she legally gets to keep all of it. In theory she probably cannot keep any, but if it's sufficiently hidden or already spent or given away it may be impossible to recover. The people she defrauded may accept recoverable cents on the dollar to get something back, and she may have access to more than she has to return.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Sorry to respond a second time, but another thought occurred to me. The frauds took place a while ago. Even if she had invested half in an index fund, she should still have 2x+ of the funds left. I don't know what if any interest is charged, but she might be able to repay the original investors at 110% and still make a tidy amount of cash, depending on what she did with the money.
- spockz 5y ago
  Here in school we learn that the chance to get actually caught is the primary deterrent and second the weight of the sentence in either monetary terms or time served. Because people are bad at estimating low probability and high outcome expected values. If you are old you might even not deterred at all by a very long sentence if there is only a small chance that you actually both get caught and have to serve the time.
x0x0 5y ago
Beyond stealing piles of money from investors, lying to people about medical treatments. Folks were making serious medical decisions with the results from their faked / half-assed tests. We should destroy her life for cavalierly playing around with other people's lives in that manner. Theranos intentionally destroyed the database of test results, but their clear goal was to yolo out medical tests. See eg [1] or [2] [1] https://mondaynote.com/theranos-trouble-a-first-person-account-1690b827539f https://mondaynote.com/theranos-trouble-a-first-person-accou... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/21/22687026/theranos-patient-bad-test-miscarriage-pregnancy https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/21/22687026/theranos-patient...
- bee_rider 5y ago
  She should absolutely be put on trial for playing with people's medical diagnoses. But that's not the crime she's been found guilty of yet, right? Hopefully screwing around with medical tests will have much more serious consequences than stealing money. Hopefully this was just the first step, and having her in jail will prevent her from tampering with the evidence for the more serious crimes. Hopefully we live in a society that values lives more than money...
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > She should absolutely be put on trial for playing with people's medical diagnoses She was, but she was acquitted on those charges.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      Was she? I saw that she was acquitted of defrauding patients, but surely handing out known bad diagnoses also has some consequences from a 'risking lives' viewpoint, right? Like if you order some bullets from a gun shop, and the guy delivers them by doing a drive-by on your house, surely the only legal problem for the deliveryman can't be "these bullets were a ripoff, the gunpowder is already expended!"
      - 5y ago
_moof 5y ago
It feels good. We absolutely love throwing people in prison for ridiculous lengths of time, because we are, for the most part, violent busybodies.
Ekaros 5y ago
10 years for 145 million seems cheap. I believe in linear sentencing. The time in prison should linearly scale with amount of damages done. Stealing 1000 vs 100 should result in 10x sentence. Stealing million vs ten thousand an hundred x.
danjac 5y ago
Agreed. Holmes is 37, so 65 years is a life sentence. From a European perspective, life sentences should be for people who are too dangerous to ever allow back into the community, or whose crimes are so monstrous society requires such retribution - terrorists, child killers, serial killers and so on. US sentencing appears very vindictive, not so much for trust-fund faildaughters but for people of colour arrested for minor drugs offences or under "three strikes" laws. Reminds me a lot of the "Bloody Code" of 18th century England.
azernik 5y ago
The US generally has much longer prison terms than most of the rest of the world. Compared to sentences for crimes of different/lesser severity in the US, more than 10 years is completely sane and, indeed, fair. If you have a problem with US sentencing culture, as a moral and a political issue you should probably not start with rich well-connected scammers.
odiroot 5y ago
It would be totally justified to cap it at 10 years in this case, provided she's forever banned from being an executive in any company. Not sure if it's compatible with US laws though.
Hendrikto 5y ago
Non-violent does not mean that she did not cause physical harm. People underwent invasive and unnecessary medical procedures as a direct result of Holmes‘ fraud.
P_I_Staker 5y ago
Well, frankly sentences in the USA are barbaric. We also have the habit of handing down terms that are impossible to satisfy, eg. for probation. They'll take away your drivers license then tell you to appear in several locations around town to avoid jail (btw a driving infraction isn't always necessary, although even if they did commit a DUI, that doesn't change the practical side). You'll get charged money and taken to jail for being too poor. It's not uncommon to resort to crime to raise money to pay the state to avoid jail. All that said, I would hope for at least 8-12 years, possibly more. I don't take that sentence lightly and consider it very harsh (I can't stand people from the USA that consider less than 5 years and "easy sentence"). 3 years is a serious sentence, and 8-12 is extremely harsh, for good reason. It's very important to me to call this like it is. There should be heavy handed punishment, because this is among our most serious crimes. She blatantly lied multiple times about a medical product. She had a team of enforcers harass people who tried to talk. Across the board, it was a very extreme case. More importantly, with so much at stake, these type of white collar crimes are quite frankly worth committing if the sentence is less than 5 years (I'm not sure the exact number, but it's at least 5). For a substantial portion of the population, having that kind of wealth and influence for a short time is worth it; in some cases, even if you die. So it might not deter everyone, but I do think the possibility of spending lots of time locked up, will stop a lot of gray area people. I also think it is necessary for fairness. I care about making these crimes "not worth it". At a certain point, you're basically letting people keep their ill gotten gains. Getting to be king for a decade, then go away for a year or two is no punishment at all. I don't think 10-20 years is necessarily inappropriate.

by mdoms 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

It'll be over 10 easy, because she burned a zillion dollars, and wire fraud sentences scale with losses.

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
The BBC said she faces upto 20 years, but predicts she will get a much lower sentence because she has no criminal history and she is a first time mother with a young child.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Google "federal sentence table". The "no criminal history" thing is directly expressed on the chart (she'll be sentenced from the first column); each cell in the table is a range of months, and the first-time mother thing might get her the lower end of that range. The crimes she's convicted of are so severely sentenced that it's hard to see her not getting double digit years. With all the charges grouped, including the conspiracy charge, we'd be looking at an offense level around 35 --- 168 to 210 months.
  - Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
    Federal judges must calculate the guidelines and consider them when determining a sentence, but are not required to issue sentences within the guidelines. So I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a downward departure from the guidelines. I'm not saying I agree there should be a downward departure (imo, her pregnancy came across as a "Pregnancy Of Convenience"), just that there could be.
- microtherion 5y ago
  A sentence of 10 years or longer seems excessive in my personal opinion as well, but I can't help thinking that the baby only entered the picture when she was already facing those criminal charges, so there might have been an element of calculation involved.
  - bruceb 5y ago
    She is in her late 30s, she was probably going to have a child either way, just good timing.
    - microtherion 5y ago
      True, her age may have factored into her decision.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I feel like having a baby when you know you have a high likelihood of going to jail is even more evidence of her selfish mindset.
        bruceb 5y ago
        the alternative is maybe never having a baby.
        creato 5y ago
        And? Never having a baby seems better than having a baby you won't be able to be a mother to for 10-20 years. It's not unlikely the kid would hate you when you get out of prison.
        bruceb 5y ago
        Ideal no, but she isn't going to be in prison 20 years, most likely not 10 either. Kid will be raised by father and family, won't be poor, and it is unlikely kid will hate his mom.
- wdb 5y ago
  Why would having children be a factor? Would the same apply for a man with a young child?
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    you should expect leniency if you had a young child and it was a first time offense. I would also expect leniency if you got the child after you were charged, even though that implies people could just get kids to look for leniency, there is the idea that once someone gets a child they calm down and become more cautious. Maybe not so important in cases of non-violent, monetary crime. However as it is commonly thought in society, and backed up by science ( https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/o... ), that women take on a more nurturing role for the children and the absence of a mother would be more traumatizing (statistically, in the case of my son he freaks out if I leave but doesn't care much about the mother), the father can expect less leniency than a woman.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Why should having a child give any sort of leniency? Actually the aim of harming that child should increase the penalty. I believe in equality, giving discounts on crimes because family just seems absolutely unquestionably evil and immoral. If we really think of it, shouldn't single person get leniency because him being in jail doesn't hurt others. So that can be considered in thinking about planning of crime. As others clearly aimed to hurt their families and friends by getting in jail in first place.
- PKop 5y ago
  Why would a woman get treated better just cause she's a woman?
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    Because you are now punishing her, and the child who will be deprived of a mother. <- not endorsing this, but that's what may be considered.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      - abyssiana 5y ago
        “Acted an criminal act with aim to harm the child.” Don’t see anyone suing her for that one - as an evil human being, of course- except for online underdogs screaming “crusify her!”
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Well, because she's a rich white woman. If she were a poor black woman, having children would probably result in worse treatment. Having children after being charged might get her child taken away; clearly someone who has a child while facing significant prison time would be an unfit mother.
budge 5y ago
Agreed. Also the federal government is generally keen on appearing “tough on tech” these days

nakedshorts 5y ago

You do realize actual patients got completely wrong results on their blood tests, thereby potentially jeopardizing their ongoing treatment for pretty serious conditions? How is it a "non-violet" crime when we're talking about potentially killing patients due to fraud?

JohnBooty 5y ago
I agree with you from a moral perspective, and think that's far more important than the financial aspect. But she was convicted of other crimes. Perhaps the judge can factor that kind of thing into the sentencing; I'm not sure. In an ideal world (not that we live in anything resembling a perfect world) it seems to me that the harm you're talking about would be remedied in separate criminal and/or civil trials. Certainly, unless I'm mistaken, the victims of the fraudulent tests could still file civil suits. I'm not a lawyer, in case it wasn't blindingly clear.
- md_ 5y ago
  She was charged with defrauding patients and acquitted of those charges!
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    Thank you for the correction.
drexlspivey 5y ago
> How is it a "non-violet" crime when we're talking about potentially killing patients due to fraud? Because words have meaning and fraud is non-violent no matter how much you stretch it
voltagedivider 5y ago

KumoriNova 5y ago

"More than 10 years would be utterly barbaric." False. 65 years in prison would be a fair sentence for her. Homeless people in America have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100. Holmes stole an order of magnitude more than that. The US justice system needs to send a clear message to the would-be fraudsters that there are indeed some very serious penalties for being a criminal in this society.

CRConrad 5y ago
> Homeless people in America have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100. Holmes stole an order of magnitude more than that. No. SIX OR SEVEN orders of magnitude.
41b696ef1113 5y ago
>Homeless people in American have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100 Using an existing injustice in the US to defend another does not make it right. I am no fan of Holmes or what she did, but locking away people for life is clearly not a winning strategy.
- KumoriNova 5y ago
  I'm claiming Holmes is a criminal that deserves to be sentenced to the full extent of the law for the crimes she has committed. The US needs to hold criminals accountable for their actions. Otherwise we will continue to have a society full of criminals who exploit the justice system's leniency. 65 years in prison is completely fair for everything she did. In my opinion anyone who believes otherwise either doesn't care about the damage she has caused or doesn't fully understand the damage she has caused.
  - abyssiana 5y ago
- lelanthran 5y ago
  >>Homeless people in American have been sentenced to over 15 years in prison for stealing $100 > > Using an existing injustice in the US to defend another does not make it right. While that is true, it is also true that the law must be fairly enforced on everyone. Having some people receive lighter sentences for similar-in-intent but larger-in-scale crimes is not fair enforcement.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pharrington 5y ago

American prison terms, in general, are utterly barbaric. People can get 10 years for drug possession in this country. Our system is ludicrous, but within its current bounds, over 10 years would be just.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I'm no fan of Holmes, but what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades? “non-violent” criminals can do much more widespread damage individually than violent criminals are likely to, but are also more likely to be rationally deterrable with a sufficient consequences (which anything you'd willing gamble against the potential upside of the massive crime is not.)

bee_rider 5y ago
> “non-violent” criminals can do much more widespread damage individually than violent criminals are likely to How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like a difficult argument to support. In terms of human life, probably not, right? I mean hypothetically the investors could have gone on to spend their money on lifesaving ventures and charities but that seems like a roll of the dice.
- danmaz74 5y ago
  Not saying this is the case for Holmes', but scams can definitely destroy people's lives. It's not just about being financially ruined - which isn't a small thing - but also the feeling of guilt associated with having fallen for the trick.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Are we allowed to include executives who lie about the dangers of tobacco, asbestos, climate change, or politicians and bureaucrats who lie about the evidence they use to justify wars, things of that nature -- all lies for profit which materially damaged others -- in the non-violent bucket to answer your question? They may not not technically be criminals because the government and judicial system protect this class of people, so in the interest of liability let's not allege they committed any crimes, but in the context of the the question yes white-collar or non-violent "whoopsie daisies" can do much more widespread damage.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    It does, I guess, technically answer my question in isolation. In the context of the broader discussion here, though I find it unsatisfying -- Holmes was specifically found guilty of defrauding the investors, and (as far as I've seen) acquitted of defrauding the patients. I don't think the main punishment for tobacco, etc company execs should be based around, hypothetically, ripping off investors (actually I guess their investors don't feel ripped off in many cases). The main victims, in the case of tobacco and asbestos, seem to be people who've essentially been poisoned. This ought to be considered a violent act in my opinion. Unfortunately the legal system seems to see it differently, so again you are correct, but again I'm left a bit unsatisfied...

PKop 5y ago

deterrence and punishment. it was pretty barbaric of her to screw with people's health and blood no?

bambax 5y ago
Deterrence doesn't work. And she was NOT convicted of screwing with people's health (she may or may not have -- but she was not found guilty of that).
- PKop 5y ago
  >Deterrence doesn't work Absurd statement. Of course it does, if the punishment is harsh enough.

HWR_14 5y ago

> what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades? If you're stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, is anything less than a decade really a deterrent? Especially since sophisticated actors are the most likely to be deterred by long prison sentences. Heck, does it really do any good to lock up someone who comes home to find his wife cheating and kills her and her lover for 20-plus years? I would contend that locking up the white-collar criminal does more good. But I'll take on your specific example. Any crazy rich people out there, I will serve 5 years in a minimum security Western European prison for 143MM USD safely accruing interest in accounts for when I get out.

henrikschroder 5y ago
Wait, what, does she get to keep the money she fraudulently acquired?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I doubt she legally gets to keep all of it. In theory she probably cannot keep any, but if it's sufficiently hidden or already spent or given away it may be impossible to recover. The people she defrauded may accept recoverable cents on the dollar to get something back, and she may have access to more than she has to return.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Sorry to respond a second time, but another thought occurred to me. The frauds took place a while ago. Even if she had invested half in an index fund, she should still have 2x+ of the funds left. I don't know what if any interest is charged, but she might be able to repay the original investors at 110% and still make a tidy amount of cash, depending on what she did with the money.
spockz 5y ago
Here in school we learn that the chance to get actually caught is the primary deterrent and second the weight of the sentence in either monetary terms or time served. Because people are bad at estimating low probability and high outcome expected values. If you are old you might even not deterred at all by a very long sentence if there is only a small chance that you actually both get caught and have to serve the time.

x0x0 5y ago

Beyond stealing piles of money from investors, lying to people about medical treatments. Folks were making serious medical decisions with the results from their faked / half-assed tests. We should destroy her life for cavalierly playing around with other people's lives in that manner. Theranos intentionally destroyed the database of test results, but their clear goal was to yolo out medical tests. See eg [1] or [2] [1] https://mondaynote.com/theranos-trouble-a-first-person-account-1690b827539f https://mondaynote.com/theranos-trouble-a-first-person-accou... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/21/22687026/theranos-patient-bad-test-miscarriage-pregnancy https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/21/22687026/theranos-patient...

bee_rider 5y ago
She should absolutely be put on trial for playing with people's medical diagnoses. But that's not the crime she's been found guilty of yet, right? Hopefully screwing around with medical tests will have much more serious consequences than stealing money. Hopefully this was just the first step, and having her in jail will prevent her from tampering with the evidence for the more serious crimes. Hopefully we live in a society that values lives more than money...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > She should absolutely be put on trial for playing with people's medical diagnoses She was, but she was acquitted on those charges.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Was she? I saw that she was acquitted of defrauding patients, but surely handing out known bad diagnoses also has some consequences from a 'risking lives' viewpoint, right? Like if you order some bullets from a gun shop, and the guy delivers them by doing a drive-by on your house, surely the only legal problem for the deliveryman can't be "these bullets were a ripoff, the gunpowder is already expended!"
    - 5y ago

_moof 5y ago

It feels good. We absolutely love throwing people in prison for ridiculous lengths of time, because we are, for the most part, violent busybodies.

Ekaros 5y ago

10 years for 145 million seems cheap. I believe in linear sentencing. The time in prison should linearly scale with amount of damages done. Stealing 1000 vs 100 should result in 10x sentence. Stealing million vs ten thousand an hundred x.

danjac 5y ago

Agreed. Holmes is 37, so 65 years is a life sentence. From a European perspective, life sentences should be for people who are too dangerous to ever allow back into the community, or whose crimes are so monstrous society requires such retribution - terrorists, child killers, serial killers and so on. US sentencing appears very vindictive, not so much for trust-fund faildaughters but for people of colour arrested for minor drugs offences or under "three strikes" laws. Reminds me a lot of the "Bloody Code" of 18th century England.

azernik 5y ago

The US generally has much longer prison terms than most of the rest of the world. Compared to sentences for crimes of different/lesser severity in the US, more than 10 years is completely sane and, indeed, fair. If you have a problem with US sentencing culture, as a moral and a political issue you should probably not start with rich well-connected scammers.

odiroot 5y ago

It would be totally justified to cap it at 10 years in this case, provided she's forever banned from being an executive in any company. Not sure if it's compatible with US laws though.

Hendrikto 5y ago

Non-violent does not mean that she did not cause physical harm. People underwent invasive and unnecessary medical procedures as a direct result of Holmes‘ fraud.

P_I_Staker 5y ago

Well, frankly sentences in the USA are barbaric. We also have the habit of handing down terms that are impossible to satisfy, eg. for probation. They'll take away your drivers license then tell you to appear in several locations around town to avoid jail (btw a driving infraction isn't always necessary, although even if they did commit a DUI, that doesn't change the practical side). You'll get charged money and taken to jail for being too poor. It's not uncommon to resort to crime to raise money to pay the state to avoid jail. All that said, I would hope for at least 8-12 years, possibly more. I don't take that sentence lightly and consider it very harsh (I can't stand people from the USA that consider less than 5 years and "easy sentence"). 3 years is a serious sentence, and 8-12 is extremely harsh, for good reason. It's very important to me to call this like it is. There should be heavy handed punishment, because this is among our most serious crimes. She blatantly lied multiple times about a medical product. She had a team of enforcers harass people who tried to talk. Across the board, it was a very extreme case. More importantly, with so much at stake, these type of white collar crimes are quite frankly worth committing if the sentence is less than 5 years (I'm not sure the exact number, but it's at least 5). For a substantial portion of the population, having that kind of wealth and influence for a short time is worth it; in some cases, even if you die. So it might not deter everyone, but I do think the possibility of spending lots of time locked up, will stop a lot of gray area people. I also think it is necessary for fairness. I care about making these crimes "not worth it". At a certain point, you're basically letting people keep their ill gotten gains. Getting to be king for a decade, then go away for a year or two is no punishment at all. I don't think 10-20 years is necessarily inappropriate.