3 ms·
> She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone She should be though. People had unnecessary and invasive medical treatment as a direct result pf
by Hendrikto 5y ago
> She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone
She should be though. People had unnecessary and invasive medical treatment as a direct result pf her fraud.
- kube-system 5y agoThe jury acquitted her of 4 counts regarding defrauding patients. She may have caused them civil harm, but that’s a different case than what was being considered here.
- HlessClaudesman 5y agoOr they didn't receive timely treatment because of her fraud. The actus reus is her fraud, the original criminal act, and having decided to do crimes she is also responsible for any harm caused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus In the US is it up to the harmed individuals or their surviving relatives to peruse this?