Of course she's guilty and should get a long prison sentence. But is it realistic to assume founders will self-police given the pressures? Or should we expect

Of course she's guilty and should get a long prison sentence. But is it realistic to assume founders will self-police given the pressures? Or should we expect investors to look at these BIG WARNING SIGNS and do more due diligence??? Seriously, having no subject matter experts on the board etc is ridiculous and all the valley insiders knew it. One call to her thesis advisor is all the due diligence they needed to do. Put another way, is the next Elizabeth Holmes going to be deterred by her prison sentence? Was she deterred by Bernie Madoff or 100s of others? Again obviously they just wanted to nail her on something and didn't have enough evidence for the reason crime, which was lying to end users about their healthcare. And obviously it's illegal and bad and wrong to lie to investors duh. I'm just saying that perhaps we shouldn't use self-policing or the courts to solve the startup-investor-fraud problem because they're (a) ineffective, (b) we have other & better ways to solve this, (c) solution b leads to the more efficient market and therefore the greater innovation and therefore wins.