4 ms·

I'll just be honest. I'm fully aware of all the fraud Holmes committed, I've read the book, etc. She deserves prison. But as a juror I'd have a very hard tim

I'll just be honest. I'm fully aware of all the fraud Holmes committed, I've read the book, etc. She deserves prison. But as a juror I'd have a very hard time sending a mother of two very young children to prison for the rest of her life, for a crime that did not (albeit by luck) result in any physical harm. It no longer just impacts only her. I'm not trying to justify this position in in any legal sense. It is what it is.

zippergz 4y ago
Cynically I almost wonder if one of her reasons for having kids was to play into exactly this line of thinking. She knew prison time was a possibility, and she made her choice.
- wellthisisgreat 4y ago
  Can there be any doubt that it was that?
  - apetresc 4y ago
    Yes, there can be lots of doubt. Women have been known, in the past, to have children even without the threat of a prison sentence.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  It might. But she's 38, and she may have decided that even an 8-10 year sentence would make it impossible for her to have children later, so did it now while she's free.
  - tsol 4y ago
    >But she's 38, and she may have decided that even an 8-10 year sentence would make it impossible for her to have children later, so did it now while she's free. That's her decision to make, no one can stop her or anything, though that also means only very rarely seeing your child for the first 8-10 years of their life.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      As a parent who doesn't enjoy young children, honestly being able to jump in at the less physically demanding ages (like 5+) sounds like a dream, if somehow it can be navigated while still paying top people to take care of them (her family can) and have them not hate you. For the first couple years with a kid I thought about how prison would have had a lot more freedom than parenthood, and yes I've been locked in a cell before (although not for years). If you get tossed in a cell with chill people it's honestly way more peaceful than a baby/toddler. If Holmes actually wanted kids IMO it does seem like the stars align for her to do it now while the sociopathic upsides are at their maximum. There's a decent chance the baby will be shrieking in someone's face while she peacefully sleeps in minimum security bunk. She likely won't experience the tantrums, the worst of the sleepless nights, changing diapers, potty training, the worst years of illness and communicable disease, and when she emerges her children will be semi-rational beings capable of logic and physically durable and possibly even independent enough to be left alone briefly while she goes on a trip to the store or a run.
      - bpodgursky 4y ago
        I wouldn't go this far, but I do overall agree that you can come into a child's life at 5+, or even 10+, and still have a very meaningful relationship with them. So I really don't blame her for trying to give herself that chance.
        notch656a 4y ago
        It's mind blowing to me she hasn't run, TBH. In 20 years (the likely most she could get) she will be 58 and the kids will be gone. She could probably live in an extremely backward 3rd world shithole under an assumed name and have some chance at escaping justice at least long enough to not miss the entirety of the rest of her youth. She must think she's going to get a short sentence.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        At 38, she's not going to miss much of her youth anyway. She's going to miss her kids being young, but running away wouldn't fix that unless she runs away with them in tow. But doing that would be much harder than running away alone, and it would fuck up her kids lives as well. As it stands, the kids will be relatively fine, the father's family is apparently wealthy. Dragging them into a life on the run in 3rd world shitholes would be doing those kids a great disservice.
exhilaration 4y ago
prison for the rest of her life LOL, she's looking at what, an 18 month sentence? Of which she'll serve maybe half?
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  * Everyone serves at least 85% on federal terms. You don't get off with half unless you are pardoned. * She faces maximum charges of many decades in prison. It's unlikely, but you can't count on a short sentence. 10 years is not at all impossible.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    As I've said elsewhere: I'm ready to put my money on the line for "18 months." Buying it on a prediction market would be the most straightforward way to do this: https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/ https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/ but I don't think they have a contract for "likely prison term for Elizabeth Holmes." Maybe in the UK you can buy that?
paxys 4y ago
Well it's a good thing then that jurors don't decide sentencing. They only have to declare her guilty (which they did). The factors you mention are for a judge to consider.
layer8 4y ago
Alternatively, depending on what kind of person she really is, the children might actually be better off without her. We also don’t want to encourage people with criminal energy to have more children in order to increase their chances of more favorable sentences.
andirk 4y ago
The fact that no patients were harmed, or as I understand it, in any way exposed to potential harm, her case seems common: someone promotes their new idea before they get it off the ground, fake it til they make it. Her tech didn't make it and then she lied a bunch. I don't see what years in prison solves. She is of literally no harm to society so as long as you keep her away from healthcare and money.
jrochkind1 4y ago
I sympathize with finding it hard to send anyone to prison. It's interesting to me that "physical harm" is your line, though. Why? Any physical harm, or only some level of severe physical harm?
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  I dunno that I have a firm principle here. I'm just trying to gauge "What's the actual risk to society she poses if not in prison?" "Physical harm" vs "wasting investor money" just feels categorically different in a meaningful way to me.
walkhour 4y ago
As a juror you're not being asked whether she should go to prison considering she's a mother of two children, that's s different question. You're being asked whether she's guilty of the crimes she's accused of.

zippergz 4y ago

Cynically I almost wonder if one of her reasons for having kids was to play into exactly this line of thinking. She knew prison time was a possibility, and she made her choice.

wellthisisgreat 4y ago
Can there be any doubt that it was that?
- apetresc 4y ago
  Yes, there can be lots of doubt. Women have been known, in the past, to have children even without the threat of a prison sentence.
bpodgursky 4y ago
It might. But she's 38, and she may have decided that even an 8-10 year sentence would make it impossible for her to have children later, so did it now while she's free.
- tsol 4y ago
  >But she's 38, and she may have decided that even an 8-10 year sentence would make it impossible for her to have children later, so did it now while she's free. That's her decision to make, no one can stop her or anything, though that also means only very rarely seeing your child for the first 8-10 years of their life.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    As a parent who doesn't enjoy young children, honestly being able to jump in at the less physically demanding ages (like 5+) sounds like a dream, if somehow it can be navigated while still paying top people to take care of them (her family can) and have them not hate you. For the first couple years with a kid I thought about how prison would have had a lot more freedom than parenthood, and yes I've been locked in a cell before (although not for years). If you get tossed in a cell with chill people it's honestly way more peaceful than a baby/toddler. If Holmes actually wanted kids IMO it does seem like the stars align for her to do it now while the sociopathic upsides are at their maximum. There's a decent chance the baby will be shrieking in someone's face while she peacefully sleeps in minimum security bunk. She likely won't experience the tantrums, the worst of the sleepless nights, changing diapers, potty training, the worst years of illness and communicable disease, and when she emerges her children will be semi-rational beings capable of logic and physically durable and possibly even independent enough to be left alone briefly while she goes on a trip to the store or a run.
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      I wouldn't go this far, but I do overall agree that you can come into a child's life at 5+, or even 10+, and still have a very meaningful relationship with them. So I really don't blame her for trying to give herself that chance.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        It's mind blowing to me she hasn't run, TBH. In 20 years (the likely most she could get) she will be 58 and the kids will be gone. She could probably live in an extremely backward 3rd world shithole under an assumed name and have some chance at escaping justice at least long enough to not miss the entirety of the rest of her youth. She must think she's going to get a short sentence.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        At 38, she's not going to miss much of her youth anyway. She's going to miss her kids being young, but running away wouldn't fix that unless she runs away with them in tow. But doing that would be much harder than running away alone, and it would fuck up her kids lives as well. As it stands, the kids will be relatively fine, the father's family is apparently wealthy. Dragging them into a life on the run in 3rd world shitholes would be doing those kids a great disservice.

exhilaration 4y ago

prison for the rest of her life LOL, she's looking at what, an 18 month sentence? Of which she'll serve maybe half?

bpodgursky 4y ago
* Everyone serves at least 85% on federal terms. You don't get off with half unless you are pardoned. * She faces maximum charges of many decades in prison. It's unlikely, but you can't count on a short sentence. 10 years is not at all impossible.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  As I've said elsewhere: I'm ready to put my money on the line for "18 months." Buying it on a prediction market would be the most straightforward way to do this: https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/ https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/ but I don't think they have a contract for "likely prison term for Elizabeth Holmes." Maybe in the UK you can buy that?

paxys 4y ago

Well it's a good thing then that jurors don't decide sentencing. They only have to declare her guilty (which they did). The factors you mention are for a judge to consider.

layer8 4y ago

Alternatively, depending on what kind of person she really is, the children might actually be better off without her. We also don’t want to encourage people with criminal energy to have more children in order to increase their chances of more favorable sentences.

andirk 4y ago

The fact that no patients were harmed, or as I understand it, in any way exposed to potential harm, her case seems common: someone promotes their new idea before they get it off the ground, fake it til they make it. Her tech didn't make it and then she lied a bunch. I don't see what years in prison solves. She is of literally no harm to society so as long as you keep her away from healthcare and money.

jrochkind1 4y ago

I sympathize with finding it hard to send anyone to prison. It's interesting to me that "physical harm" is your line, though. Why? Any physical harm, or only some level of severe physical harm?

bpodgursky 4y ago
I dunno that I have a firm principle here. I'm just trying to gauge "What's the actual risk to society she poses if not in prison?" "Physical harm" vs "wasting investor money" just feels categorically different in a meaningful way to me.

walkhour 4y ago

As a juror you're not being asked whether she should go to prison considering she's a mother of two children, that's s different question. You're being asked whether she's guilty of the crimes she's accused of.