6 ms·

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child. Just

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• HyperSane 4y ago
  Shy cynically had that child because she wanted people to think exactly like you are doing.
  • bobowzki 4y ago
    How does that change anything from the child's perspective?
    • rurp 4y ago
      I don't think we should incentivise criminals to have more kids in these situations.
    • codegeek 4y ago
      It doesn't but if she gets a lenient sentence, the other guy should get the same. But we all know he won't (most likely). May be then it's a reasonable compromise.
      • akudha 4y ago
        The other guy is not female, white or blonde. Studies have shown that women get less punishment for the same crime than men. Same way, good looking criminals also get less punishment than not-good looking ones.
        • Ekaros 4y ago
          And this is why I believe justice system should be blind. The person's age, sex, gender, name, family status, religion and so on should be hidden from the jury and the judge. So that we can get fair treatment for everyone.
          • AdrianB1 4y ago
            • educaysean 4y ago
              But white people will?
          • from 4y ago
            If there's two drug traffickers convicted of selling 20 kilograms of cocaine, one came from the streets of Baltimore with no father and the other came from a supportive family in Long Island, should the sentence be the same? How about when immigrants from the former Soviet Union scam Medicare for $5 million and then at sentencing talk about how hard their childhood in Armenia Russia etc was to get a lower sentence? That's probably not fair either. There's no easy answer.
          • hunglee2 4y ago
            I think we should do the opposite - penalties should be sighted, and variable according to the person. i.e police officer committing a crime = harsher punishment than a homeless person trying to survive
      • FireBeyond 4y ago
        > May be then it's a reasonable compromise. What? It's a reasonable compromise that we punish the male in this situation more harshly than the female because he couldn't get himself pregnant during the trial? That's not reasonable in any sense of the word. Even less so when you read through all the details and realize that Elizabeth was not an abused, cowed underling of the Balwani mastermind, but an active, and in many cases, initiating and driving part of the crimes they committed. If that was the logic, Balwani would have a pretty solid grounds for appeal. "We're punishing you more because your co-conspirator has a kid now".
      • dev_tty01 4y ago
        Sorry, can't agree with that. Don't try to correct one mistake with another mistake. They both deserve the max, no reason to reduce his if hers is improperly reduced.
    • lern_too_spel 4y ago
      The child isn't going to be put in a group home. He lives in a $100 million Woodside estate, has a father and grandparents, and a team of nannies to raise him.
    • HyperSane 4y ago
      The fact that she is a mother should have no bearing on her sentence.
  • hunglee2 4y ago
    I think this may be true. How can we prevent the success of this strategy, without egregiously penalising the innocent - that is the challenge. It would be disappointing if we could not imagine a way to punish wrong doing, without knowingly doing further wrong doing!
    • HyperSane 4y ago
      The baby still has an extremely rich daddy. It will be fine.
• monkeytree 4y ago
  By this logic, having children provides immunity from punishment. Doesn't seem fair to me.
  • hunglee2 4y ago
    we simply need to be more creative in coming up with punishments. Perhaps we can look to Islamic jurisprudence here, rather than stick rigidly to custodial sentencing
• metadat 4y ago
  It is likely she only got pregnant as a manipulation tactic to elicit maximum sympathy from the legal system. The timing was all too convenient. The child is innocent but the mother is weaponizing her fetus and using it as a pawn. What is an appropriate answer or solution for the mother (ab)using the child as a hostage tactic? There are lots of thriving and competent single parents out there. The kid can live with and be raised by daddy. In fact, the father has so much money and resources there is no reason for this kid to ever want for anything.
  • sidewndr46 4y ago
    Less cynically it seems she was in a "now or never" type situation. Given her age, it's unlikely at the end of a decade long legal sentence she'd be able to have children any longer. I obviously don't know anything personally about Mrs. Holmes, but given her husband's wealth she can be assured any children she has will be provided for even if she is in prison for the rest of her life.
    • metadat 4y ago
      Why would one feel the need to squeeze out a kid right before entering the prison system? How is this good, considerate, or fair to your child?
      • sidewndr46 4y ago
        I already stated I have no idea as to her motivations. My point is, it isn't like the kid is going to wind up in foster care. The worst case is that her child is raised by her husband and his incredibly wealthy family. Given the circumstances (possibly spending the rest of your life in jail), who wouldn't take that option?
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
      • kube-system 4y ago
        Maybe, just possibly, Holmes was acting out of self interest and wasn't considering the affects on others.
• fasthands9 4y ago
  I think you can argue about the efficacy of deterrence/justice but it seems wrong to judge any sentence based on the person and their family as the focus. There are zero individuals for whom a sentence would help - but if you had no (or greatly reduced) sentences for all crime then society as a whole could suffer. In this case it seems even more obviously bad to factor this since she got pregnant when she knew she was going to trial and likely to be convicted. Some even say the defense team wanted her pregnant for the trial. If the rule is "if you have a baby you don't have to go to jail" what type of moral hazard is this?
  • Avicebron 4y ago
    Not sure on the modern context nowadays, but historically "pleading the belly" defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleading_the_belly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleading_the_belly existed in English common law.
  • hunglee2 4y ago
    thanks for the well thought out reply! this case got me thinking, clearly Holmes needs to be punished for wrong doing, clearly there also needs to be a deterrence, and yet the trade off in damaging the life of an innocent seems unnecessary for me. What kind of penalty would serve the first two aims yet not result on the third?
    • fasthands9 4y ago
      Are we even sure that a child would be better off with a woman who is a pathological liar? You could easily argue the type of woman who would choose to get pregnant when staring down a ten year prison sentence is exactly the type of woman who would not be a good mother. I would still argue you are to fixated on the singular case of the child. The harm Holmes did here effected hundreds if not tens of thousands of people extremely negatively (think of all the years/funding for bio research thrown down the toilet) and any future deterrence of behavior like this is worth it.
• rahimnathwani 4y ago
  Should you apply the same reasoning to any person with a young child? What if someone doesn't have a child when they're arrested but, due to the complexity of the case, they're able to get pregnant and have a baby before sentencing? That would be a good way to avoid prison, no?
  • hunglee2 4y ago
    Sharia law may be the answer - no set laws for punishment, we customise it according the individual case. Prison only is a brute instrument, a failure of imagination
    • misiti3780 4y ago
      what does Sharia have to do with this ?
    • rahimnathwani 4y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't see how this is relevant to the points I raised. Specifically: - do you advocate for the same lenience for all parents of young children (including e.g. those convicted of violent crimes)? - do you advocate for the same lenience for people who become parents between arrest and sentencing?
• Ekaros 4y ago
  Getting a child is personal choice and in my mind maybe even perhaps should always result in harsher sentence as clearly person did bad thinks knowing that they had a child.
• codegeek 4y ago
  Yes but then where is the line ? Almost every violent criminal (murderer, rapist etc) may have a family/child/parent to take care of. Are you suggesting they all should get off easy ? or Are you saying that Holmes's crime is not as heinous ?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ozzythecat 4y ago
  > Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child. If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example? Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image? My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.
  • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image? How do you know a 16-year old single mother will create apropriate atmosphere? Should we perhaps mandate abortions to anyone who hasn't passed an exam and hasn't been issued a breeding licence? The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.
    • ozzythecat 4y ago
      > The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty. Nobody is talking about 16 year olds or abortions. Are you sure you’re not deliberately changing the topic and really are debating in good faith? Why do you believe it’s appropriate to compare a random 16 year old with a convicted criminal, who is awaiting sentencing? > a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty And no one is arguing against that. You’re making a straw man argument.
      • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        It is revolting to read that people are considering, what if we arbitrarilly take away intrinsic rights of a person? Well, if you can question innate right in this situation, maybe you can question them in other situations too? Then do we even have rights, to parenting, family life an others? For a crime you render the punishment as prescribed in law, no more, no less.
• rdtsc 4y ago
  Why start the reform or have exceptions for her child and not the children of other convicted people? That why does her child get that benefit, and not other children of incarcerated parents, perhaps someone who is poor and didn't get to run $10B companies in their life. Start there, let's help those children first, and then we'll get to her child too, eventually.
• perihelions 4y ago
  I've staked my [vouch]ing privileges on this flagged comment, which is civil and on-topic and and isn't in apparent violation of any rules. The world could stand to use more empathy. If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother, we are broken humans in need of repair.
  • oxfordmale 4y ago
    What about a child being torn away from the father? Or a loyal dog being torn away from their beloved owner? If Elizabeth Holmes had succeeded in her endeavour her child would likely have been raised by a nanny
  • FireBeyond 4y ago
    > If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother "Due _entirely_ to the conscious, calculated, criminal and repeated actions of their mother" is quite the caveat to your statement, no? There are many many loving homes. The child's father is absolutely capable of raising the child, no? What you're actually asking for is empathy for this child ("who did nothing wrong") over empathy for the victims of criminal activity (who also "did nothing wrong").
• etrautmann 4y ago
  Yep - definitely not a good take, just piling on with the sensible responses to this. We cannot subvert justice on something of this magnitude, and this isn’t how the system should work for reasons articulated by others here.
  • hunglee2 4y ago
    no one is arguing for subversion of justice. Holmes needs to be punished and made an example of as a deterrent to others. Can there be a way of doing this without egregiously damaging the life of the child, which 15 year imprisonment of the mother surely would? Lets think about it, what could we come up with?
    • etrautmann 4y ago
      It’s not obvious to me - what would you suggest?
• renewiltord 4y ago
  1400 prison pregnancies a year but this is the one that triggers leniency. I wonder what the selection mechanism is. Merely the news worthiness of the case, perhaps. Should we apply the categorical imperative?
• bombcar 4y ago
  Her child is innocent, of course, and should be as protected from everything as possible. However he is young and shouldn't be prevented from visiting mommy in prison, but that doesn't mean society has to let mommy go (or even do a reduced sentence or an alternate sentence). Many, many, many children already lose a parent to crime (either by them being murdered or them being the murderer).
  • hunglee2 4y ago
    these are all tragedies and in which case create more criminals. Isn't the point of a criminal system to prevent crime, rather than seed future crime?
    • bombcar 4y ago
      People may say that’s the purpose but it’s pretty clearly revenge for a vast majority of the public (or why would anyone care about some girl defrauding old rich guys?)
• gist 4y ago
  > and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.
• bongoman37 4y ago
  [dead]