12 ms·

If we're talking about financial damage done this sentencing still feels exceedingly light. We have a real double standard - there are people in jail for longe

• tptacek 4y ago
  A federal 10 year sentence is a very severe punishment. There's virtually no parole federally; once you're in, you're in.
  • the-printer 4y ago
    If her stay in “the Feds” is anything like the experiences I’ve heard of from people who are not her gender nor her race, it’s quite possible that she’ll be giving lectures in the Metaverse by 2026.
    • KerrAvon 4y ago
      I'm a native English speaker and I'm having trouble parsing this. Could you clarify?
      • martinald 4y ago
        • tptacek 4y ago
          No.
          • fuckstick 4y ago
        • the-printer 4y ago
          No, I meant “from people” not “for people” but thanks cause I didn’t know I had a typo. I do not mean that she’ll be out. I never knew for sure until it was mentioned that there’s no parole in the Feds, but I’ve never heard of anyone paroling out of the Feds before anyhow. But I can imagine a scenario where someone can put a few dollars “on her books” so she can pay a guard to smuggle an iPhone in to her.
      • the-printer 4y ago
        From what I’ve been told, compared to the State penitentiaries, the Feds is relatively easy. Using this is a reference, for a person like Elizabeth Holmes, I reckon that 11 years will not be as punishing as the person I am responding to imagines. If anything, at some point, she may be given access (either legally or illegally) to a smartphone device that will enable her to interact with the outside world (as is very common in prison, the phones aren’t cheap but I don’t think she’d have trouble getting a hold of one).
        • hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
          > From what I’ve been told, compared to the State penitentiaries, the Feds is relatively easy. I mean, "relatively easy" doesn't mean it's a cake walk, especially since in the US many State systems are barbarically abusive. She will be in prison with an extremely regimented schedule, being told exactly what to do. Correct, she's probably not going to need to join a gang for protection, but it is still nearly 10 years in lockup assuming she gets maximum good behavior credits.
          • the-printer 4y ago
            Yes 11 years of your life is 11 years of your life, but in reality a woman like her, with her (deviated) skill set and profile, can easily handle it in a manner that will convince the average person that she got off lightly. People who are less educated and have less influence are capable of pulling off what I’ve been describing (getting a cellphone and going on Facebook/Meta) while in Federal prison.
          • bdavis__ 4y ago
            It will be far less regimented than lets say, joining the army. Up at 5AM, stand for the count. Report to prison job for a couple of hours a day. 5pm, in your cell, standing for the count. Lights out at 10pm. You can exercise, go to the library, watch TV, play cards, whatever is available during most of the day.
        • iudqnolq 4y ago
          No such thing as legal smartphone in federal prison. Also remember she's not going to be rich anymore.
    • teachrdan 4y ago
      This is completely wrong. Prisoners in the federal prison system must serve at least 90% of their sentence. Holmes will not be getting out -- or have unfettered internet access -- anytime before late 2032 at the soonest.
      • the-printer 4y ago
        Define “unfettered” in this context. And I wasn’t implying that she’d be free.
        • iudqnolq 4y ago
          Access to an email-like system for a per-minute fee. No other internet access. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrlinks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrlinks
          • the-printer 4y ago
            There are. Cell phones. In. Prisons. People who have never even seen a fraction of the wealth that Elizabeth Holmes defrauded people out of are able to get them. She can very well wind up on a Web3 social platform anonymously by 2027, trading crypto while funding SciHub.
            • iudqnolq 4y ago
              "unfettered" != "potentially available if you're willing to break the law"
              • the-printer 4y ago
                We are talking about the penitentiary here, chap.
              • lostlogin 4y ago
                Pretty much single person there was willing to break the law, by definition. So if going down the slightly-less-legal route, the below story was pretty neat. A hacked together prison computer, network attached. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/inmates-built-computers-hidden-in-ceiling-connected-them-to-prison-network/amp/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/inmates-built-co...
  • tenpies 4y ago
    However, the Presidential pardon is available for federal convictions. Conveniently: Vice President (at the time) Biden, knew Elizabeth and even visited Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes held fundraisers for Hillary Clinton with Chelsea Clinton. Just recently, a prominent Democrat Senator was asking for leniency on her sentencing. I would be supremely surprised if she is not pardoned before the end of Biden's term(s).
    • superfrank 4y ago
      I'd honestly be shocked if Biden pardoned her. She's a household name at this point and everyone knows she's a con artist and a fraud. Biden gains very little by pardoning her and the media would have a field day going after him if he does. It would hurt the entire Democratic party if he pardoned Holmes. The only way I see him pardoning her is if he loses the 2024 election and has some sort of fall out with the Democratic party that causes him to go scorched earth, and I don't both of those happening.
      • rdtwo 4y ago
        Why not all sorts of rich scoundrels get pardoned once a president leaves
        • superfrank 4y ago
          Because she's a household name. "President pardons Elizabeth Holmes" and "President pardons Sholam Weiss" are very different headlines. Only one of those will draw public outrage, despite the fact that Elizabeth Holmes was sentences to 11 years and Weiss was sentenced to 845 years. I'm fairly certain that no one would care about the second headline because Trump pardoned Weiss a few years ago and no one said shit.
          • LeroyRaz 4y ago
            Googling it, Sholam Weiss served 20+ years of a 825 year!! sentence for a fraud that sounds comparable to Holmes'. He died two months after release too from a stroke
• WalterBright 4y ago
  11 years is a heavy sentence. The sentences for possession are what are wrong.
  • munk-a 4y ago
    Between you and the very similar sibling comment from micromacrofoot I've edited my original statement. I completely agree with what you both are saying and wanted to clarify that I was highlighting the contrast between these sentences not advocating for draconian prison sentences for everyone.
  • jasonhansel 4y ago
    Honestly, I don't see how an 11-year sentence would have much more of a deterrent effect on others than, say, a 3-year one. She doesn't seem likely to reoffend, and it's not like her time in jail will pay back the people she defrauded. It seems like this sentence (like many others in our judicial system) is based more on retribution than anything else.
    • LilBytes 4y ago
      Deterance is the outcome the courts were hoping for here.
    • andirk 4y ago
      She hurt money, especially of super wealthy people, and in this country, that is the biggest crime. Furthermore, enhancing someone's sentence to scare the next person is not justice. That's sacrificial and gross.
      • falcor84 4y ago
        Are you arguing against the whole idea of deterrence?
        • shapefrog 4y ago
          You wrote a silly comment, the normal punishment is a downvote, but as we want to deter others from doing so we will execute you.
• micromacrofoot 4y ago
  This is the right sentiment, but maybe a little backwards, people shouldn't be in jail for possession.
• heliodor 4y ago
  And there are people in prison doing less time for murder. We fail to reflect that 11 years in prison is a really long and miserable time.
  • tptacek 4y ago
    Virtually all of them are convicted in state courts and under state sentencing systems. Most states have mandatory minimums for 1st degree murder, and those minimums are much higher than Holmes' sentence; second-degree murder usually admits a huge range of sentences, which captures the variety of circumstances that might attend an unplanned killing.
    • sidewndr46 4y ago
      "Virtually" - is murder even a federal crime in the United States?
      • tptacek 4y ago
        Yes, it is. For instance, if you deliberately murder a senator. 18 USC 111. I think a bunch of different kinds of federal crimes (like major drug crimes) will also port their accompanying murder charges to federal court.
      • dragonwriter 4y ago
        > "Virtually" - is murder even a federal crime in the United States? Yes, but the general federal murder law (18 USC § 1111) only applies in the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”. A lot of federal felonies have, in place of a general federal felony murder rule, a distinct crime or enhanced punishment when death is involved and deliberately killing certain federal officials is also a federal crime.
      • bombcar 4y ago
        Many things can move murder to federal court (hence, "make a federal case of it") including crossing state lines and various other federal offenses.
• kilroy123 4y ago
  I don't think this is light at all. 10 years in prison is no joke. I actually thought she would only get 3-4 years.
  • stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Yeah I didn't think a day over 3 years.
    • Cupertino95014 4y ago
      I'm on record for "18 months" and that error is costing me $10. But it's to a good cause.
• Ndmmddnd 4y ago
  This is absolutely false
• z9znz 4y ago
  The possession charges are part of a concerted effort beginning in the 1980s "war on drugs" to provide reliable income for the budding private prison industry. It was a hugely successful campaign that has done irreperable damage to the US at the individual level as well as the broad public/financial level. Poor people cannot afford to defend themselves, so they make easy targets for incarceration. Wealthy or connected people take much more time and effort to imprison, so the risk vs reward for prosecutors is just not worth it in most cases. You have to _really_ piss off or embarrass a lot of powerful people to get taken down like this current case.
  • gruez 4y ago
    >The possession charges are part of a concerted effort beginning in the 1980s "war on drugs" to provide reliable income for the budding private prison industry. Source? I checked wikipedia and it suggests that it was the other way around. The article on war on drugs also doesn't show much developments around the 80s. Most of the changes were in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Development_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Development_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#20th_century
    • TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      > The article on war on drugs also doesn't show much developments around the 80s I can’t speak to the private prison stuff, but having grown up in the 80s in the US, I can tell you that the Wikipedia article is not complete for the 80s. There was an enormous anti drug push at the time, culminating in 1989. It was everywhere in the culture that I experienced. Maybe a backlash to the popularity of cocaine at the time, I don’t know. We even had video games displaying “say no to drugs” in attract mode https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Don%27t_Use_Drugs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Don%27t_Use_Drugs
      • gruez 4y ago
        >I can’t speak to the private prison stuff, but having grown up in the 80s in the US, I can tell you that the Wikipedia article is not complete for the 80s. >There was an enormous anti drug push at the time, culminating in 1989. It was everywhere in the culture that I experienced. Maybe a backlash to the popularity of cocaine at the time, I don’t know. Maybe that's just biased by your memories? If you came of age in the 80s, you're obviously not going to remember all the anti-drug/tough on crime stuff that happened in the 70s. Note that just because that there weren't many developments in the 80s, doesn't mean that they weren't doing anti-drug programs in your school. It just means that the relevant policies were already enacted. The wikipedia article for "tough on crime" also shows a similar timeline. Crime became a political issue well before the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order
• wilsonnb3 4y ago
  Seems excessive to me. I don't really care about people conning rich people into parting with their money, especially when they don't bother to do basic due diligence before hand.
  • moab 4y ago
    It wasn’t just rich people. What about the patients that were lied to? The employees?
    • wilsonnb3 4y ago
      She didn’t get charged or convicted for that as far as I am aware
      • shapefrog 4y ago
        Charged, tried and not guilty. "Holmes was acquitted on three charges relating to patients who received inaccurate test results but found guilty on four charges, including one count of conspiracy to defraud investors and three counts of wire fraud against investors."
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • lazide 4y ago
    Let’s put things in perspective. A typical median families income was approx. $70k in 2021. That covers multiple people, and in general across the US is enough to pay for housing, schooling, medical care, etc. A lifetime of that (inflation adjusted) is usually enough for someone to retire somewhere. If you take the 48 years from 18 to social security retirement age of 66, that would make a median lifetimes earnings $3,360,000 in 2021 dollars. Holmes got nearly $1bln from investors in the Theranos mess, which is 297 lifetimes worth of median earnings, which considering that directly maps to someone (or multiple someones) working hard for that time, can be consider ‘life’s works’. She was convicted of fraud on at least $140 million of wire transfers out of that, or ‘only’ 41 life’s works. While 11 years is a long time, the destruction of value done is nothing to scoff at. With decent leadership, 300 people working for their entire lives could accomplish a lot of great things. Of course, it could also be blown on crypto scams and lambos. It’s not a perfect comparison.
• Natsu 4y ago
  > If we're talking about financial damage done this sentencing still feels exceedingly light. They gave her a sentence that's a little below the federal sentencing guidelines but not by a huge amount.
• partiallypro 4y ago
  People do not serve that long of sentences for mere possession. That's an exaggeration. I want legalization, but for mere possession you do not get that type of sentence. If someone is serving that for possession, it's one of many charges, a repeat offender attached to a bigger crime, or possession of a very large amount (into the pounds). I think most cases you hear about are someone that had a felony before (such as burglary) and then was caught with possession later on. It's not right, it shouldn't happen...but that's not -just- possession.
  • bombcar 4y ago
    Also, in many cases there are X crimes, including possession, and the plea is to take guilty on possession and not get charged with the others.
  • Trufa 4y ago
    https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp18.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp18.pdf Checks out. It's pretty insane to me still spending a year in prison for possession. Since I come from a country where possession has always be decriminalized, just thinking that some of my behavior could land me in jail is mind bending.
  • seattle_spring 4y ago
    Can you share a citation for your claims? They're completely counter to what I've heard, and even seen firsthand. If anything, I would bet there are people who got busted for simple possession and then had fake charges tacked on to increase their punishment.
    • whimsicalism 4y ago
      Not for sentencing timelines, but virtually nobody (less than 0.5% of all drug offenders) doing federal prison for drugs is in there for mere possession. [0] [0]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12_sum.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12_sum.pdf
      • 4y ago
• matsemann 4y ago
  And am I also understanding correct that this is for fraud of the investors. But that fraud of the patients getting wrong results was ok and not punished? Aka don't mess with rich people.
• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It is hard to compare financial damage to other types of crimes. They are inherently apples and oranges. That is to say, there is no quantitative to compare harm from billions of fraud to getting kids hooked on crack.
  • soperj 4y ago
    I mean, you could be the Sacklers and do both?
    • munk-a 4y ago
      Yea but crime is a lot like a game of hearts - if you shoot the moon then you're not punished at all.
  • usednet 4y ago
    The problem is there is a quantitative to compare the punishments for each crime. As such we cannot just throw our hands up and say they are incomparable, we have to compare them to the best of our ability.
    • s1artibartfast 4y ago
      why exactly do we have to compare them? The relevant question is does the punishment fit the crime. How the punishment stacks up against other crimes and punishments doesn't matter.
• memish 4y ago
  Should either be in jail at all? They aren't a physical threat and anything Elizabeth does now will be watched like a hawk. Same with SBF. Just garnish their income for life or until they make their victims whole.
  • flatiron 4y ago
    There has to be some punishment. If I steal $100 from you and the risk is I get caught and all I would have to do is give it back then there would be a lot more white collar crime.
    • bombcar 4y ago
      Exactly - taking away freedom is really the only penalty you can apply to white collar crime, or the risk/reward would be grossly in favor of committing the crime - even income garnishments can't push you to absolute zero.
      • Laforet 4y ago
        Before modern bankruptcy laws, it was common for people who owe a lot of money to go to debtor's prison (and this still happens in some parts of the world with more archaic legal systems). At a glance it may seem contradictory since locking someone up would probably preclude any chance the debtor might have to make money towards the debt but the optics of getting punished for wrongdoing is clearly more important here.
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > aren't a physical threat and anything Elizabeth does now will be watched like a hawk Wasn't she trying to raise money for a start-up while on trial? > Same with SBF Isn't he trying to raise money right now?
  • hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    This stance is absolutely baffling to me. Just goes to show how our attitudes towards white collar crime (which is orders of magnitude more lucrative than most petty crime) are grossly out of proportion to the harm they cause compared to, say, a car thief.
• stjohnswarts 4y ago
  People get less for murder and rape at the state level all the time.
• mkoubaa 4y ago
  I would agree. 11 years seems light for something of this magnitude, even if you don't consider possession sentences.
  • Litost 4y ago
    I'm curious on this one, obviously a technical breakdown of how sentencing is applied in cases like this has been posted elsewhere in this thread, based on past (offence) history, non/mitigating circumstances, magnitude of the offence and presumably offset by how you plead etc. So this is the disincentive side to future criminals and this would seem to be an area of fraud (high-stakes) where you stand a (very) high-chance of getting caught, unlike a lot of other fraud where this doesn't appear to be the case [citation needed]. But on the other side, what are the incentives (to future criminals) to try pull off fraud of this magnitude. There's obviously various psychological effects playing out here (as well as circumstantial ones, great idea goes pear-shaped but it's seemingly too late to pull-out due to ego/sunkcost/other fallacies/last minute save). But has anyone attempted a game-theoretic payoff matrix, I'm just wondering in the wider scheme of things (to loop back in the post I'm replying to about 11years feeling light) will this kind of sentence actually deter any future similar cases from happening or are the payoff's (financial or otherwise) just too high for this to apply any real deterrent threat to those who are likely to be in the position to be influenced by it? So in reality, actually this is just really a punishment?
• hcks 4y ago
  There has been a grand total of 0 people sentenced to more than 11 years for sole possession. It would be good to stop pushing this kind of misinformation (yeah I know war on drug bad)
• nostromo 4y ago
  11+ years in jail for possession is vanishingly rare. The median time served is 1 year for possession. The average time served for murder in the US is about 13 years - just a bit longer than Holmes’ sentence. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf
  • JustSomeNobody 4y ago
    Does that take into account three strike rules? I'd be curious how many simple possessions turned into decades.
• c3534l 4y ago
  Federal guidlines on simple posession aren't in the same order of magnitude as 10 years.