6 ms·

I know that people are mostly happy about this this-- and I'm definitely in the minority, but I feel that watching someone lose 11 years of her life in slow mot

I know that people are mostly happy about this this-- and I'm definitely in the minority, but I feel that watching someone lose 11 years of her life in slow motion is not something to be celebrated. It's sad. Secondly, I know it's a pipe dream, but I'd rather see her contribute something back to society (if this is society's retribution) than drain money from us so we can keep her caged.

batch12 4y ago
I feel pretty strongly about this, so please use this opportunity to hit me twice instead of telling me why I'm wrong.
- ddoolin 4y ago
  I just think it's possible to be both. Happy that the justice system functions as intended (which many see as increasingly rare) but also sad for her as a person to lose so much of her life behind bars.
- bitexploder 4y ago
  You are using empathy for her, which is great. Losing a decade of your life sucks. You don’t get that many years to begin with. Committing fraud sucks though. You can’t just do that and then say you are sorry and “contribute to society” to make up for it. There are so very many terrible things about our justice system, however lying and committing fraud at this scale absolutely must have consequences, especially to deter others from attempting the same sort of fraud.
sbassi 4y ago
so how do you disincentivize prospective criminals to do this in the future?
- batch12 4y ago
  Good question. Maybe take what they took, garnish future wages, have them make some kind of restitution, or something similar. I think if prison sentences were applied reasonably, reliably, and objectively they'd be a better deterrent. For instance, if it wasn't a gamble worth taking, if the consequences were guaranteed and applied evenly, I think people wouldn't risk this kind of fraud. Overcompensating by applying rare and lengthy prison sentences as a warning just makes this akin to a ghost story that rich people tell each other.
  - bitexploder 4y ago
    This is in fact not rare. By the book she got much less than she could have. People are failing to grasp the scale of the fraud she committed, I think. The rare thing is just that fraud at this scale doesn’t happen very often, but the sentencing guidelines are written out and very clear.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  The people who do crimes like this are usually looking for money and/or power. So, take away their money via fines/restitution and take away their power by banning them from founding companies or being involved in certain industries. 11 years in prison seems more vindictive than it does preventative.
  - Grimburger 4y ago
    > take away their money via fines/restitution And how does that work when her husband is incredibly wealthy? She will still live in absolute luxury.
realgeniushere 4y ago
Execution would be an appropriate punishment for sociopathic lying at this scale. Beyond defrauding investors of millions, she gave patients and doctors fake test results that she knew were fake. She knew that could have led to people dying of perfectly treatable conditions. That none did, as best as we can tell, is a lucky accident. This is an evil person. Off with her head.

batch12 4y ago

I feel pretty strongly about this, so please use this opportunity to hit me twice instead of telling me why I'm wrong.

ddoolin 4y ago
I just think it's possible to be both. Happy that the justice system functions as intended (which many see as increasingly rare) but also sad for her as a person to lose so much of her life behind bars.
bitexploder 4y ago
You are using empathy for her, which is great. Losing a decade of your life sucks. You don’t get that many years to begin with. Committing fraud sucks though. You can’t just do that and then say you are sorry and “contribute to society” to make up for it. There are so very many terrible things about our justice system, however lying and committing fraud at this scale absolutely must have consequences, especially to deter others from attempting the same sort of fraud.

sbassi 4y ago

so how do you disincentivize prospective criminals to do this in the future?

batch12 4y ago
Good question. Maybe take what they took, garnish future wages, have them make some kind of restitution, or something similar. I think if prison sentences were applied reasonably, reliably, and objectively they'd be a better deterrent. For instance, if it wasn't a gamble worth taking, if the consequences were guaranteed and applied evenly, I think people wouldn't risk this kind of fraud. Overcompensating by applying rare and lengthy prison sentences as a warning just makes this akin to a ghost story that rich people tell each other.
- bitexploder 4y ago
  This is in fact not rare. By the book she got much less than she could have. People are failing to grasp the scale of the fraud she committed, I think. The rare thing is just that fraud at this scale doesn’t happen very often, but the sentencing guidelines are written out and very clear.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
The people who do crimes like this are usually looking for money and/or power. So, take away their money via fines/restitution and take away their power by banning them from founding companies or being involved in certain industries. 11 years in prison seems more vindictive than it does preventative.
- Grimburger 4y ago
  > take away their money via fines/restitution And how does that work when her husband is incredibly wealthy? She will still live in absolute luxury.

realgeniushere 4y ago

Execution would be an appropriate punishment for sociopathic lying at this scale. Beyond defrauding investors of millions, she gave patients and doctors fake test results that she knew were fake. She knew that could have led to people dying of perfectly treatable conditions. That none did, as best as we can tell, is a lucky accident. This is an evil person. Off with her head.