5 ms·

What bothers me about the lenient sentencing is because of my assumption of how easy it will be to get out even earlier due to “good behavior”. She’ll probably

• tptacek 4y ago
  No: if she doesn't e.g. abuse phones or get into dumb fights with inmates, she'll get 54 days off per year in good time. That's it; that's what you get in the federal system. There is no parole. She didn't get a reduced sentence; she got a sentence that was higher than the PSR.
  • bmitc 4y ago
    Ah, I didn’t realize that about federal prison sentences. Thanks for the correction. I still think she deserves every bit of the sentence though. To my knowledge, she has never even shown remorse or admitted to her crimes. Even her pre-sentencing statement showed no accountability or responsibility for her actions. She continues to paint Theranos as just a failed startup.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      The points I'm making here are positive, not normative.
    • kkielhofner 4y ago
      I imagine there's some calculus to be done here. The impact of a mea culpa on sentencing would likely be minimal in the grand scheme of things. I think (for one) she's pathological - as I pointed out in another comment you'd have to be to screw over people like Henry Kissinger and four star Marine Corp general James Mattis who's nickname is actually "Mad Dog". Scary. Secondly, her post-prison career opportunities are much better if she goes to her grave never admitting or acknowledging any fault or wrongdoing. She still has plenty of fans and true believers. I was interviewing an attorney (of all things) once and she said "All Elizabeth Holmes did was the same thing men do and get away with everyday". Needless to say I didn't hire her. I don't know if there are any "Son of Sam" laws that apply here but I can definitely see her having a very prosperous career at 50 hitting the speaking circuit, book deal, podcast, whatever capitalizing in 2033 would look like.
    • mod 4y ago
      This is a tangent, but...does she deserve every bit of 11 years? I agree that relative to other sentences she does, but what does 11 years mean to you? It's everything to me. I cannot imagine giving up 11 years. I think we throw around years like slaps on the wrist.
      • bmitc 4y ago
        It is indeed a long time and a fair thing to bring up. Without getting into a philosophical discussion about sentences in general though, I think it's fair to point out that she ran a fraudulent company for well over 11 years, benefiting personally and financially from it all, while knowingly doing so, lying, and whatever else. She fired an employee who tried to warn fairly early about her lies, who later committed suicide. She hired investigators to follow Tyler Shultz around and bullied him with lawsuits. These and more actions of hers do make me personally feel okay with her sentencing, especially since she shows zero remorse. Her final words before sentencing were basically "I'm sorry I ran a failed startup".
      • quanticle 4y ago
        Yes, but at the same time, she defrauded her investors for billions, and, as was pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, appears to be completely and totally unrepentant. Her position is that Theranos was just a failed startup and that, essentially, she's being punished because she ran out of runway. Whereas, in reality, Theranos didn't work, and, according to its own scientists, could never have worked. It was snake oil from beginning to end. I don't think 11 years is an unjust sentence for that.
        • radicalbyte 4y ago
          She earns the 11 years through the damage caused to people who used her fraudulent product. Investors losing their skin? That's all risk/reward. They took big risk for big reward but lost.
          • szundi 4y ago
            First part ok, second part wtf
    • giantg2 4y ago
      "To my knowledge, she has never even shown remorse or admitted to her crimes." I wouldn't be surprised if her pregnancies were calculated to try to gain leniency. Otherwise it's pretty selfish to have kids knowing you could be in prison for most of their childhood.
  • brhsagain 4y ago
    Didn't Shkreli get released significantly earlier than 85% of 7 years?
    • tptacek 4y ago
      Yep. He served 4.5 of a 7 year stretch. He got out early by claiming First Step Act ETCs (a new program passed under Trump that gives 1:0.50 day credits for participating in anti-recidivism programs for nonviolent offenders, applicable to moving from full custody to a halfway house). So, yeah, under the First Step rules, Holmes might see a couple years chopped off that sentence. I think it's unlikely she serves fewer than 6-7 years. It's a tough sentence!
  • Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
    I was about to mention that - federal prison early release is not some liberal revolving door that's painted in some media outlets. You do your time in federal prison!
  • pyuser583 4y ago
    Didn’t a lot of prisoners get released because of COVID?
• xKingfisher 4y ago
  Federal prison doesn't have parole, it is a fixed 'good conduct' credit of up to 54 days per year. So she's serving a little more than 9 years minimum.
  • alasdair_ 4y ago
    I’d give 5% odds that someone finagles a presidential pardon for her in a few years.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      This is a boring point that people keep making in this thread. If that's actually the case, then none of this discussion matters. If this discussion doesn't matter, jumping into it and pointing that isn't making HN any better for curious discussion. Can it.
      • alasdair_ 4y ago
        I honestly find presidential pardons to be fascinating. The whole idea that a single person can completely subvert the justice system without any true checks and balances is really interesting. It reminds me of monarchy, except that if King Charles (say) attempted to use his legal right to step in and stop justice like this, there would be a revolution, yet it's completely fine for a president to do the same thing on a whim.
        • TimTheTinker 4y ago
          The presidential pardon is itself a check for the executive branch to use on the judicial branch. It's an essential part of the system of checks and balances among the three branches of US government - it prevents the judicial branch from getting too much power compared to the executive branch.
          • implements 4y ago
            In the US it’s woefully abused, though - political cronies are excused their crimes as a quid pro quo in return for silence - it’s appallingly corrupt and unprincipled. People who are guilty of a crime and prosecuted fairly under the law should generally serve their sentence. Exceptions to that are best managed by an independent and transparent tribunal who can give principled reasons for commuting specific sentences, for example a prisoner serving a very long term has undergone a genuine moral transformation and is now safe to release, or changes in society have rendered prosecutions of a certain time and place anachronistic and unjust be modern standards.
• guelo 4y ago
  You're wrong about the reasons why but you're still right that it's irresponsible to have kids before going to prison.
  • rayiner 4y ago
    She’s a mid-30s woman looking at a decade in prison. It was either now or never.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      That makes a lot of sense, and a lot of what people are saying about her family planning decisions read pretty ghoulish to me. She has a big, supportive family. Her kids will be fine. People write like the kid is going to be raised in a USP, like Bane from Batman.
      • Aeolun 4y ago
        Fine’ish. I doubt it’s healty to grow up knowing your mother isn’t there because she’s in prison.
        • tptacek 4y ago
          They're going to be taken care of by a big, well-off extended family, as hundreds of generations of children have been prior to the modern invention of the nuclear family (hey, Rayiner, remember all the threads about this?). Then, sometime between 1st and 4th grade, depending on how First Step applies to Holmes, they'll also have their mother at home full time rather than visiting her a couple times a month. They'll be fine. Lots and lots of kids have it actually hard, because their mom is sent away when they're 5 or 6. Here? No problem. I think she's a sociopath, but her family planning decision makes perfect sense, and the people writing comments about how callous or irresponsible she is are telling on themselves in a particular weird way.
          • ddorian43 4y ago
• AeroNotix 4y ago
  Arguably she could have decided to have children because with her age and the possibility of a 5-20 year sentence that having children may have been impossible had she waited. I think it's unfair to draw attention to this particular decision that she has made as as callous or scheming when in reality there are already plenty of examples and her having children may have been the most human of them all.
  • 2-718-281-828 4y ago
    it is not callous to get a child just before an expected years long prison sentence? i'd say that's failing at parenthood from the scratch
  • bmitc 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • mayankkaizen 4y ago
    I read, like 10-15 posts daily on social media where people mentions that they have decided to postpone parenthood simply because their circumstances aren't favorable (mostly finance related). When I read about Holmes in light of those posts, I'd say she is some sort of callous and insensitive person. She never once gave a shit about ethics, people's lives etc. Who knows she decided to have kids simply because it might reduce her sentence rather than because she really wanted to have kids like rest of us do.
  • tibbydudeza 4y ago
    There are special female sections at some jails esp for woman that is pregnant or has babies - afaik they can stay with the mom until they need to go to school.
• highwaylights 4y ago
  > She’ll probably get out somewhere between 3-8 years in. I don’t know that it’s that irresponsible given that her family is incredibly wealthy and she’ll be gone for a relatively short time in their childhood. I mean I know it’s going to be unpopular to say but she’s a blonde-haired, pretty white girl from a wealthy family. I’m astounded it was as long as 11 years (really 3-5). I’m sure she is too, and I imagine it’ll be reduced further on appeal once Balwani has been painted as the criminal mastermind of the operation. We’ll know better once we see what he gets, and what the justification is for that sentence.