6 ms·

Good. Send her to prison, where she belongs.

decide1000 4y ago
It's actually not good. It is totally legal to appeal a conviction. The size of a bank account is not a measurement in this. Stranger is US law in general, where the outcome of convictions depends on the emotional stability of a judge and the thoughts of a jury. Law is an emotional process in the US. In Europe there are no emotions involved in the sentencing. I think this reflects the responds like "Send her to prison, where she belongs". There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.
- RansomStark 4y ago
  > There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there. I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction. In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer. The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal. So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else. Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.
  - lfodofod 4y ago
    Why should we push down wealthy people just because the poor have it worse? Would it not be better to focus on improving the conditions of the poor?
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      Conservative commentators everywhere would no doubt be delighted at the suggestion that all poor people should wait out an appeal in a $13k/mth mansion.
      - lfodofod 4y ago
        Wait out an appeal at their home. Rich people have fancier homes? Boo hoo.
    - gizmo 4y ago
      Because the rich won’t have any incentive to change the system otherwise.
      - lfodofod 4y ago
        As if the poor couldn’t vote to change things if they wanted to.
        lnxg33k1 4y ago
        One of the worst things I've learnt about US, is that like the poor can't just go to vote, as it is not a public holiday but they need to ask for permission from their bosses? Like there are a lot of bad things I've learnt along the years about of US treats poors, and I think this one is on the podium
        niij 4y ago
        Voting is done at a local/state level in the US. 30 states mandate employer provided time off, while 20 do not. https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state-require-time-off-to-vote/ https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state...
        dns_snek 4y ago
        Vote for whom? Which political party represents interests of the people who are looking for systematic changes in favor of the working class? It's extremely hard to democratically enact change even in countries with multiple political parties and proportional representation. The US doesn't even have that, it's an illusion of choice with 2 parties who are equally corrupt.
        lfodofod 4y ago
        If this was genuinely an important issue to even just the 38 million people living under the poverty line, they could certainly find candidates. If you count low-income people as poor, you’re speaking of something like a hundred million people. The real problem is that people simply don’t care. People are much more willing to go to the polls over their right to own guns than issues like this.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  I assume you're unfamiliar with the British system, where it's not unusual for people who can't afford bail to be jailed for years before their case even comes to trial. Does the US not operate in the same way? Is it not the case that rich people can hire expensive lawyers at every stage of the process while poor people can't? Clearly the size a bank account is very relevant indeed.
  - stu432 4y ago
    It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the UK system either. Bail in the UK means adherence to specific conditions, i.e. live somewhere the police can find you, stay away from the victim and don't leave the country. It doesn't involve cash changing hands. If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue. The person you're responding to is referencing that sentencing is done by a judge who is supposed to be more objective when determining sentence, as opposed to emotional juries who simply determine if they are guilty or not of accused crimes.
    - lfodofod 4y ago
      Cash bail totally exists in the UK, even if uncommon. I’ve had to hand over money to get a friend out after he was arrested due to an extradition request. > If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue It absolutely is a money issue. The bigger surety you can put up, the less those things matter.
      - stu432 4y ago
        It absolutely is not. It's about risk of absconding. Secondly, no, cash bail is not a thing in the UK. Someone being arrested in the UK for extradition is not part of the UK justice system, they are merely passing through at the request of a foreign nation. Unsurprisingly, foreign nationals can't have their passport taken away by a foreign country, who'd have thought?!?!??!
        4y ago
- yucky 4y ago
  > It is totally legal to appeal a conviction. Yes and people do it all the time from within their prison cell. As should she. She's been convicted, so the presumption of innocence is gone. Now the onus is on her to prove the trial wasn't handled legally. Which is a claim she is free to make while serving her sentence.
ihatepython 4y ago
I think they should send her to prison, but conditionally release her for 48 hours so that she can help to solve a crime.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  Bonus: She both solves a crime and diagnoses a medical condition from drops of blood found at the crime scene.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- listenallyall 4y ago
  48 Hrs. is a fantastic movie -- maybe Eddie Murphy's best (and first) -- but I need you to explain the connection between that film and Elizabeth Holmes or her current situation.
  - ihatepython 4y ago
    I'd have to say that Eddie Murphy's best movie is actually 'Best Defense'. But perhaps the plot for Holmes could be that she has 48 hours to find out who is responsible for Covid-19. Teaming up with Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the unlikely trio find themselves in a race against time. Was it Fauci? Or someone else?

It's actually not good. It is totally legal to appeal a conviction. The size of a bank account is not a measurement in this. Stranger is US law in general, where the outcome of convictions depends on the emotional stability of a judge and the thoughts of a jury. Law is an emotional process in the US. In Europe there are no emotions involved in the sentencing. I think this reflects the responds like "Send her to prison, where she belongs". There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.

RansomStark 4y ago
> There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there. I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction. In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer. The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal. So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else. Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.
- lfodofod 4y ago
  Why should we push down wealthy people just because the poor have it worse? Would it not be better to focus on improving the conditions of the poor?
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Conservative commentators everywhere would no doubt be delighted at the suggestion that all poor people should wait out an appeal in a $13k/mth mansion.
    - lfodofod 4y ago
      Wait out an appeal at their home. Rich people have fancier homes? Boo hoo.
  - gizmo 4y ago
    Because the rich won’t have any incentive to change the system otherwise.
    - lfodofod 4y ago
      As if the poor couldn’t vote to change things if they wanted to.
      - lnxg33k1 4y ago
        One of the worst things I've learnt about US, is that like the poor can't just go to vote, as it is not a public holiday but they need to ask for permission from their bosses? Like there are a lot of bad things I've learnt along the years about of US treats poors, and I think this one is on the podium
        niij 4y ago
        Voting is done at a local/state level in the US. 30 states mandate employer provided time off, while 20 do not. https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state-require-time-off-to-vote/ https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state...
      - dns_snek 4y ago
        Vote for whom? Which political party represents interests of the people who are looking for systematic changes in favor of the working class? It's extremely hard to democratically enact change even in countries with multiple political parties and proportional representation. The US doesn't even have that, it's an illusion of choice with 2 parties who are equally corrupt.
        lfodofod 4y ago
        If this was genuinely an important issue to even just the 38 million people living under the poverty line, they could certainly find candidates. If you count low-income people as poor, you’re speaking of something like a hundred million people. The real problem is that people simply don’t care. People are much more willing to go to the polls over their right to own guns than issues like this.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
I assume you're unfamiliar with the British system, where it's not unusual for people who can't afford bail to be jailed for years before their case even comes to trial. Does the US not operate in the same way? Is it not the case that rich people can hire expensive lawyers at every stage of the process while poor people can't? Clearly the size a bank account is very relevant indeed.
- stu432 4y ago
  It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the UK system either. Bail in the UK means adherence to specific conditions, i.e. live somewhere the police can find you, stay away from the victim and don't leave the country. It doesn't involve cash changing hands. If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue. The person you're responding to is referencing that sentencing is done by a judge who is supposed to be more objective when determining sentence, as opposed to emotional juries who simply determine if they are guilty or not of accused crimes.
  - lfodofod 4y ago
    Cash bail totally exists in the UK, even if uncommon. I’ve had to hand over money to get a friend out after he was arrested due to an extradition request. > If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue It absolutely is a money issue. The bigger surety you can put up, the less those things matter.
    - stu432 4y ago
      It absolutely is not. It's about risk of absconding. Secondly, no, cash bail is not a thing in the UK. Someone being arrested in the UK for extradition is not part of the UK justice system, they are merely passing through at the request of a foreign nation. Unsurprisingly, foreign nationals can't have their passport taken away by a foreign country, who'd have thought?!?!??!
      - 4y ago
yucky 4y ago
> It is totally legal to appeal a conviction. Yes and people do it all the time from within their prison cell. As should she. She's been convicted, so the presumption of innocence is gone. Now the onus is on her to prove the trial wasn't handled legally. Which is a claim she is free to make while serving her sentence.

ihatepython 4y ago

I think they should send her to prison, but conditionally release her for 48 hours so that she can help to solve a crime.

a9h74j 4y ago
Bonus: She both solves a crime and diagnoses a medical condition from drops of blood found at the crime scene.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
listenallyall 4y ago
48 Hrs. is a fantastic movie -- maybe Eddie Murphy's best (and first) -- but I need you to explain the connection between that film and Elizabeth Holmes or her current situation.
- ihatepython 4y ago
  I'd have to say that Eddie Murphy's best movie is actually 'Best Defense'. But perhaps the plot for Holmes could be that she has 48 hours to find out who is responsible for Covid-19. Teaming up with Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the unlikely trio find themselves in a race against time. Was it Fauci? Or someone else?