4 ms·

Interesting to me that the Venn diagram of the group of people who want "prison reform" and an end to overincarceration and the group of people who want Holmes

Interesting to me that the Venn diagram of the group of people who want "prison reform" and an end to overincarceration and the group of people who want Holmes locked up with the key thrown away is basically a perfect circle. Is Holmes such an imminent danger to society that she needs locked up and cordoned off from our communities?

mstipetic 4y ago
Punishment isn’t only about the crime in the past. Punishment is used as deterrence against possible future crimes by others - to show what will happen if they do something similar
- scotty79 4y ago
  I don't think it should be that, because that can cause people who committed not very serious crimes to be punished disproportionately as an example. It's unjust.
  - mstipetic 4y ago
    I think people who commit crimes should be seriously punished simply because of all the resources we have to spend to be vigilant against such things.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      Sure. But the punishment should be proportional to the deed not to how underfinanced is your law enforcement budget.
seanhunter 4y ago
I don't think those groups are the same except perhaps in your mind. If you have some evidence otherwise it might be worth providing it. Secondly, those positions are not mutually exclusive or even intellectually inconsistent. You can think there are too many people in jail general (eg for certain crimes and certain groups in society) and still think that for certain specific cases, jail is appropriate. Thirdly, as a sibling has pointed out, protection of society is not the only or even the primary reason a jail sentence might be appropriate in a given case. I believe prosecutors believe flight risk is the primary reason jail is appropriate in this case, at least partly because her partner bought a ticket to Mexico in January for her which was only cancelled after the government intervened.[1] Her counsel said it was in expectation of being found not guilty so she was able to attend a friend's wedding but the bummer for that theory is that it was a one-way ticket. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elizabeth-holmes-bought-one-way-ticket-mexico-theranos-fraud-rcna66765 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elizabeth-hol...
meepmorp 4y ago
Man, it is fascinating when the internal argument someone is having with a gang of strawmen breaks into the outside world.
skcusgnad 4y ago
[dead]
refurb 4y ago
Likely a similar Venn diagram of people who say “the US should stop meddling in other countries problems” and then vehemently support arming Ukraine.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Nuance exists. Facts matter. The correct answer to every question isn't a universal constant known in advance of every possible question.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Then I’d imagine they should hold a more nuanced position than “the US shouldn’t meddle in other countries affairs”.
hgsgm 4y ago
Is it so bizarre that people are opposed to both over- and under-? That's basic logic and fairness. The two extremes are almost always both wrong.
helloworld11 4y ago
For many people disgusted by seeing a person like Holmes having it easy despite being egregariously guilty of criminal offenses against others in several terrible ways, it's not hypocrisy in the way you try to describe. Instead it's simply being angry that a justice system which regularly hammers much poorer people into the ground for often very minor offenses then treats a wealthy criminal like her with kid gloves in specific ways. One can support reforms against punitive justice and still be disgusted by something like this, or one can also support prison reform while considering Holmes's crimes bad enough to merit a fairly strong degree of punishment in this specific case. Basically: complex subjects like this are full of nuance, and strawmen need not apply to and honest debate.
acdha 4y ago
Believing that too many people go to jail for minor offenses or those which don’t endanger others isn’t incompatible with believing major crimes should still have jail time. What’s especially worth considering here is what Holmes did: most people expect high standards for medical ethics since lying as she did could have irreversible impacts on people’s lives. Her fraud involved inaccurately telling people that they had cancer, or giving values which lead to changes in medication or other treatments. That isn’t as bad as it could have been – I don’t believe anyone was given a false negative on cancer, for example - but it’s absolutely toxic for trust in the medical system if it’s not strictly punished. Similarly, as a corporate officer she lied repeatedly to investors, regulators, and the public. What both of those have in common is that they’re positions of trust where fraud is relatively hard to catch. Millions of people are in positions where they could on a daily basis abuse their customers’ trust and potentially never be caught, and so we have to consider the deterrent effect as well. Doctors, bankers, CEOs, etc. are highly paid so a financial deterrent isn’t nearly as effective at preventing lapses as the possibility of jail time - your family trust can’t serve it for you - and those consequences also mean that the people around you aren’t going to help cover it up the way they might if it was profitable enough to look the other way.

mstipetic 4y ago

Punishment isn’t only about the crime in the past. Punishment is used as deterrence against possible future crimes by others - to show what will happen if they do something similar

scotty79 4y ago
I don't think it should be that, because that can cause people who committed not very serious crimes to be punished disproportionately as an example. It's unjust.
- mstipetic 4y ago
  I think people who commit crimes should be seriously punished simply because of all the resources we have to spend to be vigilant against such things.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Sure. But the punishment should be proportional to the deed not to how underfinanced is your law enforcement budget.

seanhunter 4y ago

I don't think those groups are the same except perhaps in your mind. If you have some evidence otherwise it might be worth providing it. Secondly, those positions are not mutually exclusive or even intellectually inconsistent. You can think there are too many people in jail general (eg for certain crimes and certain groups in society) and still think that for certain specific cases, jail is appropriate. Thirdly, as a sibling has pointed out, protection of society is not the only or even the primary reason a jail sentence might be appropriate in a given case. I believe prosecutors believe flight risk is the primary reason jail is appropriate in this case, at least partly because her partner bought a ticket to Mexico in January for her which was only cancelled after the government intervened.[1] Her counsel said it was in expectation of being found not guilty so she was able to attend a friend's wedding but the bummer for that theory is that it was a one-way ticket. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elizabeth-holmes-bought-one-way-ticket-mexico-theranos-fraud-rcna66765 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elizabeth-hol...

meepmorp 4y ago

Man, it is fascinating when the internal argument someone is having with a gang of strawmen breaks into the outside world.

skcusgnad 4y ago

[dead]

refurb 4y ago

Likely a similar Venn diagram of people who say “the US should stop meddling in other countries problems” and then vehemently support arming Ukraine.

hgsgm 4y ago
Nuance exists. Facts matter. The correct answer to every question isn't a universal constant known in advance of every possible question.
- refurb 4y ago
  Then I’d imagine they should hold a more nuanced position than “the US shouldn’t meddle in other countries affairs”.

hgsgm 4y ago

Is it so bizarre that people are opposed to both over- and under-? That's basic logic and fairness. The two extremes are almost always both wrong.

helloworld11 4y ago

For many people disgusted by seeing a person like Holmes having it easy despite being egregariously guilty of criminal offenses against others in several terrible ways, it's not hypocrisy in the way you try to describe. Instead it's simply being angry that a justice system which regularly hammers much poorer people into the ground for often very minor offenses then treats a wealthy criminal like her with kid gloves in specific ways. One can support reforms against punitive justice and still be disgusted by something like this, or one can also support prison reform while considering Holmes's crimes bad enough to merit a fairly strong degree of punishment in this specific case. Basically: complex subjects like this are full of nuance, and strawmen need not apply to and honest debate.

acdha 4y ago

Believing that too many people go to jail for minor offenses or those which don’t endanger others isn’t incompatible with believing major crimes should still have jail time. What’s especially worth considering here is what Holmes did: most people expect high standards for medical ethics since lying as she did could have irreversible impacts on people’s lives. Her fraud involved inaccurately telling people that they had cancer, or giving values which lead to changes in medication or other treatments. That isn’t as bad as it could have been – I don’t believe anyone was given a false negative on cancer, for example - but it’s absolutely toxic for trust in the medical system if it’s not strictly punished. Similarly, as a corporate officer she lied repeatedly to investors, regulators, and the public. What both of those have in common is that they’re positions of trust where fraud is relatively hard to catch. Millions of people are in positions where they could on a daily basis abuse their customers’ trust and potentially never be caught, and so we have to consider the deterrent effect as well. Doctors, bankers, CEOs, etc. are highly paid so a financial deterrent isn’t nearly as effective at preventing lapses as the possibility of jail time - your family trust can’t serve it for you - and those consequences also mean that the people around you aren’t going to help cover it up the way they might if it was profitable enough to look the other way.