4 ms·
Right, but Holmes didn't steal $5k more than three times. She stole millions of dollars but only did it once. So your statute doesn't apply.
by IIAOPSW 4y ago
Right, but Holmes didn't steal $5k more than three times. She stole millions of dollars but only did it once. So your statute doesn't apply.
- arthurcolle 4y agoCan't tell if serious. Can you see how the second might be seen as worse than the first? Literally perverse incentives. "Go big or go home" and no worries! Couple years in Federal summer camp and you go back to your cushy upper class lifestyle as a consultant or startup advisor, or "executive coaching" for other future/wannabe scammers
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gumby 4y agoTo me it seems to be clearly pointing out the injustice of the "three strikes" law.
- IIAOPSW 4y agoYou may not like it but that is in fact the letter of the law. The letter does not get bent to produce the outcome that feels more fair or just. To do so is to abandon the principle of rule of law to begin with. You probably should learn at some point, the legal system is basically a pedantic genie interpreting 3 wishes. "oh I wish the 3 strikes law applied to people like Holmes as well." "Granted". Don't blame me. Make better wishes.
- rootusrootus 4y agoShe only got caught once, but as an ongoing thing I think it's safe to say that she stole more than once.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- IIAOPSW 4y agoBut did she steal more than 5k more than once. As written, you can steal $25 a million times and the law does not apply. You can steal $25 million one time and the law does not apply.
- rootusrootus 4y agoIt sounds like you're equating "steal" with "be convicted of stealing"?
- IIAOPSW 4y agoSo far as the three strikes statute is concerned, there is no difference. The law is blind.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- everyone 4y agoWouldnt every individual investment count as an individual instance of theft?
- IIAOPSW 4y agoIs each individual investment over $5k? By letter of the law, you can steal $25 a million times, or $25 million one time, but you better not steal $5k three times.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- causi 4y agoI'm flatly amazed they couldn't prove anybody died as a result of her deliberate greed-fueled negligence in providing fake medical test results. She should be charged with manslaughter.
- everforward 4y agoI think this is harder to prove than you'd think. You can't just prove that Theranos did a blood test and someone died, you'd have to prove that if Theranos did their jobs correctly that person would have survived. It ends up being a long chain of probabilities. Would the real test have shown a false negative? Would the treatment have definitely cured them (given that most treatments aren't 100% effective)? Would they have even sought treatment? Etc, etc. It's kind of like how if a substance ends up causing cancer it's very hard to prove that an individual got cancer from that substance. You can see the effect in aggregate, but at an individual level it's very hard to prove they got it from this substance instead of pollution or smoking or eating too much meat or flying or whatever. This is the same. You can say in aggregate that the patients would have lived longer with accurate tests, but it's hard to say what an individual outcome would have been.
- MPlus88 4y agoExactly. Knowingly endangering the lives of vulnerable people is despicable.
- harveywi 4y agoThe fundamental question is whether the law distributes over addition.