6 ms·

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their abili

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs. EDIT: As comments point out, it is arguable that the crimes in question are violent because they directly jeopardized people's health.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> non-violent crimes I’m in a similar boat. But corruption is uniquely caustic to a society. In its erosion of trust. And in its perpetrators’ unique ability to bounce back and cause trouble anew. Fraud at this scale, at Holmes’ level, is similar in those attributes. > restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage Under what penalty? > free person with a job can pay back their debt to society Construct a restriction on Holmes. I’ll propose a loophole. Then consider the cost of constantly litigating that with her.
hef19898 4y ago
SBF and Bernie Madoff sure would like that approach.
realusername 4y ago
Given she falsified medical results for so long, it's guaranteed some people have died as a result of her actions, that goes further than your average fraud
- azmarks 4y ago
  She was not convicted on any charges about falsified medical results. She was only convicted on defrauding investors
  - realusername 4y ago
    Yes I know, I don't necessarily agree with the charges either, the falsified medical results is clearly the worst part for me.
luckylion 4y ago
In short: you don't want them to feel any consequences beyond having to pay back the money. I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.
- Spoom 4y ago
  Any time I've ever heard fines used in the context of a business, it's never paying back the money. It's paying back a fraction of the money. And usually it's to the government, not to the people harmed.
- francisofascii 4y ago
  Jail and paying money are not the only two deterrents available.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    What were you thinking off? Surely no corporal punishment? House arrest won't be on the table either ("what good does that do?"). Being barred from starting a company? I can see people arguing against that ("but it'll allow her to pay back the money sooner") for the same reasons they're arguing against punishment.
- from 4y ago
  Mandatory sentence reductions for milestones like 50%, 75%, 100% of ordered restitution/forfeiture would almost certainly incentivize repayment. Right now the federal government collects 7% of what they are owned from criminal defendants, see https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13685200710763452/full/html https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/d... (page 2). It has been proven that white collar criminals are typically the more calculating type and that they weigh the risks of getting caught so if there is a good reason to preserve at least some of the money they fraudulently obtain instead of spending it all on luxury goods they will likely do so. It's very difficult to argue that the current system is effective when there are people who caused bank failures through million dollar frauds getting 7-8 years in prison and $100 a month restitution payment plans. Right now your "intended loss" (not actual loss) is all that matters for the purpose of sentencing guidelines calculation - for instance if you submit a fraudulent loan application for $50k and don't get it (or get it but pay it back) you're just as bad as the guy who got it and spent it at all.
chrisbrandow 4y ago
I 100% agree. I hate to bring it up in the context of a criminal that is already priveleged and insulated from so much of the unfairness of the criminal justice system, but almost all non-violent crime should be handled in non-prison ways. Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years? Of course, it's legitimately hard for politicians to signal to voters that they take this stuff seriously without proposing longer and longer prison sentences for things that worry voters, which are usually crimes that "other people" do: high dollar white collar crime, drug dealing, etc.
- EamonnMR 4y ago
  > Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years? Anyone who needs to trust their blood test results. If faking such results lands you in jail, that makes me trust the results and I can make medically relevant decisions based on them.
kasperni 4y ago
I think most people would rather have a proper beating. Than having someone steal their entire life savings.
sorokod 4y ago
How would you rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail Government has a monopoly on violence. This is a founding theory of why we have states. Furthermore, violence causes damage money can’t fix. Most non-violent crimes’ damages can be dollarised within margin.
  - sorokod 4y ago
    Don't see how government's monopoly on legal violence is relevant here. Assuming bad faith by the manufacturer, how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient ?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient I don’t personally believe jail should be limited to violent acts for this reason. (My exceptions being corruption and fraud.)
      - sorokod 4y ago
        Well OK, how about a case where a convicted fraudster is unable to pay the financial penalty that was imposed on them?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        Sorry, I was unclear. I meant people shouldn’t go to jail unless it’s violence, corruption or fraud. Then jail time should be on the table. (But never mandatory.)
nazka 4y ago
I actually think it’s worst. One can be a problem of anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face, the other is a long term thought calculated full aware of consequences and with no care for the other. It also usually results in several persons being impacted. For instance Bayer knowing that their products were contaminated with HIV still chose to sell them. Monsanto with well all their stuff. Corporate crime is really crazier in my opinions. It’s armies of lawyers and businesses men, engineers and stuff having no problem for harm. It’s just less direct than a punch on the face. Disclaimer: violence is still bad to horrible nonetheless.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face This merits the consideration of jail time. Nobody said automatic jail for all violence—the facts and circumstances may merit mandated therapy, for instance. But if someone refuses and keeps popping off punches, yes, the isolation prerogative of jail time takes hold.
  - nazka 4y ago
    You are right. It’s just interesting how cold thinking for crime in the corporate world can be just a big fine (even with thousands if not millions of people health are impacted and they all knew about it) but if you someone lose it on someone else it’s jail time. Again doesn’t mean he/she shouldn’t go to jail but where is any real balance with corporate crime and the free pass with money drops?
lesuorac 4y ago
idk, corporations shell out a ton of money in fines for crimes they re-commit later on. There's an argument that holmes would learn her lesson with a ~2yr sentence as opposed to an 11yr sentence. But I'm unconvinced that a 0yr sentence paid for by investor funds would prevent future crime. It's like kids, they think you're joking about a penalty until you actual turn the car around once.
benjamoon 4y ago
People always seem to be more forgiving of non violent crimes, but just have your house broken into whist you’re asleep with you kids in the house and it can seriously mess you up. It’s such a massive violation and you’ll struggle to sleep in that house again. I’d take a punch in the face any day of the week.
chollida1 4y ago
What would you like her to do instead of jail time in this instance?
academia_hack 4y ago
Completely agree. I'm not sure who benefits from locking people in cages when their ability to roam free doesn't endanger anyone's safety. Ban her from owning equity in any business if you need to avoid repeat offenses. If the purpose is retribution or deterrence there are so many cheaper and less cruel ways to achieve those ends than taking decades of life and handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to prison industrial complex: caning, banishment, compulsory face tattoos of shame, whatever. The only reason we have prison sentences for crimes like this (along with most property and drug crimes) is so we can torture people without having to look at it directly. I wonder what society would be like if juries had to personally flog each person they sentence, or execute them at the date of (life_expectancy-sentence_years). The way we deal with crime in America today is sanitized barbarism, but if you peel back any layer of the justice system it's pretty easy to see it for what it is.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> non-violent crimes I’m in a similar boat. But corruption is uniquely caustic to a society. In its erosion of trust. And in its perpetrators’ unique ability to bounce back and cause trouble anew. Fraud at this scale, at Holmes’ level, is similar in those attributes. > restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage Under what penalty? > free person with a job can pay back their debt to society Construct a restriction on Holmes. I’ll propose a loophole. Then consider the cost of constantly litigating that with her.

hef19898 4y ago

SBF and Bernie Madoff sure would like that approach.

realusername 4y ago

Given she falsified medical results for so long, it's guaranteed some people have died as a result of her actions, that goes further than your average fraud

azmarks 4y ago
She was not convicted on any charges about falsified medical results. She was only convicted on defrauding investors
- realusername 4y ago
  Yes I know, I don't necessarily agree with the charges either, the falsified medical results is clearly the worst part for me.

luckylion 4y ago

In short: you don't want them to feel any consequences beyond having to pay back the money. I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.

Spoom 4y ago
Any time I've ever heard fines used in the context of a business, it's never paying back the money. It's paying back a fraction of the money. And usually it's to the government, not to the people harmed.
francisofascii 4y ago
Jail and paying money are not the only two deterrents available.
- luckylion 4y ago
  What were you thinking off? Surely no corporal punishment? House arrest won't be on the table either ("what good does that do?"). Being barred from starting a company? I can see people arguing against that ("but it'll allow her to pay back the money sooner") for the same reasons they're arguing against punishment.
from 4y ago
Mandatory sentence reductions for milestones like 50%, 75%, 100% of ordered restitution/forfeiture would almost certainly incentivize repayment. Right now the federal government collects 7% of what they are owned from criminal defendants, see https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13685200710763452/full/html https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/d... (page 2). It has been proven that white collar criminals are typically the more calculating type and that they weigh the risks of getting caught so if there is a good reason to preserve at least some of the money they fraudulently obtain instead of spending it all on luxury goods they will likely do so. It's very difficult to argue that the current system is effective when there are people who caused bank failures through million dollar frauds getting 7-8 years in prison and $100 a month restitution payment plans. Right now your "intended loss" (not actual loss) is all that matters for the purpose of sentencing guidelines calculation - for instance if you submit a fraudulent loan application for $50k and don't get it (or get it but pay it back) you're just as bad as the guy who got it and spent it at all.

chrisbrandow 4y ago

I 100% agree. I hate to bring it up in the context of a criminal that is already priveleged and insulated from so much of the unfairness of the criminal justice system, but almost all non-violent crime should be handled in non-prison ways. Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years? Of course, it's legitimately hard for politicians to signal to voters that they take this stuff seriously without proposing longer and longer prison sentences for things that worry voters, which are usually crimes that "other people" do: high dollar white collar crime, drug dealing, etc.

EamonnMR 4y ago
> Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years? Anyone who needs to trust their blood test results. If faking such results lands you in jail, that makes me trust the results and I can make medically relevant decisions based on them.

kasperni 4y ago

I think most people would rather have a proper beating. Than having someone steal their entire life savings.

sorokod 4y ago

How would you rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail Government has a monopoly on violence. This is a founding theory of why we have states. Furthermore, violence causes damage money can’t fix. Most non-violent crimes’ damages can be dollarised within margin.
- sorokod 4y ago
  Don't see how government's monopoly on legal violence is relevant here. Assuming bad faith by the manufacturer, how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient ?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient I don’t personally believe jail should be limited to violent acts for this reason. (My exceptions being corruption and fraud.)
    - sorokod 4y ago
      Well OK, how about a case where a convicted fraudster is unable to pay the financial penalty that was imposed on them?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        Sorry, I was unclear. I meant people shouldn’t go to jail unless it’s violence, corruption or fraud. Then jail time should be on the table. (But never mandatory.)

nazka 4y ago

I actually think it’s worst. One can be a problem of anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face, the other is a long term thought calculated full aware of consequences and with no care for the other. It also usually results in several persons being impacted. For instance Bayer knowing that their products were contaminated with HIV still chose to sell them. Monsanto with well all their stuff. Corporate crime is really crazier in my opinions. It’s armies of lawyers and businesses men, engineers and stuff having no problem for harm. It’s just less direct than a punch on the face. Disclaimer: violence is still bad to horrible nonetheless.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face This merits the consideration of jail time. Nobody said automatic jail for all violence—the facts and circumstances may merit mandated therapy, for instance. But if someone refuses and keeps popping off punches, yes, the isolation prerogative of jail time takes hold.
- nazka 4y ago
  You are right. It’s just interesting how cold thinking for crime in the corporate world can be just a big fine (even with thousands if not millions of people health are impacted and they all knew about it) but if you someone lose it on someone else it’s jail time. Again doesn’t mean he/she shouldn’t go to jail but where is any real balance with corporate crime and the free pass with money drops?

lesuorac 4y ago

idk, corporations shell out a ton of money in fines for crimes they re-commit later on. There's an argument that holmes would learn her lesson with a ~2yr sentence as opposed to an 11yr sentence. But I'm unconvinced that a 0yr sentence paid for by investor funds would prevent future crime. It's like kids, they think you're joking about a penalty until you actual turn the car around once.

benjamoon 4y ago

People always seem to be more forgiving of non violent crimes, but just have your house broken into whist you’re asleep with you kids in the house and it can seriously mess you up. It’s such a massive violation and you’ll struggle to sleep in that house again. I’d take a punch in the face any day of the week.

chollida1 4y ago

What would you like her to do instead of jail time in this instance?

academia_hack 4y ago

Completely agree. I'm not sure who benefits from locking people in cages when their ability to roam free doesn't endanger anyone's safety. Ban her from owning equity in any business if you need to avoid repeat offenses. If the purpose is retribution or deterrence there are so many cheaper and less cruel ways to achieve those ends than taking decades of life and handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to prison industrial complex: caning, banishment, compulsory face tattoos of shame, whatever. The only reason we have prison sentences for crimes like this (along with most property and drug crimes) is so we can torture people without having to look at it directly. I wonder what society would be like if juries had to personally flog each person they sentence, or execute them at the date of (life_expectancy-sentence_years). The way we deal with crime in America today is sanitized barbarism, but if you peel back any layer of the justice system it's pretty easy to see it for what it is.