5 ms·

I remember back when Gary Bowser got found guilty of $14.5 million restitution for Nintendo, and would pay back 20%-30% of his income for (basically) the rest o

I remember back when Gary Bowser got found guilty of $14.5 million restitution for Nintendo, and would pay back 20%-30% of his income for (basically) the rest of his life for providing Switch tools that offered automatic downloading of pirated software. The general feeling was that this was "Unethical, immoral, inappropriate regardless of what he did, contrary to rehabilitation." Now we have Elizabeth Holmes. $452 Million in restitution. Yes, what she did was much, much worse - but is anyone seriously arguing this is immoral, unethical, inappropriate regardless of what she did, contrary to rehabilitation? I would say that it appears to me to be a double-standard regarding paying back large fines for crimes.

lancesells 3y ago
She raised $1.4B based on fraud/lies. Are you saying that shouldn't be paid back?
- newaccount74 3y ago
  It should be paid back if she still had it. But it's questionable whether burdening criminals with debts they can never repay is the best solution. Since the creditors have no chance of getting that money back, it's just an additional punishment. But she already got jail time as a punishment. I think, once you served your time, you should get a chance of a new start, without being forever burdened with debt. Also, I think that bedazzling investors is not the worst thing she did. The worst thing is that she sold patients medical tests that didn't work.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lancesells 3y ago
    I'm not sure I agree without knowing more details but I think that's a fair way to look at it.
  - gemstones 3y ago
    Perhaps some crimes are big enough that there are multiple punishments. It is valuable for a society to show that some crimes will literally ruin your life, as an example to others. Her rehabilitation will not make society whole - her best and highest calling now is to be an example of what happens when you endanger people at that scale.

lancesells 3y ago

She raised $1.4B based on fraud/lies. Are you saying that shouldn't be paid back?

newaccount74 3y ago
It should be paid back if she still had it. But it's questionable whether burdening criminals with debts they can never repay is the best solution. Since the creditors have no chance of getting that money back, it's just an additional punishment. But she already got jail time as a punishment. I think, once you served your time, you should get a chance of a new start, without being forever burdened with debt. Also, I think that bedazzling investors is not the worst thing she did. The worst thing is that she sold patients medical tests that didn't work.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lancesells 3y ago
  I'm not sure I agree without knowing more details but I think that's a fair way to look at it.
- gemstones 3y ago
  Perhaps some crimes are big enough that there are multiple punishments. It is valuable for a society to show that some crimes will literally ruin your life, as an example to others. Her rehabilitation will not make society whole - her best and highest calling now is to be an example of what happens when you endanger people at that scale.