4 ms·
Yes she cooperated and pleaded early, but damn, she got off easy compared to SBF.
by olalonde 9mo ago
Yes she cooperated and pleaded early, but damn, she got off easy compared to SBF.
- akerl_ 9mo agoIt turns out sentencing cares whether you’re cooperative and contrite or you stand by having done nothing wrong.
- jMyles 9mo ago...the primary effect of which is that fewer than 4% of criminal cases go to trial, and our prison, parole, and probation systems are full of people who pled to crimes they did not commit, and poison trees of evidence are intentionally and ruthlessly planted without challenge or consideration by a jurist.
- 9x39 9mo agoThe majority of cases don’t go to trial because the majority of cases are hopeless for the defendants. Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate. While it’s admirable to push back against the state, not all defendants earn our sympathy in their plight.
- Braxton1980 9mo ago>Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate. What if being incarcerated has an affect on this value?
- rayiner 9mo ago[flagged]
- 93po 9mo agoIt unquestionably does - it turns out destroying your job prospects for life, removing a major contributor to a household for years, and destroying family relations in the process lends itself to continuing having strife in your life, or having strife when you previously had none
- jMyles 9mo ago> The majority of cases don’t go to trial because the majority of cases are hopeless for the defendants. ...but are the lion's share of these hopeless on the basis of the evidence, combined with a fair process and a just, civically-informed legal framework? A person who is searched pursuant to a prompted canine indication, and found to be in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine has a "hopeless" case, but they have committed no offense to society that I can recognize, and their inclination to plea to a lesser charge means that the particulars of the search will never be heard by a jurist. > Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate. This seems like a testable hypothesis, albeit only after a successful completion of the abolitionist movement. I'll bet that, in a society focused on restorative justice and no dependence on a slave economy dressed up as incarceration, that nobody will have a 50% recidivism rate. > While it’s admirable to push back against the state, not all defendants earn our sympathy in their plight. Agreed, of course. But there's no justice in taking even the worst in society forcing them to be laborers to make Starbucks packaging. Let's remove the incentive structure first, and decide how to distribute our sympathies second.
- mlrtime 9mo agoI don't think the answer is more lawyers/judges and court rooms to fill that 96%
- jMyles 9mo ago...of course not. But dramatically less chargeable conduct, dramatically more robust protections against search and seizure, and the complete removal of the slave labor incentive inherent in prisons might just remove it without further ado.
- mlrtime 9mo ago>dramatically less chargeable conduct This is going to be hard to sell. "dramatically" sounds like >50%, and I assume not just old laws on the books that aren't in-forced. So you want to remove >50% of chargeable offenses? What else besides drugs?
- david38 9mo agoThe estimated innocent population is around 9%. A far cry from the majority. This is just populist trash. Now if you want to make a majority claim about those incarcerated being incarcerated for something which a rich person would go free, that’s something else
- dalemhurley 9mo ago9% is huge, that is a complete failure, this isn’t some exam, it is people’s lives.
- uejfiweun 9mo agoEh, I am pretty sure Trump is gonna end up pardoning SBF. It just seems like the sort of thing that is going to happen.
- dboreham 9mo agoDoes SBF still have money?
- paulpauper 9mo agoprobably some secret keys stashed somewhere
- electriclove 9mo agoDo his parents?
- olalonde 9mo agoNot sure what he would gain from that. The crypto community largely backed him in the last election, and pardoning SBF would seriously piss them off.
- unfunco 9mo ago> Not sure what he would gain from that. What? It's a bribe, he gains money. He doesn't care about pissing anyone off, he's (probably) not running for reelection, he cares about money, it's really that simple.
- 9mo ago
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoWell running an investment firm into the ground is more legal than using deposited funds in an exchange to bail out an investment firm that is being run into the ground.
- olalonde 9mo agoShe didn't just run Alameda to the ground. She knew Alameda was using FTX customer funds, which makes her directly complicit. She got off easy because of her cooperation and guilty plea.
- arduanika 9mo agoNo. Alameda and FTX were the same company, in the end. Co-mingled, and no separate governance. Legally speaking, all of the inner circle people ran both companies, and they all knew about the crimes. The difference is the plea deal.
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoThey were legally the same?
- arduanika 9mo agoThey = the people? Not precisely. Each of the perpetrators did certain things, agreed to certain things, and knew things at certain times. But I was responding to the notion in the parent that CE was just "running an investment firm" whereas SBF was running a company doing different stuff. It turned out to be all one co-mingled entity, contrary to how it was marketed. One company, and all of the main perpetrators knew things about both sides.
- cosmicgadget 9mo ago> They = the people? Honestly I wasn't sure what you meant by adding "legally speaking". It seemed to imply there was some legal ruling that both companies were the same. Cause otherwise imho there is no difference "they ran both companies" and "they ran both companies as a matter of law".
- paulpauper 9mo agoshe pocketed nothing, lived modestly (her complices earned much more) and was invaluable to the case.
- rasz 9mo agoDidnt she live with the rest of those frauds on tropical island in a sex commune?
- dalemhurley 9mo agoReally? all the media reports contradict this statement.