Both of these people fully deserve what’s coming to them. They lied to investors, they lied again to investors to keep the company afoalt, and above all they seriously jepordized medical results. It’s one thing to challenge status quo or even current regulations, a la Uber.
To mess with people’s health or their perception of it is completely wrong. We should not minimize the situation. Again, I cannot tell your tone. I’ve been following this for a while and it was obvious what would happen from the moment the whistle was blown.
I feel like you're playing judge, jury, and executioner. Leave the pitchforks and torches for the judicial system in this country.
What if they get found not guilty, or more likely (but still unlikely) the feds quietly drop the case?
The new infographic is a nice touch.
I am in a weekly support group for people with the same offense category as me, sometimes crimes not as bad as mine. Most of the members in this group are working class - hourly jobs, no savings, no emergency funds, government lawyers. They mostly had to serve time, had to register as offenders, have strict stipulations.
Meanwhile I was able to borrow money from my parents, got a good lawyer, and all I have to do is check in with probation once a month for a few years.
What do you mean with that?
As far as I can tell, a 28th amendment hasn't even been proposed, although there is an urban legend about it that circulates in chain mails.
However...even that fantasy amendment is about equal treatment of citizens and members of congress...not sure how that would apply. The closest I can see is that Holmes's mother was a congressional staffer, but that's (a) not her, but her mother and (b) not an actual member of congress and (c) the laws aren't actually different here(?)
Puzzled.
But yes, referring to a proposed amendment as "the 28th amendment" is very confusing, since there will always be multiple proposed amendments at any given point in time.
As soon as the right wing of America realizes that men are sometimes discriminated against, we won't be waiting long until one more state legislature puts it over.
Doesn't have to be the worst thing in the world for you to not wish it on someone.
> Why the discrepancy? The 28th amendment hasn't been ratified yet.
I predict Holmes gets at least as much time as Balwani, if not more. Why? Many of the most compelling causal explanations for the (very real and concerning) gender sentencing gap aren't applicable to this case.
(On a related note, I had an exchange about gender gaps in sentencing with another HN user 3 months ago who was complaining how unfair it was that Holmes "is spending exactly zero days in prison" and got off with "a slap in the wrist" compared to Shkreli [1].)
Highly recommended to everyone.
[1] https://player.fm/series/series-2249929/criminal-justice-par...
It's actually pretty unlikely that Holmes and Balwani will lose all of their fancy properties, because that sort of scene also upsets the plutocrats. They'll just have to give back most of the millions they've squirreled away.
The fact is that we don't know what actually happened, only what the government and media want us to know, even if it isn't so. They look guilty as hell, but so do innocent people.
Trial by jury is better than trial by media, so I'll take the high road and reserve my judgment until then.
Anyway, trial by jury is not great. If one can avoid it by appealing to the media, one definitely should do that.
It rings true to me that, in general, the average person would have much more compassion for 'bad' people in 'bad' situations if they could live a day in their shoes.
NB: Mods, not sure if this is allowed, feel free to remove if not. Information was gathered using information freely offered by HN profile and LinkedIn.
Eerily similar experience, down to the charges and the 11 counts.
I don't disagree, but the average person on a jury just does what the lady in the skirtsuit tells them to do so they can get out of there. Most people you want on a jury throw away their summons with zero risk to the practice.
"Mr. Dufresne, you killed your wife and her lover, I don't feel like you should have gone to Shawshank."
look, this society will fall apart if its only the poor who will pay the price for flouting the law.
If Homes and Balwani had confined their predations to the general public, they'd still be free and wealthy. It's only because they also swindled some plutocrats that they're going to have to return most of their plunder.
It's basically like being free, but you have to stay out of trouble and report all contacts with law enforcement.
There's a small chance they'll have to go this route anyway, since the government can snatch the money
They're not going to have to serve consecutive 20-year terms for what they're accused of
Holmes will be offered, I'm guessing, about 6-9 months and a joint-and-several "money judgment" (restitution + forfeiture). Balwani, about 5 years and a joint-and-several "money judgment".
Take it from me: I wouldn't put my worst enemy through even just the trial.
Quite an interesting contrast between what privileged rich people have to worry about vs poor. Nearly every one of those points are solely because you have money, not merit-based. I guess this is when the world proves what really matters.
This is speculation. Let’s wait to see what is handed down. It was common thought on these forums just weeks ago that money and connections would buy Holmes out of an indictment.
This is ordinarily when hard-core criminals are taken into custody. If their experience was like mine, they had to show up in front of a magistrate with their lawyers, plead not guilty, then go to a dungeon for about 30 minutes while they get handcuffed, fingerprinted, mugshotted, and DNA-swabbed. Then, off they go until trial. It's basically like being free, but you have to stay out of trouble and report all contacts with law enforcement.
Being rich (or from money), they won't have to worry about federal defenders or CJA representation, which wouldn't be near as bad as dealing with a state-funded public defender. There's a small chance they'll have to go this route anyway, since the government can snatch the money in dispute and block you from spending your ill-gotten gains on high-priced legal representation.
Don't let the "sticker price" fool you. They're not going to have to serve consecutive 20-year terms for what they're accused of, even if they take it to trial and get found guilty.
They will probably get their first plea offers in about a year. Most people take the plea. In the event they refuse to plead guilty, trial will probably take about 2-3 years from today.
Holmes will be offered, I'm guessing, about 6-9 months and a joint-and-several "money judgment" (restitution + forfeiture). Balwani, about 5 years and a joint-and-several "money judgment". This may be a package deal too, so Holmes may not be able to take it if Balwani won't. Why the discrepancy? The 28th amendment hasn't been ratified yet.
Before my experience with this world, I would have been eager to join in the collective bloodlust, with the pitchfork-and-torch crowd clamoring for these overprivileged defendants to sit through a trial and rot in prison. Take it from me: I wouldn't put my worst enemy through even just the trial.