Technically 20 years per count, but realistically not too many. White collar crimes are anyways not punished very strictly, and she's a new mother on top of that. She'll negotiate a short term at some country club prison.

There are really no "country club prisons" in the US anymore.

Yes, there are minimum security prison camps for first time, non violent offenders, which seems entirely appropriate, but a day spa it aint.

“What it’s really like inside ‘Club Fed’ prisons”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/...

I'm not an expert in US sentencing guidelines, but a quick crack at the sentencing guidelines calculator [1] suggests ~97-121 months, or about 8-10 years.

[If you're not familiar with sentencing, the basic procedure is this:

1. Compute an 'offense level' for each count. For counts that are strongly related (which all of these likely are), combine by taking the maximum offense level. If they're not related, it's more complicated (not simply adding them up).

2. Compute a 'criminal history level'. For Holmes, that's basically "no criminal history."

3. Adjust for things like the convicted person's remorse or cooperation with investigators.

4. Look up a table that maps offense and criminal history to an actual sentencing range.

5. Adjust that (primarily, but not exclusively, in the previously output range) based on the judge's feelings.]

[1] https://www.sentencing.us/

20 years per count

That's the maximum possible the judge could decide to give. It bears little relationship to what the federal sentencing guidelines will actually suggest or the judge will deliver.

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

Racial and gender disparities are real, but against the 'rich' part in this case...

In any case, she'll definitely do time. You're forgetting the victims in this case are not only also rich, but probably vastly better connected since they have yet to steal from their friends.

> Racial and gender disparities are real, but against the 'rich' part in this case...

Sorry I didnt understand what you meant here.

Reads to me like "being rich only helps if the people on the other side are materially less rich".

edit: wow, reading gp's "clarification" below, I was way off

You were correct. I made two separate points. You were true to the second, and I clarified the first below.

That the fact she defrauded people richer than her will override any slight advantages her race or gender may have provided her in sentencing

Saying she'll get off because she's white, a woman, and rich is like saying your car stalled because your tires were low, you had groceries in the back seat, and your engine hadn't had its oil changed in 18 years.

That make more sense?

Edit: I'm saying being white and being a woman helps, but being rich helps such an astronomically huge amount more emphasizing anything else feels less like informing and more like baiting.

Not sure how that wasn't crazy clear.

No, I am more confused now.

Are you saying white, rich people and women dont get preferential treatment in the US justice system?