If I had to come up with “fair” sentencing criteria, it would be “what’s the least restrictive way we can make sure this person doesn’t pose a danger to society and people are discouraged from similar acts.”
She’s suffered huge and profound consequences for her actions. She won’t be able to commit a similar crime.
Real problem is that poor criminals don’t get a fair sentence.
Like what? Life seems to have gone on as normal for her, other than having to make a bunch of court appearances.
This is a bad take imo. There's also a need for punishments to deter future misconduct by others.
If I, as a hypothetical startup founder, know that I can defraud my investors (among other things!) at the risk of just an embarrassing trial, I am much more likely to engage in fraud than if I risk GOING TO FEDERAL PRISON.
I'm generally not a huge fan of incarceration. But in the case of those whose crimes are premeditated and serious -- and who had every advantage growing up -- I think some prison time is appropriate.
> “what’s the least restrictive way we can make sure … people are discouraged from similar acts.”
But I really should have broken it into two sentences or a list.
Such as? Any financial and reputational damage she's suffered just put her back on the same level as us mere mortals. Indeed, she's still able to afford the expensive legal team that's litigating these appeals. Something most of us couldn't do.
Given how bad those scams are for society, it's the discouraging is very important, and a strong message should be sent.
The number of tech CEOs is small. Of those, what percent do you think would be ok With fraud if it were only 18 months years in prison? What is the change if it were >18 months?
Are any choices being changed at all?
I think it is basic misunderstanding of the human mind.
Based on these observations I'm quite certain the length of time makes a difference. I'm quite certain that the ones that stomach several months would not be willing to be gone for 10x that. There's a reason why even in desperate wars soldiers are allowed to return to families at least once a year or so.
She hasn't even been sentenced yet! You're only saying this because she's a pretty woman. You're not saying it about Sunny Balwani.
She actually conned a very rich sucker into marrying her and having a child with her so she is set for life.
Related, from another article:
> a federal jury found Stewart, who maintained her innocence, guilty of conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of lying to federal investigators (a securities fraud charge was dismissed)
The original charge didn't stick, but they convicted on statements made to the FBI during the investigation.
This is just another reason to take the wargames advice when it comes to talking to the police:
> The only winning move is not to play.
Use your right to remain silent.
And for those who haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
know: don't talk to police, period.
Anyhow, it belies the notion that privileged white people don't go to prison. I actually know someone who did, and it wasn't for some catchall gotcha charge.
I'm willing to put money on the line right now saying that Lizzie will go to prison.
She will make out just fine
Maybe I am taking crazy pills, but even Unabomber at his unshaven peak (far from what most people would consider photogenic) was appearing more sane and photogenic than Holmes in her own promo photoshoots.
Agreed with your ultimate conclusion though. No matter how you stack the cards here, I had a gut feeling that she would make it out just fine, with Sunny being scapegoated as the "manipulator". Don't get me wrong, I believe he deserves at least just as much blame as Holmes. But he stood no chance.
The idea that he was the manipulator is a "finding of fact" in legal parlance. She can't raise that on appeal. Maybe if the defense tried and the judge refused to allow it, that could be appealed as an "error" and thus appealed. Offhand I don't think that happened in her trial, but I could be wrong (?)
Only a new trial could bring that up. An appellate court could order a new trial; that happens sometimes.
And, of course, in the sentencing hearing, they can try to blame Sunny. I don't think that reduces her sentence to zero, if it works at all.
IANAL, so someone who is: feel free to correct me.
When you consider her (mostly old male) investors, especially that pervert Bill Clinton, they weren't charmed by her stilted personality or her bizarre sanpaku eyes. They were thinking with the little head.
Bill appeared on a discussion panel with her once and Hillary's 2016 Presidential Campaign cancelled hosting an event at Theranos HQ after the leaks on Theranos (lack of) progress became public.
Please don't bring partisan misandry to HN, we're better than this.