HN Explorer

Ask HN: Holmes/Theranos Verdict and Safety Culture?

11 points by csours ↗ HN
I have some conflicting thoughts and emotions about the Holmes verdict.

I believe this case was pursued due to the flagrant disregard for the health (and thus safety) of Theranos clients. If it was 'just' financial fraud against investors, I don't believe the public would have been so angry, and the prosecutor so motivated.

However, Holmes was found not guilty on the charges related to blood tests. One of the jurors said they believed she was 'one step removed'. The blood test charges were also not directly health related, they were fraud charges, as in the patient was defrauded into believing the tests were accurate.

The comment about being 'one step removed' made me think of safety culture and how no executives at Boeing were prosecuted for the 737 MAX debacle (so far as I know).

Laws do not punish moral failings directly, no matter how big or flagrant. It is quite clear that Holmes failed to establish a safety culture that put accuracy of test results over profit or funding. But there is no law that directly addresses that particular failing, and it's hard to see how American jurisprudence and society would frame or accept such a law.

So while I do see that Holmes was punished for her lies, and those lies were related to health and safety, I do find it hard to reconcile with the idea that health and safety are more important to maintain than legitimacy and fidelity of funding a startup.

What does the Elizabeth Holmes Verdict say about Rule of Law and Safety Culture?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UXicFk5q50 - Dropout Podcast on the verdict and juror point of view.

8 comments

[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 32.2 ms ] thread
giantg2
"... and the prosecutor so motivated."

In theory the prosecutor should be equally motivated for any offense. Otherwise we are not a nation of laws, but one of men. And that is not good thing.

Frankly, on my experiences: rule of law does not exist; the justice system is not about justice; most people do not have the rights they think they do, and even when they are violated the system will nor stand up for them; there is extremely little action on incompetence and even misconduct by those holding power (judges, prosecutors, etc).

csours
The hard shell of society is an illusion. Among other things, the shortages and price inflation of the last two years have shown that things don't just work on their own. Things work when people try really hard every day to make them work.

---

Justice has never been evenhanded or totally just. Punishment is always something we reserve for other people, we almost always have a justification for our own actions.

Celebrity and money makes people deferential, even people in the justice system.

As divisive as Me Too and BLM have been, they have shown the difference in power in a very bright and harsh light.

Is Justice an illusion worth preserving? How would we replace that illusion? What would come after?

giantg2
It doesn't have to be a complete restart. We could make incremental changes, like limiting prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion (this should lead to BS laws being removed from the books because they no longer affect only targeted groups), holding those in power accountable instead of hiding behind special privileges (complaints against judges are so secret that they don't have to turn over exculpatory evidence), making magistrates at least pass the bar to prevent total incompetence, actually adhering to strict construction and not legislating from the bench, etc.
csours
> limiting prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion

For instance, right now the issue of Cuomo's prosecution is in the news[0]. The prosecutor dropped the charges because it looks like it will be hard to get a conviction. Is this corruption or is this protection of limited resources? It's really hard to say from the outside and it seems like either interpretation could be legitimate without knowing more. Someone has to make the call, grand juries do something like this, but it's not the job of a grand jury to balance limited resources. Any imaginable system will have flaws.

I don't think you're wrong, and I do think it's a line of thinking worth pursuing.

0. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/nyregion/andrew-cuomo-cha...

giantg2
This is sort of a moot point. The court system should be expanded due to the perennial backlog, making resources less constrained. If there's probable cause to make an arrest, then it should be followed through for the court/jury to decide, not a DA.

On a side note, it sounds like it is difficult to get a conviction under that law and not just in this one case. It could be that the law was poorly written or shouldn't exist at all.

csours
In other words: It is not a crime to create or promote a bad corporate culture, but bad corporate culture breeds criminal activity.
AtlasBarfed
The rich and powerful have entire cottage industries providing legal protections to their shenanigans. It's why this case stands out so much (aside from American TV's obsession with "X happened to Attractive Blonde Woman). She exceeded the normal plausible deniability framework that the elite operate from.
DoreenMichele
Please keep in mind that Al Capone, notorious gangster, was convicted of tax fraud because that was what they were most able to readily prove and put him away for.

Sometimes cases hinge on what the rules readily facilitate rather than on details that one might find more morally satisfying.

Those cases may be brought for the right reasons but the law sometimes is at odds with going after someone "for the right reasons."

You could consider it a kind of legal hack. It happens fairly often both in crime or legal drama shows and in the real world.