> There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.
I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction.
In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer.
The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal.
So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else.
Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.
One of the worst things I've learnt about US, is that like the poor can't just go to vote, as it is not a public holiday but they need to ask for permission from their bosses? Like there are a lot of bad things I've learnt along the years about of US treats poors, and I think this one is on the podium
Vote for whom? Which political party represents interests of the people who are looking for systematic changes in favor of the working class?
It's extremely hard to democratically enact change even in countries with multiple political parties and proportional representation. The US doesn't even have that, it's an illusion of choice with 2 parties who are equally corrupt.
If this was genuinely an important issue to even just the 38 million people living under the poverty line, they could certainly find candidates. If you count low-income people as poor, you’re speaking of something like a hundred million people.
The real problem is that people simply don’t care. People are much more willing to go to the polls over their right to own guns than issues like this.
Which they have been doing, as you might have noticed. This has led to lavishly-funded opposition aimed at splitting that coalition
- note the sums poured into misrepresenting the SF DA, for example. The case of making treatment of the poor more humanely is more sympathetic so there’s every reason to believe that opposition to consequences for rich people would be _less_ well funded and more affluent people would find excuses not to support it, just as we’ve see for things like trying to get rich people to pay taxes at the same rates.
Conservative commentators everywhere would no doubt be delighted at the suggestion that all poor people should wait out an appeal in a $13k/mth mansion.
I assume you're unfamiliar with the British system, where it's not unusual for people who can't afford bail to be jailed for years before their case even comes to trial.
Does the US not operate in the same way? Is it not the case that rich people can hire expensive lawyers at every stage of the process while poor people can't?
Clearly the size a bank account is very relevant indeed.
It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the UK system either. Bail in the UK means adherence to specific conditions, i.e. live somewhere the police can find you, stay away from the victim and don't leave the country. It doesn't involve cash changing hands. If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue.
The person you're responding to is referencing that sentencing is done by a judge who is supposed to be more objective when determining sentence, as opposed to emotional juries who simply determine if they are guilty or not of accused crimes.
It absolutely is not. It's about risk of absconding. Secondly, no, cash bail is not a thing in the UK. Someone being arrested in the UK for extradition is not part of the UK justice system, they are merely passing through at the request of a foreign nation. Unsurprisingly, foreign nationals can't have their passport taken away by a foreign country, who'd have thought?!?!??!
Yes and people do it all the time from within their prison cell. As should she. She's been convicted, so the presumption of innocence is gone. Now the onus is on her to prove the trial wasn't handled legally. Which is a claim she is free to make while serving her sentence.
48 Hrs. is a fantastic movie -- maybe Eddie Murphy's best (and first) -- but I need you to explain the connection between that film and Elizabeth Holmes or her current situation.
I'd have to say that Eddie Murphy's best movie is actually 'Best Defense'.
But perhaps the plot for Holmes could be that she has 48 hours to find out who is responsible for Covid-19. Teaming up with Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the unlikely trio find themselves in a race against time. Was it Fauci? Or someone else?
> There are not two systems of justice — one for the wealthy and one for the poor
Would be nice if they would say this when a poor person, because they cannot afford a team of lawyers, gets a completely over the top punishment on shoddy evidence.
> there is one criminal justice system in this country.
That's an illusion. There's almost no wealthy criminal that sees the walls of a prison - and if they do, they find ways to get out very quickly thanks to their connections.
I wanted to say, this is a point one could try to argue in countries where e.g. the fine for speed tickets is proportional to the income, but in the US there is just a lack of hard evidence to support that statement (and a lot of evidence that supports the opposite of the statment).
The way I perceive it the US justice system is too prone to be toyed around with by people with money. A lot of the stuff people pull off in the US would land you in contempt of court if you just tried it elsewhere on the world.
Innocent until proven guily, I get all of that, but what money factually buys you in the US is ridiculous
Also, while we learn “innocent until proven guilty” in elementary school in the US, it doesn’t apply to poor people.
Under our peculiar pay-to-play “cash bail” system, it only applies to those who can afford the fee.
For the rest of the people it’s very much the opposite: stay imprisoned (and lose your job etc) until not proven guilty.
To avoid this, many people take a loan from a “bail bondsman” that comes with a service fee of around 10% of the bail —- which might easily be tens of thousands of dollars and leave a poor person in crippling debt for years or forever — regardless of guilt.
In general, wealthy people make up a small proportion of the population and tend (though not always) towards greater intelligence, or at least education, than the average. Both of these factors make them less likely to show up in prisons in general. It doesn't have to be about connections and special favors. Sure, many wealthy people can afford better legal defense and the justice system definitely makes things easier for them, but the rich do indeed go to real-people prison if they fuck up badly enough and get caught doing it.
> In general, wealthy people make up a small proportion of the population and tend (though not always) towards greater intelligence, or at least education, than the average
That they make up a small proportion of the population is indisputable. Just check disposable wealth demographics. That they tend toward greater average intelligence than many in the average is certainly much more debatable, but at least in terms of access to better education resources, yes. Though I think that yes, on average, many of those who made their own wealth are better at problem solving and planning than the average.
It seems like all of America is afraid of prison sentencing white collar crime because of the number of people who may wind up in prison. Sentencing towards moral high ground frightens those in power.
Interesting to me that the Venn diagram of the group of people who want "prison reform" and an end to overincarceration and the group of people who want Holmes locked up with the key thrown away is basically a perfect circle.
Is Holmes such an imminent danger to society that she needs locked up and cordoned off from our communities?
Punishment isn’t only about the crime in the past. Punishment is used as deterrence against possible future crimes by others - to show what will happen if they do something similar
I don't think it should be that, because that can cause people who committed not very serious crimes to be punished disproportionately as an example. It's unjust.
I don't think those groups are the same except perhaps in your mind. If you have some evidence otherwise it might be worth providing it.
Secondly, those positions are not mutually exclusive or even intellectually inconsistent. You can think there are too many people in jail general (eg for certain crimes and certain groups in society) and still think that for certain specific cases, jail is appropriate.
Thirdly, as a sibling has pointed out, protection of society is not the only or even the primary reason a jail sentence might be appropriate in a given case. I believe prosecutors believe flight risk is the primary reason jail is appropriate in this case, at least partly because her partner bought a ticket to Mexico in January for her which was only cancelled after the government intervened.[1] Her counsel said it was in expectation of being found not guilty so she was able to attend a friend's wedding but the bummer for that theory is that it was a one-way ticket.
For many people disgusted by seeing a person like Holmes having it easy despite being egregariously guilty of criminal offenses against others in several terrible ways, it's not hypocrisy in the way you try to describe. Instead it's simply being angry that a justice system which regularly hammers much poorer people into the ground for often very minor offenses then treats a wealthy criminal like her with kid gloves in specific ways.
One can support reforms against punitive justice and still be disgusted by something like this, or one can also support prison reform while considering Holmes's crimes bad enough to merit a fairly strong degree of punishment in this specific case. Basically: complex subjects like this are full of nuance, and strawmen need not apply to and honest debate.
Believing that too many people go to jail for minor offenses or those which don’t endanger others isn’t incompatible with believing major crimes should still have jail time.
What’s especially worth considering here is what Holmes did: most people expect high standards for medical ethics since lying as she did could have irreversible impacts on people’s lives. Her fraud involved inaccurately telling people that they had cancer, or giving values which lead to changes in medication or other treatments. That isn’t as bad as it could have been – I don’t believe anyone was given a false negative on cancer, for example - but it’s absolutely toxic for trust in the medical system if it’s not strictly punished.
Similarly, as a corporate officer she lied repeatedly to investors, regulators, and the public.
What both of those have in common is that they’re positions of trust where fraud is relatively hard to catch. Millions of people are in positions where they could on a daily basis abuse their customers’ trust and potentially never be caught, and so we have to consider the deterrent effect as well. Doctors, bankers, CEOs, etc. are highly paid so a financial deterrent isn’t nearly as effective at preventing lapses as the possibility of jail time - your family trust can’t serve it for you - and those consequences also mean that the people around you aren’t going to help cover it up the way they might if it was profitable enough to look the other way.
Wow she tells her probation officers that she wants to figure out how to continue monetizing her patents. That’s all you need to know about Holmes right there…
That to me is what pushes me over the edge to jail for her: defrauding investors arguably should not involve jail time but I think knowingly playing games with medical procedures, food safety, etc. should be one of the electrified third rails that everyone knows is not worth any profit.
Are you equally as mad that there are people who walk away with 5 years in prison after performing 8-9 figures worth of unnecessary lab tests in order to bill Medicare? Or physicians who get millions in kickbacks to prescribe expensive compounded drugs that might not even work? Holmes is a drop in the bucket of overall healthcare fraud (this kind of crime has a lot of recidivists) and is probably one of the less egregious cases.
I do want them to face consequences, yes. Whether that’s jail time or financial ruination depends on harm - an extra test which doesn’t harm the patient is more waste than endangerment, and in this hypothetical case you also have the much harder question of proving intent. One of the other inequities of the American system is that white-collar crime usually requires you to prove not only that someone did something but also that they had criminal intention. Unless someone leaves documents showing they intended to bilk Medicare that is a tricky case of proving they didn’t reasonably want the data to rule out a possible diagnosis.
Conceiving two children while you're facing a possibly very long time in prison seems like an incredibly selfish thing to do. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
62 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadStranger is US law in general, where the outcome of convictions depends on the emotional stability of a judge and the thoughts of a jury.
Law is an emotional process in the US. In Europe there are no emotions involved in the sentencing.
I think this reflects the responds like "Send her to prison, where she belongs". There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.
I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction.
In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer.
The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal.
So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else.
Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.
https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state...
It's extremely hard to democratically enact change even in countries with multiple political parties and proportional representation. The US doesn't even have that, it's an illusion of choice with 2 parties who are equally corrupt.
The real problem is that people simply don’t care. People are much more willing to go to the polls over their right to own guns than issues like this.
Does the US not operate in the same way? Is it not the case that rich people can hire expensive lawyers at every stage of the process while poor people can't?
Clearly the size a bank account is very relevant indeed.
The person you're responding to is referencing that sentencing is done by a judge who is supposed to be more objective when determining sentence, as opposed to emotional juries who simply determine if they are guilty or not of accused crimes.
I’ve had to hand over money to get a friend out after he was arrested due to an extradition request.
> If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue
It absolutely is a money issue. The bigger surety you can put up, the less those things matter.
>It's about risk of absconding
And putting up a bigger deposit obviously helps address that risk.
>Secondly, no, cash bail is not a thing in the UK
It is. In the UK it’s called a bail security. It’s not common, but absolutely a thing.
See on lexisnexis https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/securities-suret...
>Someone being arrested in the UK for extradition is not part of the UK justice system
Absolutely is, and the rules regarding bail are the same.
>Unsurprisingly, foreign nationals can't have their passport taken away by a foreign country, who'd have thought?!?!?
What? Of course they can. It’s not at all unusual for people bailed for crimes in the UK to be required to surrender their foreign passports.
But perhaps the plot for Holmes could be that she has 48 hours to find out who is responsible for Covid-19. Teaming up with Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the unlikely trio find themselves in a race against time. Was it Fauci? Or someone else?
Would be nice if they would say this when a poor person, because they cannot afford a team of lawyers, gets a completely over the top punishment on shoddy evidence.
That's an illusion. There's almost no wealthy criminal that sees the walls of a prison - and if they do, they find ways to get out very quickly thanks to their connections.
The way I perceive it the US justice system is too prone to be toyed around with by people with money. A lot of the stuff people pull off in the US would land you in contempt of court if you just tried it elsewhere on the world.
Innocent until proven guily, I get all of that, but what money factually buys you in the US is ridiculous
Under our peculiar pay-to-play “cash bail” system, it only applies to those who can afford the fee.
For the rest of the people it’s very much the opposite: stay imprisoned (and lose your job etc) until not proven guilty.
To avoid this, many people take a loan from a “bail bondsman” that comes with a service fee of around 10% of the bail —- which might easily be tens of thousands of dollars and leave a poor person in crippling debt for years or forever — regardless of guilt.
What makes you think this?
Is Holmes such an imminent danger to society that she needs locked up and cordoned off from our communities?
Secondly, those positions are not mutually exclusive or even intellectually inconsistent. You can think there are too many people in jail general (eg for certain crimes and certain groups in society) and still think that for certain specific cases, jail is appropriate.
Thirdly, as a sibling has pointed out, protection of society is not the only or even the primary reason a jail sentence might be appropriate in a given case. I believe prosecutors believe flight risk is the primary reason jail is appropriate in this case, at least partly because her partner bought a ticket to Mexico in January for her which was only cancelled after the government intervened.[1] Her counsel said it was in expectation of being found not guilty so she was able to attend a friend's wedding but the bummer for that theory is that it was a one-way ticket.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elizabeth-hol...
That's basic logic and fairness.
The two extremes are almost always both wrong.
One can support reforms against punitive justice and still be disgusted by something like this, or one can also support prison reform while considering Holmes's crimes bad enough to merit a fairly strong degree of punishment in this specific case. Basically: complex subjects like this are full of nuance, and strawmen need not apply to and honest debate.
What’s especially worth considering here is what Holmes did: most people expect high standards for medical ethics since lying as she did could have irreversible impacts on people’s lives. Her fraud involved inaccurately telling people that they had cancer, or giving values which lead to changes in medication or other treatments. That isn’t as bad as it could have been – I don’t believe anyone was given a false negative on cancer, for example - but it’s absolutely toxic for trust in the medical system if it’s not strictly punished.
Similarly, as a corporate officer she lied repeatedly to investors, regulators, and the public.
What both of those have in common is that they’re positions of trust where fraud is relatively hard to catch. Millions of people are in positions where they could on a daily basis abuse their customers’ trust and potentially never be caught, and so we have to consider the deterrent effect as well. Doctors, bankers, CEOs, etc. are highly paid so a financial deterrent isn’t nearly as effective at preventing lapses as the possibility of jail time - your family trust can’t serve it for you - and those consequences also mean that the people around you aren’t going to help cover it up the way they might if it was profitable enough to look the other way.
She was convicted. Let her appeal her conviction from within a jail cell.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1...
That to me is what pushes me over the edge to jail for her: defrauding investors arguably should not involve jail time but I think knowingly playing games with medical procedures, food safety, etc. should be one of the electrified third rails that everyone knows is not worth any profit.