-- "A federal judge has denied a request to release Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes from prison while she appeals her fraud conviction" <=> "A U.S. judge on Monday denied Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes' request to remain free on bail while she appeals her conviction on charges of defrauding..."
-- "Holmes was sentenced to 11 years and three months in prison in November for defrauding investors..." <=> "U.S. District Judge Edward Davila sentenced Holmes to 11 years and three months in prison in November"
-- "He noted that even if Holmes won her appeal challenging the admission of evidence about Theranos’ inaccurate blood tests, it would not result in a reversal of the other convictions against her" <=> "Davila concluded that even if Holmes won her appeal to challenge the Theranos technology evidence, it wouldn't result in a reversal or a new trial of all the counts she was found guilty of"
Etc. (this is just 3 of the first 4 sentences!) The little anti-string-matching substitutions, like "to challenge" -> "challenging", show clear intent to obfuscate.
Saved you a click: bail was denied not because she was a flight risk but because she's already been convicted of other charges and the judge determined even if she is found innocent in this new trial it won't exonerate her.
Interesting how she ended up marrying some rich guy and live in a mansion after her conviction. Did she launder money to his family while she was CEO of Theranos? Otherwise I just don't get it.
11 years is a great deal if she gets to live in a mansion afterwards. Why did I waste my career being honest?
That is an interesting outcome of our current wealth inequalities. The amount of money raked in by top earners is so high that it is well worth the risk of a jail term. Most people (ie poor people) would probably happily serve a 10-year jail term if, after that, they had a few million dollars in the bank. Even more so as few fraudsters are ever caught yet alone jailed. It is a rational choice. Our current system of punishments is not adapted to dissuade wrongdoing in the face of such wealth.
And that's just the official system. The unofficial systems such as the inability of convicted felons to get jobs also fail when dealing with rich people. A poor convict will have trouble renting an apartment or getting a loan. Marth Stewart won't ever suffer from being a convicted felon. She will never apply for a job nor have to "rent" an apartment. A hundred years ago she would have been an outcast from high society. No bank would want to give her an account. Not today. Money cures all.
> Most people (ie poor people) would probably happily serve a 10-year jail term if, after that, they had a few million dollars in the bank.
I don’t think this is true at all.
10 years of your life is a huge sacrifice, especially in your prime years.
Even among criminals it’s common to abandon everything if it means a chance at avoiding prison. People would rather live on the run and start their lives over under a new identity than go to prison.
I don’t understand these commands suggesting that a decade of prison is a good trade for a few million. Coming out in your 40s or 50s having missed out on your kids’ childhood, lost your social connections, and having no career or experience to point to is devastating. It’s weird to see people look at this and think it’s some sort of good deal.
I mean, working most jobs is an exchange of your time and to a (admittedly very small) extent your freedom in the hopes that some day you'll obtain enough to retire, right? Of course, that's assuming you can navigate the vicissitudes of the labor market; there's no real guarantee.
This whole conversation seems like a slightly advanced game of the old playground favorite, "would you rather?", and I can say that given the right parameters, I would gladly spend some time in prison for the right payout.
This is an interesting insight. I've often said that we're headed towards some kind of mafia society. Low punishment for criminal activity, low willingness from police to prosecute certain crimes, high and growing inequality which keeps piling on more pressure on the poor while taking away their opportunities, breakdown of traditional values and morals, distrust of institutions... It's like a perfect storm.
It isn't that simple. The punishments are actually rather sever for most people. What is different today is the power of extreme wealth to nullify or rationalize harsh punishments. I would say our current system of equal punishment for equal crimes might need to be updated. Punishment could be somehow tied to personal wealth, as speeding tickets in some countries are based on a percentage of one's income. For cases like Holmes', perhaps garnish her income, say 80% of everything over 100k/year, until she has repaid all debtors twice over. (Actually take the money, allow no bankruptcy escapes.)
> 11 years is a great deal if she gets to live in a mansion afterwards.
I guess that's a matter of opinion. I'm happy to work till retirement in a modest house if it means I don't spend any time in prison. Even 1 year in prison doesn't seem worth it for the mansion retirement package. (1 month is borderline for me.)
> I guess that's a matter of opinion. I'm happy to work till retirement in a modest house if it means I don't spend any time in prison.
It's a matter of perspective.
Say you're age 38 (the age that EH was when she was convicted) with no children (she had no children at the time).
You are going to spend the clear majority of your waking time (%75+) over the next 27 years confined to working, with the remaining 25% or less actually enjoying your freedom (holiday/vacations away, social visits, recreation, etc) before finally retiring.
In effect you'll be enjoying not more than 6.75 years, awake, of freedom before retirement.
Or, you could spend 100% of your next 11 years confined, and have the next 16 years after confinement, awake, of freedom. You'll still be under 50 when released, so lots of options to enjoy that freedom.
I can see why some people will find the second option attractive.
Personally, right now it's not for me (I have children I want to enjoy while they are growing), but I feel certain that if I did NOT have children, or a close romantic relationship which I wish to maintain, I'd much prefer the second option.
The sooner I can stop working, the better my life and my voluntary contributions to humanity. I can't very well explore deep questions or meaningfully make my mark on the world if I'm stuck in a cubicle for more than 3/4 of my awake time.
> You are going to spend the clear majority of your waking time (%75+) over the next 27 years confined to working, with the remaining 25% or less actually enjoying your freedom (holiday/vacations away, social visits, recreation, etc) before finally retiring.
You have substantially miscalculated: 9 working hours out of 15 waking hours per day you are at work (including mid-range commute and lunch break and generous 9 hours sleeping) is already only 60% of your waking time. Then taking into account weekends and annual leave / bank holidays = 38% of your waking time at work (or 41% if in USA with no annual leave and 10 federal holidays).
Besides, you have equated being in prison with being at work. It's as if you're saying, they're both not enjoyable, and therefore the same. I am lucky enough to enjoy my job, but I've been in crappy menial jobs for summer work as a student and they're still better than being in prison - not just a bit better but so far off I don't see how you could compare them.
If you are in a high pressure job where you hate working and are working a lot more than I just calculated then maybe by your logic (and I actually would agree with this) you should take some much lower paid job where you don't have ridiculous expectations on your life. You shouldn't need to hate your job more than going to prison to come to that realisation!
I am her age, with no children and single and there is no way I would give up my years between 40 and 50 for more not having to work between 50 and 65. That trade is just a bad deal since you can never predict what your health will be, especially after having spent 11 years locked up. We only have one life and we do not know when it may end.
Just think of all the meaningful friendships you will lose both due to being away and from the crime.
I'm going to get downvoted for being captain obvious here and also maybe because the OP is clearly sarcasm, but still can't help it ... :
>Why did I waste my career being honest?
Because living and ethical life is a worthy goal in and of itself, and likely a much better one (as in : in a purely utilitarian framework, simply more rewarding) than to shoot for piling up as much money as possible?
I know, in Usistan, this idea contradicts the whole societal ethos to the point that it's hard to understand to most folks.
> 11 years is a great deal if she gets to live in a mansion afterwards. Why did I waste my career being honest?
If you think you’d want to sacrifice 11 of your prime years to prison in exchange for living in a mansion, you probably haven’t comprehended the realities of going to prison.
Plus it's a non-violent crime, so maybe she won't be in a super high security prison. With a bit of good behavior I could imagine it being not really 11 years of being away from the family, especially if they can visit.
I think that goes in general. White collar crime pays, most if it goes uncovered and when it does, you might get few years of prison, while still ending up being rich for rest of your life.
Few years of 24/7 prison or 30+ years of 9-5 prison?
If you want to hang around with intelligent people, why work for Big Tech from 9 to 5 when you can just go to jail and meet all the best and brightest?
> Few years of 24/7 prison or 30+ years of 9-5 prison?
I have friends who work in the prison system (educational/reform domain).
These comments from people casually comparing prison to their jobs are so out of touch it’s unbelievable. Even in the best of circumstances, losing a decade of your life to prison is devastating.
If you could just mind your own business and do your time while in prison this would seem plausible but from what I understand, once you're in there you have a good chance of getting charged with further crimes that you end up involved in. Maybe not so much as a female.
Some of their fortunes. The Sacklers managed to stash billions away. And then have their company prosecuted and restructured instead of any personal liability. Pretty good gig, if you’re a sociopath.
Do you think Elizabeth Holmes is as happy person? I don't get that impression, and I don't think she will ever be. She will always be a liar, a criminal, and a fraud.
In April, Holmes is set to commence serving her sentence in prison; however, she has the option to seek bail from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during her conviction appeal.
> Elizabeth Holmes purposefully went on to get pregnant, just to garner empathy
No one knows that, and it's a disservice to humanity to push this narrative.
She committed crimes, and is being rightfully punished. That doesn't mean as a human she looses the right to have a family. I imagine facing a very long stretch in prison that will take you past the point where it's possible to start a family motivates you to consider starting one.
But that's not to say it was a "good" or moral choice for her to make - I feel for any child who parents are incarcerated.
As much as people like to see criminals as 2d villains, they are humans with fundamental human drives.
Everyone knows! This is a common scheme to get pregnant in order to avoid jail / get leniency. It’s quite common and a disgusting way to try and dodge accountability.
Normally I would side with your view but if you know anything about Holmes this is a very naive view to take.
> Holmes' defense team cited her "two very young children" in its latest argument for why Holmes is not a flight risk and should remain out of prison while she appeals her fraud conviction.
Lawyers will and are almost required to argue anything they think may work, whether done intentionally or no. If she had developed sudden cancer they would have argued using that, too.
Until she says what and why she was doing what she did (and even then) we don’t really know - mayhap she realized her chance of having children afterwards would be severely reduced.
Yes, fundamental human drives like greed and power seeking.
The whole history of philosophy has been a discussion of morality - which drives to promote and which to suppress in order to live a life that benefits both the individual and the community the individual lives in.
Robert Nozick discusses these matters in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations.
Didn't this person steal billions and conned dozens or hundreds of investors while trying to sell snake-oil blood testing machines under the guise that it would be a great thing for the world, especially poorer countries?
What reality do you live where that is not pure 2d villain material?
Barebones front page with multiple articles https://www.capith.com/
AI generated about us page https://www.capith.com/about-us/
Contact page leads to 1 follower on Twitter https://twitter.com/CapithNews
The Mastodon and Facebook links are straight up broken HTML https://www.capith.com/contact-us/
And even if you check it's a dead account with 0 followers https://mastodon.social/@capith