Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 315 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#41

Post by mchannon »

The Bureau of Prisons will designate where she goes, and unless there's some prevailing medical reason (unlikely), or other reasons involving cooperation, request, security threats, access to particular religious facilities, or a repeat stay, my understanding is they're constrained by statute to pick a reasonable distance from home (that might be only X years from release date though).

The women's FCI in Dublin, California is an easy drive and they (presumably) have her level of security. If she wants to say F California (maybe she did in her PSR) then maybe Bryan TX is her destination. Could also be some random third facility. I don't think if a flight risk to Mexico is a concern that they'd be sending her so close to Mexico, but it may upgrade her security level enough that Dublin's off the table.

It's all time and it all sucks. Her kids will get to see her if their father wants them to, perhaps every weekend.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#42

Post by LadyCailin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17

A perverse culture of presumed lawlessness has migrated from Wall Street to Silicon Valley. You see it, here, when top-voted comments scoff at the notion of a perpetrator getting jail time. Hopefully, these sentences result in people being less cavalier about criminality. (Andreessen pivoting back to pumping web3 tempers my hope.)

The top comment is wondering why Musk isn’t in jail too. A sentiment I also hold.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

nickpinkston wrote: post #3

If you steal more than $5K three times in California, you will get 25 years in prison [1], and while I think that's disgusting and detestable, I don't want any elites getting special treatment either, so as to force change in those sentencing guidelines. [1] https://www.kannlawoffice.com/grand-theft.html

The federal sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with California state criminal law. Of course, if an act is both a federal and state crime, you can be prosecuted for each.

In fact, if an act is a crime in multiple states (which is possible), you can be charged and punished separately by each state as well as the federal government if it is also a federal crime. This rarely happens even where theoretically possible, but it can (its much more common for other jurisdictions to prosecute if you are acquitted in one but the act could be prosecuted in another as well.)

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#44

Post by JumpCrisscross »

standardUser wrote: post #35

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs. EDIT: As comments point out, it is a…

> non-violent crimes

I’m in a similar boat. But corruption is uniquely caustic to a society. In its erosion of trust. And in its perpetrators’ unique ability to bounce back and cause trouble anew. Fraud at this scale, at Holmes’ level, is similar in those attributes.

> restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage

Under what penalty?

> free person with a job can pay back their debt to society

Construct a restriction on Holmes. I’ll propose a loophole. Then consider the cost of constantly litigating that with her.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#45

Post by hef19898 »

standardUser wrote: post #35

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs. EDIT: As comments point out, it is a…

SBF and Bernie Madoff sure would like that approach.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#46

Post by realusername »

standardUser wrote: post #35

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs. EDIT: As comments point out, it is a…

Given she falsified medical results for so long, it's guaranteed some people have died as a result of her actions, that goes further than your average fraud

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#47

Post by ljw1001 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39
KindAndFriendly wrote: post #15

Reading this entire story, it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla.

> it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla Capability, not feature. I know that isn’t how it’s marketed. But Elon isn’t claiming he has Level 5 right now. Most FSD buyers seem aware they’re paying into a research effort. Fraud requires knowledge and intent. You’re making a good case for a class action lawsuit, i.e. civil action. Not for putting someo…

It’s a “full” capability they’re incapable of delivering. It’s really hard to see how your distinction has any meaning.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#48

Post by luckylion »

standardUser wrote: post #35

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs. EDIT: As comments point out, it is a…

In short: you don't want them to feel any consequences beyond having to pay back the money.

I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#50

Post by bradleyjg »

nickpinkston wrote: post #3

If you steal more than $5K three times in California, you will get 25 years in prison [1], and while I think that's disgusting and detestable, I don't want any elites getting special treatment either, so as to force change in those sentencing guidelines. [1] https://www.kannlawoffice.com/grand-theft.html

Three strikes and you’re out isn’t about retribution, it’s about the strong evidence that the specific deterrence and rehabilitation effect of prison will not work on a particular individual.
Post reply on HN