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

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#681

Post by rsynnott »

nikanj wrote: post #594
runeks wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.

I believe it was originally designed to be a safety valve in the system. A person can be found guilty because the laws are blind, but if a (loud) majority of the population thinks it was a misjustice, the president can fix the situation. I don't think any of the founding fathers foresaw presidents using their power to pardon their friends. The whole system is extremely vulnerable to an insider attack - very few tools…

Well, realistically, it was just copied off powers that the British monarch had at the time. Lots of the oddities of the US presidential institution can be traced back to that.

Interestingly, this pattern repeats itself; countries which became independent from Britain later on often have a far less powerful president, with similar powers to when _they_ left. The president of Ireland, for instance, is non-executive, doesn't have a veto, and can't commute sentences... much like the British monarch when Ireland became independent.

As it stands, it's an anachronism that only survives because it's _really_ difficult to change the US constitution, I suspect.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#682

Post by dagw »

Boritanian wrote: post #670
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

She effectively stole millions. That's multiple lifetimes worth of work for a lot of people. If you assume average salary of 100k per year per person with 1/4th of time work per year. that's effectively 400k per year per person. He stole a hundred million which would be 250 years.

She effectively stole millions.

From people who could easily afford to lose it and who should have known better. None of the people she defrauded have a materially worse quality of life than they did before.

Her biggest crime was making rich people look stupid, and they REALLY don't like that.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#683

Post by Gustomaximus »

nikanj wrote: post #597
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skilling of Enron fame got 24 years and was released after 12. That's because his original 24 year sentence was reduced to 14 after a Supreme Court case vacated part of his convictions. My bet, based on some calculators I've seen, is that Holmes serves (actually in jail) 14-18 years.

My bet, based on her net worth, is that she'll die of old age before the last round of appeals ends - and serve zero days before that.

Given she is now convicted and soon to be sentenced, won't she be in jail for/during subsequent appeals?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#684

Post by avgcorrection »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #537
nroach wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people choose to serve on juries out of a sense of civic responsibility and don’t seek exclusion.

Why would I believe that happens to any measurable extent? I mean, sounds nice but it also sounds like a fairy tale.

That oneself and one’s peers are smart and most everyone else is an idiot is an even more enticing fairy tale.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#685

Post by mschuster91 »

atlantic wrote: post #667
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

Your argument is applicable to all white-collar crime. And it's emotionally-based, because she looks like one of us, not like a stereotypical thug. But in fact, she lied to take money from investors - theft on a grand scale - even if she wasn't wielding a sawn-off shotgun and wearing a ski mask. Edit: aside from that, I agree the potential sentence is very long, but that is characteristic of the US justice system, ri…

On the other side, one might make the argument that someone with millions of dollars to spare on early-stage investments should also be able to do their own due diligence on investments - otherwise, why would the status "accredited investor" be required? And, implicitly, that people like Holmes and Madoff who decide to exploit greed and unprofessionalism serve a vital purpose in a free market by acting as predators removing weak elements from the market.

Experts have warned from the beginning that Theranos made unrealistic to impossible announcements. Anyone investing at that scale without consulting experts IMO does not deserve protection from the law.

If Theranos is one thing, it is a real life example of why group dynamics and investing don't mix, and why the best thing to come out of r/wallstreetbets is the saying "do your own DD".

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#686

Post by thallium205 »

l33tman wrote: post #159
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

My layman's interpretation is that she willingly defrauded investors but did in fact deliver test results to the patients, albeit at a lower quality level than you would expect in the industry. I think in the HBO documentary they say the unravelling started because of FDA complaints on the bloodwork being sub par. But I think you can't jail someone for 120 years because they did a shoddy product. Maybe the prosecutor…

Prosecution went for both, but the jury only agreed with the fraud.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#687

Post by whywhywhywhy »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #665
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

5 years?! People can get that much for stealing a car or jewelry. She stole tens of millions! Not only that, she did it through fraud. It’s not like you can just build a higher fence. For the system to work, it must be free of fraud.

Sometimes it's not all just about the monetary amount. Someone choosing to use the threat of violence or death on a single individual one time to even take as little as $20 doesn't belong in a society.

Even if you're lying to trick some companies and investors to give you millions you're still not as evil or dangerous to society as the person who chooses to terrorize individuals for their gain. The actions are what matters.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#688

Post by sgt101 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #665
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

5 years?! People can get that much for stealing a car or jewelry. She stole tens of millions! Not only that, she did it through fraud. It’s not like you can just build a higher fence. For the system to work, it must be free of fraud.

I think that there are two components in your argument, the personal harm element and social policing. The question for me is what responsibility and therefore forefit there should be on an individual for the social element. Interestingly it seems to me that the more libertarian folks are the harsher their view of punitive measures for social enforcement seems.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#689

Post by thallium205 »

hef19898 wrote: post #560
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

Didn't they use real lab equipment to conduct real tests? In which case the results would be ok, it just wasn't the tech she promised. Quite a while I read something about the details, so.

They didn't run a traditional test all the time.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#690

Post by wedowhatwedo »

rsynnott wrote: post #679
droidno9 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

She'd want to get on with it; they're mostly fairly elderly. And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.

In America, we can no longer count on a sensible president.
Post reply on HN