Elizabeth Holmes' Prison Sentence Was Quietly Reduced By Two Years (gizmodo.com) 156
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Disgraced Theranos co-founder Elizabeth Holmes' prison sentence has been reduced by two years, according to the Bureau of Prisons records. Holmes was sentenced to 11 years and three months in prison for defrauding investors by claiming her blood-testing company provided quick and reliable results but she was found to have lied about the reliability of those tests. Holmes surrendered to the Bureau of Prisons in California on May 30 to serve out her sentence at a minimum-security all-female federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas.
Less than two months after she reported to prison, her sentence was quietly changed, with her new release date scheduled for December 29, 2032, the Bureau's site says. The Bureau has not provided additional information for why Holmes' projected release date was shortened, but its site says an inmate's good behavior, substance abuse program completion, and time credits they receive for activities and programs they've completed can result in a lessened sentence. Only last month, Theranos' former president and chief operating officer Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani's 13-year sentence was likewise reduced by two years, making his new projected release date April 11, 2034.
Holmes is serving out her remaining nine-year sentence at FPC Bryan, an all-female prison camp, where the women adhere to a strict schedule requiring them to begin work at 6 a.m. each day. Those who are considered eligible to work are assigned jobs earning between 12 cents and $1.15 an hour in roles like food service and factory employment.
Less than two months after she reported to prison, her sentence was quietly changed, with her new release date scheduled for December 29, 2032, the Bureau's site says. The Bureau has not provided additional information for why Holmes' projected release date was shortened, but its site says an inmate's good behavior, substance abuse program completion, and time credits they receive for activities and programs they've completed can result in a lessened sentence. Only last month, Theranos' former president and chief operating officer Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani's 13-year sentence was likewise reduced by two years, making his new projected release date April 11, 2034.
Holmes is serving out her remaining nine-year sentence at FPC Bryan, an all-female prison camp, where the women adhere to a strict schedule requiring them to begin work at 6 a.m. each day. Those who are considered eligible to work are assigned jobs earning between 12 cents and $1.15 an hour in roles like food service and factory employment.
Christ (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Christ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The authority pyramid necessarily makes it easier for the people in authority to tune the rules to their continued accumulation of wealth and power.
After all, there are fewer of them who need to cooperate than the public, and they are far more united in their goals than we are.
Re: Christ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then what you have is a gross revenue tax and not an income tax. Taxing income inherently requires a taxpayer to be able to write off the expenses required to earn the income in the first place. The problem with taxing gross revenue is that it can result in an effective tax rate in excess of 100% if you are in a low-margin business. If it costs me $90 to make a widget I sell for $100 and you tax me 20% on that $100 of revenue, I'm net negative $10. Plus, it inherently favors high over low margin busin
Re:Christ (Score:5, Informative)
You must have missed the part where her *male* counterpart also received 2 years of reduced time.
also..ffs, still 10 years in jail (Score:2)
I mean who cares if she gets released at the crack of 2033. She's still going to spend the next decade doing whatever job she ends up getting in jail and being subject to abuse from the other prisoners and guards. It's going to suck and if you don't know it, you haven't thought about it very hard.
Also, I haven't heard that narcisissts stop being so as a result of prison sentences. This is just punishment, pure and simple.
Re:also..ffs, still 10 years in jail (Score:5, Informative)
She's in a minimum security women's camp for white-collar offenders so there won't be any abuse or violence. Nobody there is going to risk prolonging their own sentences or worse being moved to a facility where they keep the dangerous people. The opposite really, it's more of a networking opportunity for after they're released.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite really, it's more of a networking opportunity for after they're released.
Friend of the family, a tax attorney, ended up in a Club Fed for tax issues back in the '80s. Before release, they had some of the same "re-entering society" sessions that the other prisons had. During the part on how to open a bank account, one guy said he could buy a bank. Another guy said he owned one.
Re: also..ffs, still 10 years in jail (Score:2)
being subject to abuse from the other prisoners and guards
The fact that Americans take this as a given is just sick. Do you not see that?
Prisoners are still people with rights. Accepting prison ra0e and beatings as somehow normal? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Accepting prison ra0e
Can we stop pretending that masking out a few letters of select words does anything to prevent readers from having a triggering incident?
Re: (Score:2)
That actually could of been a legit typo. 0 is right above p.
Re: (Score:2)
Accepting prison ra0e
Can we stop pretending that masking out a few letters of select words does anything to prevent readers from having a triggering incident?
0Key
Re: (Score:2)
Prisoners in the US are missing some rights you probably take for granted. The most notable one being the glaring exception in the US constitution's anti-slavery amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
" doing whatever job she ends up getting in jail and being subject to abuse from the other prisoners and guards. It's going to suck and if you don't know it, you haven't thought about it very hard"
The same can be said for the 1000s of people, mostly women, who were or are given long sentences just because they were affiliated with drug pushers but didn't have juicy evidence on a bigger fish.
Meanwhile some 1st class scumbags walked because they had dirt on the capos
Re: (Score:2)
Why mostly women, are advantaged in the criminal justice system:
https://journalistsresource.or... [journalistsresource.org]
While I don't disagree that upper lever criminals get away with more because of corruption and better lawyers, the statement that it is mostly women is totally unsupported, even if they where treated equally it would be mostly men since men far outnumber women in prisons.
Maybe you are under the delusion that are not capable of violence. Having daughters I can assure you its quite possible. Also that that there
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, she'll emerge from Club Fed with a Masters in Financial Fuckery to kick-off Dot-Bomb, Part Duh.
Yes because felony convictions for financial fraud go over well in the world of elites. Remember, she defrauded rich people and not just peasants. Rich people are unlikely to forget that.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, she'll emerge from Club Fed with a Masters in Financial Fuckery to kick-off Dot-Bomb, Part Duh.
Yes because felony convictions for financial fraud go over well in the world of elites. Remember, she defrauded rich people and not just peasants. Rich people are unlikely to forget that.
Things worked out okay for Michael Milken
Re: (Score:2)
She'll end up serving half her sentence and get out on good behavior. Cry me a river, she and her male counterpart deserve so much worse then they are getting.
Re: also..ffs, still 10 years in jail (Score:2)
True. When is the Theranos documentary going to cover her prison time? Lol....
Re:Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course she had kids now...so, that knocks points off her now....
Re: (Score:2)
If I knew nothing about her, yeah she would be pretty hot. Since that's not the case, she's just downright scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...but with the right makeup, etc...she could look fairly hot...and well, that helps.
Of course she had kids now...so, that knocks points off her now....
So true. I do remember when I first saw her, I thought "Good looking lady, but those crazy eyes!" Wasn't wrong, it turns out.
Remember guys, don't dip in crazy. The sex is great, but getting stabbed in bed at 3 in the morning isn't.
Or getting Amber Hearded.
Re: (Score:2)
The contentious point that I see is that the boss is a female and the underling is a male. But the female seemly receives the shorter sentence. In today's Woke world, they both should receive the same sentence.
Double standard at work -- the Matriarchy Rules!
Re:Christ (Score:5, Informative)
I'd settle for Equality in Sentencing instead. You know, on behalf of every other incarcerated person who isn't handed the gift of a lesser sentence almost every time because of...of...shit, what's it called aga, oh yeah, gender.
Considering that zero part of story hints that the reduction was due to gender, I would say you are the one advocating this reasoning. The whole premise is that there has not been a reason given. With US prison overcrowding an issue and her crimes were nonviolent, that would generally make her more eligible for a reduced sentence.
Perhaps we should ask Modern Feminism to stand and present a valid argument as to why this particular unfairness, has been conveniently overlooked. Those still sitting behind bars while others walk free unfortunately have plenty of time to make the popcorn...
And I would to ask how you came to the conclusion that "It must be because she was a woman!" when the article does not even hint at it. In fact the article mentions her male co-conspirator had his sentence also reduced by two years. It must be he was male, right? Are you going to rant about how that was unfair?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'd settle for Equality in Sentencing instead. You know, on behalf of every other incarcerated person who isn't handed the gift of a lesser sentence almost every time because of...of...shit, what's it called aga, oh yeah, gender.
Considering that zero part of story hints that the reduction was due to gender, I would say you are the one advocating this reasoning. The whole premise is that there has not been a reason given. With US prison overcrowding an issue and her crimes were nonviolent, that would generally make her more eligible for a reduced sentence.
Should we be any more accepting of "infamous" being a valid excuse as much as "female" is when it comes to sentencing? Someone does need to present a valid reason as to why her sentence was reduced. I'd feel an honorable judge who had sentenced her to 11 years not very long ago would also want to know as well, since "overcrowding" should be quite irrelevant from their perspective.
Sorry. I still look for reasons to use the word justice when describing our legal system. Tends to drive home the fucking poi
Re: (Score:2)
Should we be any more accepting of "infamous" being a valid excuse as much as "female" is when it comes to sentencing? Someone does need to present a valid reason as to why her sentence was reduced. I'd feel an honorable judge who had sentenced her to 11 years not very long ago would also want to know as well, since "overcrowding" should be quite irrelevant from their perspective.
Here's the valid reason:
Good behavior. This is just an estimated release date assuming good behavior. She'll serve 85% of her sentence just like most federal prisoners that don't fuck up while inside. If she constantly fights other prisoners or starts a riot, she'll do the original 11 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Should we be any more accepting of "infamous" being a valid excuse as much as "female" is when it comes to sentencing?
And when you read the federal sentencing guidelines as well as the recommendations of the prosecutor and judge, you noted how they all took into account that she was female AND famous? Or was the sentencing based on none of your imagined biases?
I'd feel an honorable judge who had sentenced her to 11 years not very long ago would also want to know as well, since "overcrowding" should be quite irrelevant from their perspective.
Bahahahahahaha. Yes because judges know nothing about how the prison system works, and no one in the history of prison has ever had their sentence reduced to overcrowding or good behavior ever. Judges may be unhappy that some of their prison sentences are reduced, b
Re: (Score:2)
And when you read the federal sentencing guidelines as well as the recommendations of the prosecutor and judge, you noted how they all took into account that she was female AND famous? Or was the sentencing based on none of your imagined biases?
And when you see a black person sentences, or shot do you see a statement from someone that it was because they where black, hell no. Do you see women who don't get hired or get paid less because they are women get the statements that its because they where women.
If you are willing to accept those types of biases exist then why wouldn't you accept that theses do. It is not likely that a judge would make a statement like her sentence was reduced because she was female, or even be aware of their implicit bias
Re: (Score:2)
This is but one example of gender bias being a potential factor in a single case.
You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that gender had anything other than it is "a potential factor." Just like it is a potential factor that it was because she was white and blonde and named "Elizabeth". Just like it is a potential factor that she ate a bagel on a Tuesday. Just like it is a potential factor that a black cat ran across the judge the day he sentenced her.
What I'm far more certain of are the facts surrounding incarceration rates and sentencing that are beyond any "conspiracy" at this point.
Then present your facts. I'll wait.
I'd honestly settle for incarceration being a valid deterrent to crime again regardless of gender, but I'd prefer that feminists don't present themselves as such hypocrites when it comes to championing equality instead.
You keep saying that without any evidence and asserting that it MUST be true because you be
Re: (Score:2)
This is but one example of gender bias being a potential factor in a single case.
You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that gender had anything other than it is "a potential factor." Just like it is a potential factor that it was because she was white and blonde and named "Elizabeth". Just like it is a potential factor that she ate a bagel on a Tuesday. Just like it is a potential factor that a black cat ran across the judge the day he sentenced her.
My initial comment against closing tax loopholes was I'd settle for Equality in Sentencing instead.
Not only are women not even arrested and charged at the same rate men are, but time served for the same crime between genders has been a proven disparity in studies since the 70's. Elizabeth's case is but one case. I was more referring to all women's cases, and questioning why modern feminism hasn't championed for more equality in sentencing.
Ironically a few more fathers could be present if they were gifted
Re: (Score:2)
You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that gender had anything other than it is "a potential factor."
We can't provide evidence of that when they received similar sentences. That is not a universal fact, that is an exception that proves the rule.
Fact is, women receive significantly less prison time than men, and black males receive even more prison time than white males.
Let us not forget that many of the same people who become upset if the sexual disparity in sentencing fact is mentioned, have no trouble at all believing the black male incarceration rate fact.
Here is liberal Huffpost weighing in on
Re: Christ (Score:3)
Sentence reductions for good behavior, etc, as noted are pretty common as I understand.
Also, let's not forget the waves of sentence reductions, early prison releases, etc we had over last few years (Remember Covid?), this isn't anything new, I suspect it's an adjustment to her expected release date based on good behavior, etc, and sub just to change as circumstances change.
This doesn't feel like 'special treatment', this feels like an effort to manage the size of the prison population size.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have their sentences reduced. Perhaps even most. It is very common.
It allows the "headline" sentence to seem harsh, pleasing people who believe harsh sentencing reduces crime despite little evidence that it does, yet saves money by reducing the number of non-violent people locked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have their sentences reduced. Perhaps even most. It is very common.
It allows the "headline" sentence to seem harsh, pleasing people who believe harsh sentencing reduces crime despite little evidence that it does, yet saves money by reducing the number of non-violent people locked up.
Let's stop bullshitting ourselves. It allows the concept of punishment to become anything but an actual deterrent to crime. "Overcrowding" is a prime example of a shitty excuse that would become an enabler to crime. Ask a decriminalized city losing millions in lost business tax revenue about how that "works".
Central banks and other Untouchables are found guilty of highly questionable/illegal activity all the time. They engage in such behavior based purely on the calculated profits, not the pathetic pena
Re: (Score:2)
The criminal justice system is a joke of course but you're flying way off here.
The sentence reduction is the same as everyone gets. Nine years is very serious time.
Can you show any evidence that length of prison sentence acts as a deterrent? How much of this deterrent is lost by offering 20% off for good behavior?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stop bullshitting ourselves. It allows the concept of punishment to become anything but an actual deterrent to crime
The existence of punishment is a huge deterrent, Esp. Punishment that continues even after she's let out of jail, for those that could be deterred by punishment at all. Deterrent is of limited value for first time crooks who don't yet know what prison is like And expect to get away with the violation so much that what happens if they got caught doesn't even enter crooks' minds.
Regardl
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, longer sentences mean that it is harder for them to reintegrate into society, which means higher recidivism. For anything other than truly heinous crimes (rape, murder, etc.) or repeat offenses, shorter sentences likely will yield better outcomes, because they have been punished, they won't want to be punished again, and they'll still have the support network they need to be able to bounce back without resorting to committing crimes just to get by.
Re: (Score:2)
I struggle to understand the logic of this rant. Would anybody really think "I was planning on committing [crime], but because I'm going to get the full 11 years instead of 9 years I'm going to reconsider?"
Most people committing crimes either think what they are doing is not criminal (most likely in Holmes' case) or think they will not be caught. The actual sentence they might get for their behavior is unknowable anyways, given that judges and juries will have a lot of discretion that would impact the sente
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, her male counterpart got a heavy sentence too. Gender had nothing to do with it. The reason they got the book thrown at them was they committed the one unforgivable sin: They stole money from rich people. If they'd just fleeced a bunch of retirees out of their life savings, they would have gotten that 'slap on the wrist' that you mentioned. But, since they took money from their rich friends and acquaintances as well as famous people and politicians.... well, they needed to be made an example of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what is idiotic is government regulating the private sector, causing massive imbalances of prices, cost of money by inflation and people still allowing the government to be involved in providing services (and goods) and in setting prices rather than putting the foot down and restricting the government only to the powers that it has constitutionally. Providing any sort of goods and services, setting price of money and printing it, regulating business is not in the federal government mandate, it is all a pow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no ) the people working for me have all sorts of options, working for local companies, working for similar businesses, whatever. I was a contractor from 2000 to 2009, I never made less than 70 dollars per hour at the tume because, get this, I never accepted offers that were even 50 cents lower. It was my choice and there are plenty of others, some working as permanent employees, some as contractors, the prices have never had anything to do with any minimum wage obviously. 70 per hour is an order of mag
Re: (Score:2)
Your underwear and haircut examples are nonsense; companies are motivated to make the underwear cost more not less like as in labor.
Ludicrous (Score:4, Interesting)
If her sentence was reduced after, say, 50% time served due to metrics measured during her incarceration, and such reductions were standard policy that'd be fine.
That she was barely past the gates before it happened just screams that someone was bribed.
Re:Ludicrous (Score:5, Informative)
Due to a former employer's bad decisions (costing me money that I might get a few pennies of back some day), I get updates about someone in US federal prison. They are not eligible for parole, but their release date has changed three times since I started getting notifications several months ago, It has moved up a couple of weeks at a time (the notification doesn't say why).
Given the bureaucracy involved, I'm going to say nobody was bribed to change a release date. There are too many people involved in change processes, and changes (especially for somebody high profile like Holmes) aren't going to go unnoticed (as we see). Bribing people to get a more favorable environment in prison I can see... bribing someone to change the release date doesn't seem likely.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not eligible for parole, but their release date has changed three times since I started getting notifications several months ago
bribing someone to change the release date doesn't seem likely.
to get this straight ... the only way i can imagine to reconcile these two statements is ... you are not suggesting she uses black magic, are you? you are implying that the bribe happened very high up, beyond that level of scrutiny, right? i would agree, it's pretty obvious.
Re:Ludicrous (Score:4, Interesting)
That she was barely past the gates before it happened just screams that someone was bribed.
Not really. This kind of pointless bullshit is routine and not indicative of anything other than a bureaucracy gone mental combined. You just don't hear about it because most people in jail aren't famous.
Re: (Score:2)
That she was barely past the gates before it happened just screams that someone was bribed.
Not really. This kind of pointless bullshit is routine and not indicative of anything other than a bureaucracy gone mental combined. You just don't hear about it because most people in jail aren't famous.
Doesn't even need to be a "bureaucracy gone mental". It could be as simple as a well-managed prison system projecting their inmate population over time and, realizing that they don't have the capacity to keep everyone for the full durations, applying a set of rules that implement automatic reductions based on type of offense and other parameters.
In other words, a well-behaved bureaucracy doing the best it can with the resources it has, making reasonable decisions about what to cut when something has to g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just look it up yourself. The number of white collar criminals serving their full sentences is zero. The number of of criminals with one or multiple adjustments over their term, even in the first year is close to 100%.
It's a system built on incredible discretion of the prison operator.
Re: (Score:2)
If her sentence was reduced after, say, 50% time served due to metrics measured during her incarceration, and such reductions were standard policy that'd be fine.
That she was barely past the gates before it happened just screams that someone was bribed.
There are other comments after your post about how this is normal, but perhaps more concerning to me would be the possibility that once again, she has used her good looks to get her way. I read one story that said that her husband's family says he is completely under her spell and they don't even know who he is any more. When Holmes was convicted and got over 100 people to write letters to the judge on her behalf, begging for her to just get as little time as possible, one venture capitalist said he wou
Re: (Score:2)
There are other comments after your post about how this is normal, but perhaps more concerning to me would be the possibility that once again, she has used her good looks to get her way.
And your evidence for that is? She is using her good looks in a woman's prison to get reduced time that every prisoner that behaves gets . . . sorry, I do not see it.
I read one story that said that her husband's family says he is completely under her spell and they don't even know who he is any more.
And what does that have to do with the prison system? Also considering she is now in prison and is unlikely to have daily contact with him, what kind of spell was cast? Can it be broken with some sort of amulet?
When Holmes was convicted and got over 100 people to write letters to the judge on her behalf, begging for her to just get as little time as possible, one venture capitalist said he would have no hesitation at all to throw more money at her once she was finished with jail if she started a new business.
Do you have the actual letters or was it something that you heard?
She is going to jail for fraud - major fraud. And she committed that fraud against other rich people, the people who have the money and power to punish you for that. And one of them is begging her to "Shut up and take my money". I think she's pretty, but I wouldn't give her a 9 or 10 out of 10, but apparently she really really does it for some guys and they just lose their minds completely from just looking at her.
So let me understand your logic: She only went to prison because sh
Normal (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I know, that's normal. It's just the "good behavior" bonus.
The prison wants to have a carrot and a stick to use on inmates. But justice requires your rights being respected. So if you kill somebody in prison, you're going to get a trial, with lawyer, judge, jury and all that.
But obviously it'd be stupidly cumbersome to have a full trial for every time somebody breaks some minor rule, like just being uncooperative. You don't want thousands of trials for "inmate refused to leave their cell".
So what they do instead is to shorten your sentence by some percentage, and then reserve their right to change their mind if you do break a rule. You behave well, you get out early. You make things difficult, and eventually it's back to the original court mandated length.
Is it? Re:Normal (Score:2)
From what I've read, it's the other way round. Each year you behave well, your sentence gets reduced. It doesn't happen up front and then can be taken back.
Re: (Score:2)
It is normal. It's just an estimated release date.
Re: (Score:2)
So, presumably the limited pay is discretionary spend within the walls and therefore another carrot in the prison's toolset.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. There were numerous typos in the article and a ton of these little sensationalizing-normal-events sections.
What is this reporter doing, trying to get a job writing Slashdot headlines?
Yup (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost as if rich people are subject to a different kind of justice.
Dracula Dead and Loving It (Score:5, Funny)
Warden: Now you will stay in here till you rot!
*moments later*
Warden: You're free to go.
Renfield: Free to go? But why?
Warden: Good behaviour!
Renfield: But I've only been in here for a moment.
Warden: Yes but for that moment you behaviour was very good.
Re: (Score:2)
Master manipulators (Score:2)
Opinion/Mod me off-topic (Score:4, Interesting)
In a context larger than Holmes/Theranos, this is not okay.
The problems are manifold.
Any restitution a non-wealthy prisoner could pay with these wages would be a rounding error.
The labor rate far undercuts what a business with non-prisoner/slave workers can pay.
Prisoners with long sentences will walk out the gate a few hundred dollars from being destitute, and the cost of (court required) halfway houses rapidly hoover up what small amount of money there is. It's worth investigating to see if walking out of prison with enough money to make a real start would reduce recidivism. (Ope, I've made an assumption there, I *assumed* higher wages would lead to walking out with more money at release. That's not necessarily true. That's worth a look too.)
Re: (Score:2)
The problems are manifold.
Any restitution a non-wealthy prisoner could pay with these wages would be a rounding error.
1.15 an hour is Not a market wage. Count the restitution as minimum wage X the number of hours worked minus the 1.15 (or whatever it is the prisoner is rated at).
Either they are working the prisoners on a job that has no value, Or more likely someone is being allowed to pocket the difference between the prisoner's pay and what a normal worker would be paid for the job (No less than
Re: (Score:3)
This is a great article [aclu.org] that goes into much more detail about the effects of prison labor wages. Notably it supports your position of looking at labor wages for prisoners and has rather detailed economics about the benefits and pitfalls of the issue.
However, I do also want to point out the 13th Amendment [wikipedia.org] to the Constitution. The 13th amendment of course abolished slavery, but specifically calls ou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire prison system is loaded with perverse incentives. I don't have a problem with forced labor for nominal pay, I have a huge problem with the fact that many prisons are for-profit institutions run by crooks little different from their inmates in character. In some backwater states the Warden is paid a certain amount per prisoner per meal and is allowed (???!) to pocket any excess.
Re: (Score:2)
You should really read the book Arrest Proof Yourself. Former state trooper turned FBI agent turned Defense attorney dissects the shocking nature of what he calls the Prison-Industrial complex, which he refers to as a modern-day analogue of plantation slavery.
The book completely changed my beliefs about crime, criminals, jail and the underlying public policies around them.
Re: recividism: I believe, as does the author, that 99.5% of criminals are very stupid and not particularly evil. He has this wonde
Re: (Score:3)
A really good view into this was the film 13th . Honestly i'll admit i'm privileged enough to have not known anything about this.. and honestly its horrific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Good behavior" shouldn't exist for this crime (Score:2)
These criminals are masters at making people think they're "well-behaved." You want to get it through their thick skull that prison will suck? Restore chain gangs for white collar criminals. Ship her sorry ass out to the hottest, nastiest and/or poorest parts of the USA to work 14-15 hours a day cleaning public spaces until they're immaculate for 6 days a week.
I can pretty much guarantee that if we had statutory mandates for this sort of thing that completely bound the judiciary's hands, you would see a red
Re: (Score:2)
At what point does "acting like you are well-behaved" actually mean "well-behaved"?
I mean, aren't most (all?) people just acting well-behaved to avoid social stigma of varying degrees?
I mow my lawn to avoid judgement and fines, but it's just an act. I actually hate mowing my lawn....
Can we ever really know what is in a person's heart?
As for statutory mandates, we have tried that and it didn't work. Just look at mandatory minimums for drug crimes. Those did not seem to make any kind of dent in deterring thos
It will continue to be reduced (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. It'd be true of a normal white collar criminal, but she's too famous. She'll be doxxed as soon as she gets out
scams (Score:2)
Like most everything else in the US, alas, prison sentences are a big scam. Almost no one serves the sentence they are sentenced to. The official sentence is just a PR gimmick to placate the masses who think criminals should be punished. Even those sentenced to "life" get out in their 50s.
If every 2 months is 2 years off she will be out b (Score:2)
If every 2 months is 2 years she will be put before christmas.
Better sentence? (Score:2)
money can't buy me love ... (Score:2)
... but it can reduce my prison sentence.
nothing to see here, citizen, everything is in order.
At this rate she will be released in 9 months (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fed sentencing doesn't work like that. There's no parole or early release in the federal system. There's the standard "good behavior" reduction, which she apparently got, and that's it.
Fed sentences are always 85% for white collar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus fucking christ... no. just no.
Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, who gets convicted of a federal crime is eliglble for a 15% sentence reduction based on good behaviour.
All this reporter did is take the original sentence multiply by the 15% EVERYBODY gets and report the amount of time she'll likely actually have to serve assuming she isn't a problem inmate. They didn't reduce her sentence, there's no special treatment here.
When the 11 year sentence came down, everybody already knew that automatically mea
Re: (Score:2)
Are you claiming that our system is set up to be as lenient on a poor person who defrauded people out of millions?
Holmes has reported spent around thirty million dollars on her legal defense alone. Do you really want to pretend she got the same representation as someone who was afforded a public defender?
That's just one example of how the system favors one group over another.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you really want to pretend she got the same representation as someone who was afforded a public defender?"
I am not talking about representation.
I am merely noting that THIS sentence reduction that THIS article is breathlessly hyperventilating over is given to EVERYONE, even someone representing themselves.
Holmes didn't get 20 month sentence reduction for good behaviour thanks to her 30 million dollar defense, she got it because that's exactly what everyone who gets sentenced 11 years would get.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah that's why the dude also got his sentence reduced
Re: (Score:3)
The whole 'ha ha, they're gonna get raped' thing is not something I approve of in the prison system... but the whole "you have violated society's rules, so society is giving you a time out" thing, that I approve of.
The first rule of sentencing should be to protect the public. The second should be to attempt to reform the convict so they can eventually be returned to society without being a significant threat. Third should be that the punishment discourage others from committing similar crimes - obviously
Re: (Score:2)
There are limits to freedom in society. People who go beyond them must be forced to comply because "do whatever you want, even if that's ruining the lives of everyone around you" is simply not going to be tolerated. If it was, society would fall apart within weeks.
Anarchy doesn't work, and rules only matter if they're enforced. There are people who won't follow the rules just because they're asked nicely. The result is a social contract to use force to ensure compliance.
We can bicker about how much forc
Re: (Score:2)
You are insisting I've written things I haven't. You are the one 'strawmanning' me.
Don't worry, though, Slashdot has this nifty 'foe' system that will help me ensure I never waste any effort interacting with you again.
Re: (Score:2)
You hypothesized a humane prison system and then "We're still inflicting pain". Pain by whose standards? Of course inmates are going to claim to be suffering if we restrict them from certain antisocial behaviors they feel entitled to.
for the express purpose of forcing people to comply
By "comply", perhaps we mean live by an (unwritten) social contract that the rest of us voluntarily adhere to. Commit serious transgressions against this code and you get some re-education. Or just some time alone (or away from society) to re-evaluate your life's priorities. I
Re: (Score:2)
Nah yeah I agree. Make her work at the drive through window until retirement so she can't defraud anyone.
Prison as deterrent is pretty questionable and as rehabilitation completely useless. The whole criminal justice system needs to be reworked with an evidence based approach and not "that's how it's always been done".
That said, this is probably not the most problematic case considering the time people are doing for drug or other non-violent bullshit, often in horrible condition and not minimum security clu
Re:I'm not going to get any friends for saying thi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I took criminal law, criminal procedure, and white collar crimes. Retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence are ALL public policy goals of punishment in Anglo-American jurisprudence.
If anything you're stretching the truth to make an emotional argument. The threat of vigilante-ism is not particularly high up on the list of reasons supporting the retributive theory
Re: (Score:2)
I mean ask yourself this, what would Jean-luc Picard think of our prison system?
i just did. the answer is: jean-luc picard is fiction. this is real life.
as much as prison isn't a really civilized solution to address crime and social disfunction, it is at the core of our present justice system (it previously used to drag and quarter people so that's an improvement). one of the most important aspects about any justice system (which picard would have vehemently defended, btw) is that it is, well, just, equitable and fair. this lady endangered lots of people's lives for pure greed and migh
Re: (Score:2)
this is spot on, and ofc slashdotters moderate it to -1. keep it up!
to reiterate: she knowingly promoted bogus medical equipment that gravely jeopardized people's health and safety and may very well have resulted in loss of life, but in the end was only charged for, tadaaaa ... wire fraud to investors. and she won't even serve that sentence and will be out of prison in no time. feel free to downvote.