Question for folks with knowledge of the process. Government is also arguing for Holmes to pay $800 million in restitution. Obviously she doesn't have that kind of money (neither even does her heir husband), so people she defrauded are never going to see that.
But what happens to her in that case? If the court does sign off on a restitution penalty, is it the equivalent of a creditor's judgment against her? I believe acts of fraud can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so is this judgment something that would hang over her forever? Could the defrauded parties garnish her wages?
Just curious as to how the logistics of "unpayable restitution penalties" play out in the real world.
Generally you just have your wages garnished for as long as you have an income. This would include Social Security. If, somehow, you came into significant funds again you could probably negotiate a one time payment to satisfy the judgment. That seems highly unlikely in her case though.
My understanding is that OJ Simpson moved to avoid the liability payments around the judgement against him (he was never found criminally liable, but a civil suit did). So apparently it is as easy as just moving from state to the next.
Mostly the fact that the US litigates so much. The courts haven't been on vacation in the mean time, they've been processing cases you'll never hear about.
(downvotes notwithstanding: the US court system is quite literally full, which is why these things take so long. Even if a judge wanted to, their schedule often simply isn't open until months, sometimes more than a year, later)
It is a bit amazing that people that do very bad things and cause huge prejudice that will never be fixed can get away very easy. 15 years is nothing to joke about, but if you do the math of how much money per year that means, it is better than working for a salary and a lot of people would go to prison for 1-2 years for that kind of money. "hey, who can I defraud of 50 million and I get 1 year of prison for it?"
Among other things you are not factoring in the time, anxiety, and other downsides associated with both being charged with a crime as well as also knowing that you might be charged with a crime. During both prior to and after you are charged, the trial, waiting for the sentence and of course the actual sentence. Cost of legal fees and so on. That surely would take a big impact on many people. So point is it's not just the actual prison time.
Well, not really. The money is long gone. She's now broke and facing jail time.
And the judgement is so large, even after prison she'll never have wealth beyond a middle-class lifestyle. She'll be like Jordan Belfort and die with a debt of several hundred million dollars.
This may be an unpopular opinion here, but Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child. Justice cannot be served by inflicting injustice on another. We need to be more creative in our sentencing - rather than 10 years then free, how about 25 years under some sort of restriction, that does not deprive child of their mother?
I think you can argue about the efficacy of deterrence/justice but it seems wrong to judge any sentence based on the person and their family as the focus. There are zero individuals for whom a sentence would help - but if you had no (or greatly reduced) sentences for all crime then society as a whole could suffer.
In this case it seems even more obviously bad to factor this since she got pregnant when she knew she was going to trial and likely to be convicted. Some even say the defense team wanted her pregnant for the trial. If the rule is "if you have a baby you don't have to go to jail" what type of moral hazard is this?
Should you apply the same reasoning to any person with a young child?
What if someone doesn't have a child when they're arrested but, due to the complexity of the case, they're able to get pregnant and have a baby before sentencing?
Her child is innocent, of course, and should be as protected from everything as possible.
However he is young and shouldn't be prevented from visiting mommy in prison, but that doesn't mean society has to let mommy go (or even do a reduced sentence or an alternate sentence).
Many, many, many children already lose a parent to crime (either by them being murdered or them being the murderer).
Getting a child is personal choice and in my mind maybe even perhaps should always result in harsher sentence as clearly person did bad thinks knowing that they had a child.
> Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child.
If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example?
Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?
My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.
Why start the reform or have exceptions for her child and not the children of other convicted people? That why does her child get that benefit, and not other children of incarcerated parents, perhaps someone who is poor and didn't get to run $10B companies in their life. Start there, let's help those children first, and then we'll get to her child too, eventually.
I've staked my [vouch]ing privileges on this flagged comment, which is civil and on-topic and and isn't in apparent violation of any rules.
The world could stand to use more empathy. If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother, we are broken humans in need of repair.
Yes but then where is the line ? Almost every violent criminal (murderer, rapist etc) may have a family/child/parent to take care of. Are you suggesting they all should get off easy ? or Are you saying that Holmes's crime is not as heinous ?
It is likely she only got pregnant as a manipulation tactic to elicit maximum sympathy from the legal system. The timing was all too convenient.
The child is innocent but the mother is weaponizing her fetus and using it as a pawn. What is an appropriate answer or solution for the mother (ab)using the child as a hostage tactic?
There are lots of thriving and competent single parents out there. The kid can live with and be raised by daddy. In fact, the father has so much money and resources there is no reason for this kid to ever want for anything.
1400 prison pregnancies a year but this is the one that triggers leniency. I wonder what the selection mechanism is. Merely the news worthiness of the case, perhaps.
Yep - definitely not a good take, just piling on with the sensible responses to this. We cannot subvert justice on something of this magnitude, and this isn’t how the system should work for reasons articulated by others here.
> and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child
You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.
It's disappointing that Lizzie Evans is successfully playing the system and getting away with only 15 years or less for egregiously terrible crimes where she massively manipulated and abused everyone's trust from a high position.
Meanwhile, Sunny Balwani is facing more charges and possibly more jail time than Lizzie, even though she was clearly the mastermind behind everything. He was her co-conspirator, but if it hadn't been him it'd have been some other sucker.
The justice system is so political, it makes no sense.
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|3 years ago|reply
But what happens to her in that case? If the court does sign off on a restitution penalty, is it the equivalent of a creditor's judgment against her? I believe acts of fraud can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so is this judgment something that would hang over her forever? Could the defrauded parties garnish her wages?
Just curious as to how the logistics of "unpayable restitution penalties" play out in the real world.
[+] [-] Fezzik|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidewndr46|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HyperSane|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitexploder|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HyperSane|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheRealPomax|3 years ago|reply
(downvotes notwithstanding: the US court system is quite literally full, which is why these things take so long. Even if a judge wanted to, their schedule often simply isn't open until months, sometimes more than a year, later)
[+] [-] indigodaddy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenospn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdrianB1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atlgator|3 years ago|reply
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity
[+] [-] gist|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nostromo|3 years ago|reply
And the judgement is so large, even after prison she'll never have wealth beyond a middle-class lifestyle. She'll be like Jordan Belfort and die with a debt of several hundred million dollars.
[+] [-] type-r|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrr|3 years ago|reply
Edit: context for my guess https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity#Evidenc...
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ushakov|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] factsarelolz|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] usednet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ushakov|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Sapere_Aude|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lostlogin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gadflyinyoureye|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LightG|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hunglee2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fasthands9|3 years ago|reply
In this case it seems even more obviously bad to factor this since she got pregnant when she knew she was going to trial and likely to be convicted. Some even say the defense team wanted her pregnant for the trial. If the rule is "if you have a baby you don't have to go to jail" what type of moral hazard is this?
[+] [-] HyperSane|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monkeytree|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rahimnathwani|3 years ago|reply
What if someone doesn't have a child when they're arrested but, due to the complexity of the case, they're able to get pregnant and have a baby before sentencing?
That would be a good way to avoid prison, no?
[+] [-] bombcar|3 years ago|reply
However he is young and shouldn't be prevented from visiting mommy in prison, but that doesn't mean society has to let mommy go (or even do a reduced sentence or an alternate sentence).
Many, many, many children already lose a parent to crime (either by them being murdered or them being the murderer).
[+] [-] Ekaros|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ozzythecat|3 years ago|reply
If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example?
Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?
My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.
[+] [-] rdtsc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perihelions|3 years ago|reply
The world could stand to use more empathy. If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother, we are broken humans in need of repair.
[+] [-] codegeek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metadat|3 years ago|reply
The child is innocent but the mother is weaponizing her fetus and using it as a pawn. What is an appropriate answer or solution for the mother (ab)using the child as a hostage tactic?
There are lots of thriving and competent single parents out there. The kid can live with and be raised by daddy. In fact, the father has so much money and resources there is no reason for this kid to ever want for anything.
[+] [-] renewiltord|3 years ago|reply
Should we apply the categorical imperative?
[+] [-] etrautmann|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gist|3 years ago|reply
You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bongoman37|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] metadat|3 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, Sunny Balwani is facing more charges and possibly more jail time than Lizzie, even though she was clearly the mastermind behind everything. He was her co-conspirator, but if it hadn't been him it'd have been some other sucker.
The justice system is so political, it makes no sense.
[+] [-] nervlord|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]