I hope they don't just give them some fine. Makes the judicial system look bad.
(Relatively few people are at this point in jail for smoking pot, for whatever that's worth to you).
It's not. It might seem to be the case to you, me, and others with some understanding of the legal system in the United States, but when we consider the background knowledge of the legal system required to understand how cases are adjudicated, this is objectively quite generally not obvious.
> (Relatively few people are at this point in jail for smoking pot, for whatever that's worth to you).
Compared to what? If Virginia is any indication of trends among non-decriminalized or non-legalized states, it's relatively high. (I'm nitpicking, of course: there's a substantial difference between jail and prison; I'm assuming your definition—innocently, mind you—does not distinguish between the two.) https://ww.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/n...
Please. One day this system will collapse on itself.
https://i.imgur.com/whWAVs3.jpg
The strong majority of all prisoners are in for violent crime and property crime. Public order offenses (which includes eg weapons and DUIs) are nearly as large as all drug offenses.
There are about 60% as many people in state prisons for just burglary, as all drug offenses.
In 2015, only 3.4% of people in state prisons were in for drug possesion of any type. Marijuana would be a small subset of that figure.
Pre-trial detention is a thing too, of course. They can afford bail, but many innocent people who literally did not do the crime they're accused of still sit in jail for months/years waiting for a trial.
Holmes settled the civil case with the SEC I believe so she’s cleared there. She absolutely could be jailed for a long time, but the wheels of justice turn slowly.
The wheels of justice turns slow if you have money.
Identifying a "direct cause" of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, with certainty exceeding 90-95% (the "reasonable doubt" threshold) would be worthy of a Nobel Memorial Prize, in my estimation.
b) the senior executives at institutions like bear stearns who signed off on creating the mortgage backed securities and their known composition of shit mortgages.
c) the senior executives at the rating agencies who knowingly rated shit bonds as AAA.
d) senior executives at institutions like Countrywide which pumped the shit mortgages into the market.
There are organizations, financial institutions, executives, investors, businesses, etc. that did not deserve jail, but did deserve to lose financially.
Instead, some lost their sort and others were shielded with $100,000,000,000s of taxpayer money.
The kinds of people that supported this flagrant graft are despicable. Probably not jailable (I mean most politicians and even the president supported bailing out asset holders), but more despicable than Zuckerberg or most of the scapegoats you see in the news.
How do you figure? Smells like a p value taken from a science class, not anything related to a legal definition of reasonable doubt.
there is fairly strong evidence that repeal of the glass-steagall act was a contributing factor to the environment that allowed investment/securities firms to get out of control in the 2001-2008 time period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the...
Moreover (and probably more important) is that the parties involved except the govt all had plausible deniability in that they could point to the other parties to deflect blame. I say "except the govt" because they were the ones who were pushing the banks to lower loan standards for minorities, backing the GSE's with explicit loan guarantees and encouraging home ownership as the essence of the American dream to minorities. The mechanics or mistakes of how it was done, with CDO's or inflated credit ratings or even fraud, were a consequence of the govt pressure applied. Also, this was not an explicit policy written into regs & etc. but an implicit policy imposed by threats or hints by agencies that had a lot of power over the banking, mortgage and credit markets they regulate.
What I am curious about is whether Holmes will in the end have made any money with Theranos. She should lose everything and then some more but I suspect she will still end up with a few million in the bank or in houses.
They used central lab with conventional test equipment to consolidate and process patient samples (not their magic lab on the bench device) and issue the results. The problem was that their central lab(s) was run poorly (multiple violations) so the results were questioned. (Similar to lets say a bread factory making bread, then the inspector comes in and finds out that certain fridges used for yeast storage were out of spec by 5 degrees, no batch log files etc. and shuts down the factory. The bread that was produced at such factory was definitely not "fake").
I believe its a case of completely incompetent leadership that ultimately snowballed into MUCH bigger issues (what else to expect from a 19 year old girl with no experience running a company in one of the hardest/most complicated and most heavily regulated industries?)!
NB: Not defending Holmes or Balwani but curious about the legal status of the case.
(https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/superseding-indictment-boyd-m...)
