« "Restorative Justice as a Democratic Practice" | Main | "Debt Sentence: How Fines and Fees Hurt Working Families" »
May 30, 2023
Is it weird and worrisome or understandable and useful to have so much reporting about Elizabeth Holmes reporting to prison?
I was instinctively disinclined to blog about the news that former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was reporting today to federal prison. But all my newsfeeds (which, admittedly, focus on criminal justice news) are ablaze with coverage. Here are just a few of the new pieces I have seen:
From the AP, "What's to know about the Texas prison where Elizabeth Holmes is starting her 11-year sentence?"
From CNN, "What Elizabeth Holmes’ life in prison could look like"
From Deadline, "Amanda Seyfried Says She 'Feels' For Children Of Jail-Bound Elizabeth Holmes"
From NPR, "Elizabeth Holmes has started her 11-year prison sentence. Here's what to know"
From the New York Times, "Elizabeth Holmes Reports to Prison to Begin More Than 11-Year Sentence"
From the Washington Post, "Elizabeth Holmes, disgraced Theranos founder, reports to prison"
As the title of this post suggests, I am genuinely unsure what to make of all the media coverage. Because I found various documentaries and docu-dramas about Holmes and Theranos quite interesting, I can understand why there is so much media attention. But I would sincerely be interested in various perspectives on whether all this media attention is sound or silly.
May 30, 2023 at 05:32 PM | Permalink
Comments
I've all but ignored the publicity. She's a liar and a swindler and brought it on herself. And she's still not accepting responsibility. It's too bad for her kids, but that's something she should have been thinking of during all the time she was pulling off this scam.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 30, 2023 6:59:35 PM
At this point, I think it's not much more than schadenfreude and probably reflective of a ghoulish aspect to society.
Posted by: Fat Bastard | May 30, 2023 11:45:32 PM
I like how FB said this attention is "reflective of a ghoulish aspect to society." People flock to someone's misfortune like crows to a carcass. My guess is that for rare exceptions, there's nothing they can learn from the news, and they have nothing to contribute. Kind of like in Plato’s Republic, the character Leontius is curious to see the dead bodies, except that the American public has no qualms with that desire. From Plato's Republic:
'Leontius, the son of Aglaeon, was on his way up to town from the Piraeus. As he was walking below the north wall, on the outside, he saw the public executioner with some dead bodies lying beside him. He wanted to look at the bodies, but at the same time he felt disgust and held himself back. For a time he struggled, and covered his eyes. Then desire got the better of him. He rushed over to where the bodies were, and forced his eyes wide open, saying "There you are, curse you. Have a really good look. Isn’t it a lovely sight?"'
Posted by: Maime | May 31, 2023 3:05:53 AM
I agree with Fat Bastard. Yes, she was all that twisted, medicated Otis je t'accuses, but surely some rachmunis could have been extended. There are alternatives to incarceration. It's a hideous plague in this country.
Posted by: Fluffyross | May 31, 2023 9:42:56 AM
Fluffy --
Rachmones WAS extended -- she didn't get anywhere near the max.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 31, 2023 11:01:05 AM
Bill Otis complains, "And she's still not accepting responsibility."
Of course she's not accepting responsibility, at least not publicly. Her case is on direct appeal. If she prevails on her appeal, she would probably win the right to a retrial. I cannot imagine that anyone on her defense team would counsel her to "accept responsibility" by admitting culpability at this time.
Criticizing Holmes for fully exercising her right to be convicted by the criminal process implicitly endorses a system in which the indictment itself is sufficient evidence of guilt that a defendant should "accept responsibility" rather than have the effrontery to demand that the state prove its case against them.
Bill's kind of thinking is what has given us the "trial penalty," what we always called "paying rent on the courtroom."
I had a judge tell me once years ago that when he had been in practice, he made sure his young associates were detailed to go to the county lockup to interview clients. He said, "I want all of them to experience that hollow feeling when the jailhouse door clangs shut behind them."
I don't think Bill's ever heard that sound.
Posted by: Tom Root | Jun 1, 2023 6:36:29 AM
"Criticizing Holmes for fully exercising her right to be convicted by the criminal process implicitly endorses a system in which the indictment itself is sufficient evidence of guilt that a defendant should "accept responsibility" rather than have the effrontery to demand that the state prove its case against them."
Actually, Holmes is living proof of exactly what Bill has long advocated for. She made the government prove its case, and they failed to do so on 7 of 11 counts. She is now paying the price for the 4 on which the government succeeded. I agree with Doug B's initial comment — I cannot recall quite this much coverage of anyone else’s report-to-prison date.
She is hardly the first parent to go to prison. There is no "motherhood" exception in the criminal law. She conceived the first child after she was indicted, and the second one while her trial was going on — in other words, knowing perfectly well that if convicted she would miss the first half of their childhood.
Of course, it is her right to bear children. If she had not done it now, she would have likely been past childbearing age after she got out of prison. But like everything else she has done, it was a choice.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jun 1, 2023 12:17:01 PM
Tom Root --
Assuming arguendo the proposition that a person's willingness to accept responsibility for her behavior depends not on conscience and moral sobriety but on where in the litigation process she is, do you have any evidence that, if and when she loses her appeal, she'll then accept responsibility? I haven't seen it, but you might have followed the case more closely than I.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 1, 2023 8:25:36 PM
Tom Root --
"Bill's kind of thinking is what has given us the "trial penalty," what we always called "paying rent on the courtroom."
What gives you the trial penalty is defendants falsely, and often flagrantly falsely, claiming that they didn't do what they did, combined with the judge's correctly thinking that this lying is not a good sign either about their character or their prospects for rehab.
Their behavior and their lying about it is the problem, not what I say in the comments section. But you have to claim otherwise, because you have to pretend to have no objection to your clients' behavior (which is bad), or actually have no objection to it (which is worse).
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 2, 2023 10:54:17 AM