> Holmes, 39, was expected to serve her time in at a minimum-security prison camp in Houston, Texas.
Minimum security prisons are the kind where you can leave during the day to go to work! None of that slave labor shit making license plates or filling in at McDonalds, either, like actually go to a regular job and earn money. They're called "Club Fed" for a reason.
I thought anyone with over a decade of prison time wouldn't be eligible for such white glove treatment but nope.
"Rules for thee but not for me" when you've got Kissinger on board
No matter what anyone says, you do not want to go to prison in the USA. It’s dirty, the food sucks, no AC / poor heating / poor ventilation, you are told what to do and have to do it. You won’t get raped but you will be frequently naked in front of strangers. The bed is a cot and if you have a bad back it will be awful. The room will stink of shit as everyone is shitting 5 feet from each other. The societal stain is bad for your reputation. You do not want to go to prison.
The response is due to the inequity with respect to the vast majority of prisoners, many of which will be raped and subject to slave labor conditions. "Prison sucks" to be sure, but compared to most people she will be getting off easy.
> many of which will be raped and subject to slave labor conditions.
for far leas damaging crimes is the crucial part.
To be clear: I don’t support those conditions for anyone. When society meets out punishment, it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to terrorize people who are serving out their sentence. But that it happens to people who don’t even deserve it is horrifying.
> punishment [...] shouldn’t be used as an excuse to terrorize people who are serving out their sentence
Indeed, the three aims of punishment are retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. None of these entail malice, which itself is evil and degrades the malicious person.
To the sibling commenters: I would say no-one should be getting raped or subject to slave labor in prison... theoretically the aim even for those in "worse" prisons should be to have them come out the other side able to function in society better than before, not worse.
That is true but the problem is that the class of people that maintain and profit off of the brutal prison pipeline are the same ones that get to go to Club Fed if they get into trouble. It's a horrible double standard.
Why not? We're not talking chattel slavery, but penal labor. The notion that it is somehow categorically wrong to sentence someone to labor as a penalty is absurd.
> theoretically the aim even for those in "worse" prisons should be to have them come out the other side able to function in society better than before, not worse.
Life imprisonment does not have that as a goal for obvious reasons which shows that rehabilitation is for the sake of the offender as such. And are you claiming that punishment makes people worse? It doesn't. It facilitates rehabilitation. Proportionate penalties enable the guilty to acknowledge the gravity of their offense; without acknowledgement, there is no rehabilitation. It allows people to suffer for their guilt. When people cannot suffer for their crimes, you actually deprive them of means to pay for their evil deeds. One has an objective moral duty toward justice; an injustice left unpaid will derange the psyche of the offender. Repressed guilt is at the root of many strange disorders and behaviors. Like projection and scapegoating.
Besides, rehabilitation is only one component of punishment. The other two are retribution and deterrence.
Because it creates a financial incentive to put people in prison.
Nobody should be profiting from prison labor and companies frequently do. Judges can own stock in companies that utilize prison labor, increasing sentences. It's ongoing and clearly an outrage to true justice.
> Why not? We're not talking chattel slavery, but penal labor. The notion that it is somehow categorically wrong to sentence someone to labor as a penalty is absurd.
This is a false dichotomy. Penal labor should be paid.
It is an interesting dichotomy. A 10 year sentence at any age is basically the end of your life as it existed. When you get out, you won't even have a credit score if someone wasn't managing these things for you. Most people never recover from that, some lucky ones do. But in the U.S., for many crimes, folks would not see 10 years as enough.
My hypothesis is that your last observation is because of the ostracization (or separation?) of those individuals from society. How many people does the average middle-class person know that have been to jail/prison for anything longer than a night? There's a real disparity between what people perceive a prison sentence and its effects as, and what it actually is. Combine that ignorance with the hard on we as a country have for imprisonment, for various reasons, and it seems like that's what you get.
Yep I think that's right. People don't understand what a 10 year chunk of your life in hell can actually mean. Communicating that is also very difficult.
Loss of autonomy should receive a lot of weight when evaluating a punishment.
Like if our goal is to actually build a better society, prison shouldn't be a lot worse than loss of autonomy. If you are going to release someone, do you want them to be in a worse state when you do that than when you took away their autonomy?
Of course we are collectively deranged, so oh well.
I'm not a fan of US prisons, or the US prison system, honestly, our criminal justice system needs a major overhaul top to bottom
With that said, my favorite is the pay per day way to serve your sentence under house arrest[0]. Often used by the wealthy to avoid going to jail at all, even for serious "white collar" crimes
As a fun anecdote, I was sentenced to house arrest during COVID (after serving a short county jail sentence) and all of the fees were actually waived, by order of the governor, due to COVID IIRC.
My experience is that this is seldom granted on request barring extenuating circumstances i.e. COVID, jail capacity, etc, and your convictions needs to be strictly non-violent otherwise. That said, at least in California the jails and prisons are very overcrowded leading to many unqualified individuals being offered house arrest after serving short stints in custody.
This isn't something exclusive to wealthy individuals. Many first-time, non-violent offenders in many states are afforded this type of prison-camp setup. I suppose it is kind of odd for such a long sentence (although just divide by half for the probable realistic sentence) but I don't think the arrangement itself is at all unusual.
If at least half of the goal of jail/prison is rehabilitation, it makes sense to me.
EDIT: Apparently the feds have an 85% time served rate so it actually will be closer to a decade served.
Jesus. That was harrowing. I just cannot even imagine the hopelessness that he felt. It is pure cosmic horror.
This just makes me so angry. The amount of corruption, racism, and incompetence for this to happen is staggering and quite honestly incomprehensible. A, what appears to be non-U.S. citizen, person makes a bogus accusation against two black men who are U.S. citizens. The accusation has no consistency or accuracy, and not a single shred of evidence was ever presented. And the accusation was theft of a backpack. So the mere word of a foreigner sentences a man to prison for over three years, with no case brought to court, and several judges offering plea bargains. How did they even justify the plea bargains? "Oh, you're in prison for no reason so here's a plea bargain for random crimes we've made up?" If the district attorney's office is so busy, why does someone need to stay in prison for that? Like, you're supposably busy, but he has to stay in prison because you're busy?
Every single one of those judges, district attorneys, police officers, correctional officers, and prison administration should face penalties.
Edit: And it turns out that that place is not even a prison. It's a holding facility for people who are awaiting trials and other court actions, i.e., innocent people.
That might have been some fake news that worked itself into my brain. Politfact says it's mostly false [1] and that McDonald's doesn't use prison labor in its franchises but did at one point contract out the manufacturing of their uniforms to a company that used prison labor.
Although according to the ACLU [2], prisoners are used in McDonald's supply chain and in restitution centers in Mississippi (which is very different from Holmes' federal case, mind):
> Mississippi is the only state that still uses restitution centers to lock people up for an indefinite period of time while they work for private employers to earn money to pay off court-ordered debts. Hundreds of people a year are sentenced to be confined in Mississippi’s restitution centers, where they are required to stay until they pay off court fees, fines, and restitution. Workers are required to pay for room and board, transportation to their jobs, and medical care costs. They work slaughtering chickens, cutting catfish at processing plants, at Popeyes and McDonald’s franchises, and for auto mechanic shops, furniture companies, and meatpacking plants....
> ... Taylor Farms, North America’s largest supplier of salads and fresh-cut vegetables, paid over $2.2 million to Arizona’s prison industries program for labor contracts to employ incarcerated workers to cut and package fruit and vegetables for the company.371 Taylor Farms supplies some of the nation’s biggest fast food and grocery chains, including Chipotle, Costco, Kroger, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Ralphs, Safeway, Subway, Target, Walmart, and Whole Foods Market.
That's a hell of a list though. Costco, Kroger, Target, Walmart, and Whole Foods basically covers every consumer in the country
Of course not, there's this pervasive and unfounded belief that Holmes somehow is going to get out of punishment for her crimes -- she's going to Federal prison for a decade. Best case scenario is she gets out after a bit over 9 years given the 85% minimum sentence in Federal prison. She's a nonviolent offender convicted of financial crimes, of course she's going to a low security facility.
No, we already know she's going to a camp/minimum, which is significantly less punitive than a low. They're work program oriented, structured like dormitories and have no fencing. You leave every day to do work program then come back to the facility to sleep.
A low security federal prison pretty much meets your expectations of what a prison is minus the gang activity.
Do yourself a favor and google image search for "FPC Bryan" if you want an idea of what her stay will look like.
Both. In an ideal world, all nonviolent prisoners would serve their time in minimum security prisons as would violent offenders who are genuinely rehabilitating. With work release reintegration into society is little more than a change in residence from prison to halfway house to their own place at the end of a prison sentence.
But we don't live in an ideal world and as long as the United States justice system has a modus operandi, it should be applied consistently for the sake of fairness and equality. Otherwise it's just a big farce.
Holmes had a baby and that pushed back her initial court appearance for a while, she tried to offload a lot of blame onto Sunny Balwani, she married into money with a man that's an heir to a retirement home company and lives on a ranch outside of Palo Alto that's worth $135M, and has filed several timely appeals that happen to push back the date she goes to minimum security prison in Houston.
Frankly, the answer to how that works is less rich and more being highly adept at utilizing various levels of privilege to her advantage in almost calculating fashion.
I think a medical professional would need to look at a lot of things to determine that. At the least I think she's very smart and observant of the systems of the world around her.
Of course I have, because arm chair psychology is actively harmful and unethical. Sociopathy and narcissism require a detailed review of a person's history, intentions, etc by a qualified medical professional in order to make a diagnosis. I'm also of the generation where, mostly women, influencers started wantonly using these labels on their enemies so I have a particular distaste for armchair psychology. I leave that bit between a patient and their psychologist, because largely it doesn't matter. The outcome is still what it is. It coming up in popular conversation is just an extension of using mental health as a boogey man and the old "people can't change" narrative.
Creating two children, once she knew she’s facing prison, to hope first for no sentence and second for indefinite delays, might count as sociopath behavior.
I've spent too much time in r/raisedbynarcissists on behalf of a friend who discovered later in life that they were, and let me tell you, it really does seem that having your narcissist/sociopathic parent locked up for most of your formative years may be the silver lining of your life.
> I never realized that just choosing not to show up was an option.
At least around here, it seems to happen a lot to violent offenders who aren't rich. There was a guy a few months ago who committed an armed robbery. Reached a plea to get it turned into an attempted robbery. He simply stopped showing up to court dates (both for the armed robbery and a separate theft case) and was out on his own for months, until he stabbed an innocent woman to death[1]. Just a few weeks ago one of the guys who shot a Washington Commanders player absconded, and it doesn't seem like anyone cares.
It sounds like the filing of the appeal caused the reporting date to be pushed back automatically. She is not (yet) a fugitive; she’s just pulling all the levers to delay as long as possible.
> The appeal automatically delays her reporting date, and she will now remain out of prison until a court of appeals rules on her request.
True, but it makes it that much riskier to appeal. You can end up losing on procedural grounds, and then you're extra screwed.
As a (former) lawyer my gut tells me this might be ruled unconstitutional, on account of due process rights and the presumption of innocence. But it's an interesting idea, and one I've never heard before.
I don’t think you’re wrong that there are unintended consequences there. Thats the problem with politics. The simple solutions are wrong, and everybody hates how goddamned complicated the less wrong solutions are (and enough people hate compromise on principle so they sandbag the whole process).
The delay is pending an appeal. A previous ruling on the appeal found that she was unlikely to win a new trial, so sentencing date was set. Appealing that resulted in a more optimistic finding.
It may not last for long, and in any case will merely delay the day she gets out. Her co-conspirator went the same route, was denied, and has started his sentence.
But ya, it sure feels like 'leniency for thee and not for me'
Here is the way it works, as explained in the article:
> [S]he is appealing [Judge] Davila’s ruling that she remain in custody while it is determined whether she should get a new trial... The appeal automatically delays her reporting date, and she will now remain out of prison until a court of appeals rules on her request.
You think if you were on bail and appealing your case and are allowed to remain out on bail while appealing your case the police would kick in your door?
A lot of "eat the rich" type comments but you can do this if you aren't rich and aren't currently in custody. I knew a guy who was told to report to jail to begin his sentence and managed to delay it for 3 years. With appeals, medical extensions, and whatever other bullshit you can think of, you can keep this charade going for a long time.
Unclear what the article is saying. Judge ruled against her and so she’s “declining to turn herself in.” So… Just arrest her and take her to jail then?
Any lawyers that can advise on what’s going on here?
The powers that be have trained us to make everything about race instead of about class, because if it was about class, the powers would have a harder time getting away with it.
no powers that be, here. I was thinking of a Latino woman who was arrested while in labor for a traffic violation and she was handcuffed to the hospital bed and arrested as soon as she delivered.
if she was rich that would not have happened.
if she was white that would not have happened.
poor people pay for being poor every day of their lives in dozens of ways.
minorities pay for being minorities every day of their lives in dozens of ways.
I could have separated wealth from race, yes, and I should have.
This is probably true. More specifically if the police knew she was rich.
>if she was white that would not have happened.
I dunno, I watch a lot of videos where cops behave badly, so much so I had to stop watching them because it was affecting my mood. There's plenty of white people who get treated like crap. It happens to everybody because it's not about race, it's about class. Here's a white guy getting tazed because he didn't comply fast enough. He didn't comply fast enough because he was deaf.
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is a very thorough and very effective ongoing response to Occupy Wall Street. That movement has been handily forked into the completely pointless: Trump vs Mexicans, Bernie vs Billionaires, and Democrats vs Nazis
I dislike how bloodthirsty people are for her to serve over a decade of hard time.
Lots of people serve less time than this in the US for literal murder.
Remember, she was convicted only of wire-fraud against her investors - the same investors that did very little due diligence before they handed her billions of dollars.
It's not like just some clueless investors suffered.
Rich people don't face consequences like that. They just tighten their purse strings. It hits the people they employ.
Plus all of that investment money would otherwise have gone to a real business and employed tens of thousands of real people for decades.
Her fraudulent enterprise robbed real opportunity from real people and real businesses.
Edit: Also, it's not just about eagerness to see her serve prison time. She committed serious crimes and has been given multiple opportunities to express remorse for what she has done. At each opportunity she has instead chosen to double down on her innocence. This is why we're all eager to see her serve the maximum length and quality of time.
Not at all. Trying out a business model is okay. That conveys valuable information to the market and others who might attempt the same. It might be viewed as a bad investment but it's valuable to attempt and fail. It's not stealing opportunities from people.
Operating a straight up fraud is _just_ stealing from people.
If you worked for a business that failed, that's not going to prevent you from getting your next job. There's no harm to you personally for having worked there. On the other hand if you worked somewhere that perpetrated a fraud, then that will actively harm your future.
Also, failed businesses that attract VC money don't usually fizzle out...their IP and customer lists get acquired at a discount.
I don't think this is a fair description and it's loaded to support your point of view. C.f. wikipedia:
> Davila recommended she be incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, in Texas, a minimum security facility with limited or no perimeter fencing. "No one wants to get kicked out because compared to other places in the prison system, this place is heaven. If you have to go it's a good place to go," said a criminal defense lawyer.
> Good. Prisons shouldn't be designed to torture people.
No one here said they should. It was just pointed out that a Federal prison camp isn't a great match for "hard time", which carries the connotation of a particularly difficult penal institution. It seems a bit loaded.
Al capone was convicted of tax evasion. Prosecutors knew (as in many other federal cases) that wire fraud was the easiest charge to prove, with sentences as long as they sought. You can't say much about the seriousness of the case against her based on the convictions.
> Do rich men also historically get similar treatment? Or is gender also playing a role?
I'm sorry, but is this a serious question? Yes, of course rich men get similar treatment. Elizabeth is not being treated with kid gloves because she's a woman, it's because she's an upper-class white-collar criminal who (at least at one point in time) had connections. This is the definition of privilege.
To offer a case in point: Andy Fastow, one of the principal architects of the Enron fraud, who wiped out the retirement savings of tens of thousands of Enron employees and did only 5 years in a minimum-security prison camp as a result.
Fastow took a plea deal and cooperated with the government, so that isn't really a fair comparison. The "big fish" Lay and Skilling got 45 years and 24 years respectively.
> But special treatment for rich criminals? who got their wealth through the very same crime? Nah.
She's the daughter of Enron's VP, not just a random person who got rich from fraud.
But to the point about rich men: SBF is still in home arrest, and Elisabeth did nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars of fraud concentrating in SBF's hands. It will be interesting to see what he gets.
> But to the point about rich men: SBF is still in home arrest, and Elisabeth did nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars of fraud concentrating in SBF's hands. It will be interesting to see what he gets.
True, but I would argue that her criminal activity was so obviously heinous that she was prosecuted and sentenced in this manner _in spite of_ her being a woman.
The reason SBF is in home arrest is because of his massive political campaign contributions and the fact that the general public doesn't have a clue enough about crypto to hold him to public account.
> I get real tired of hearing all the hate for rich people and the fact that they even exist.
I don't really hear a lot of hate for rich people for existing. They do tend to get more scrutiny, because (in the US, at least), wealth is power and the powerful have a greater ability to do harm.
I do hear a lot of hate for rich people who use their wealth to harm non-rich people. That seems fair.
Seems kind of strange that she could (presumably) be in court and sentenced and not immediately taken away to start her time.