- It was a strange mixed verdict because those she was acquitted of defrauding needed more protection from the law than those she was convicted of defrauding.
- This is not to deny that even these financial gamblers are entitled to legal protection against fraud, despite the well-known caution of caveat emptor. It is to question the proportionality of a double-digit sentence in the face of the acquittal on the far more serious charge.
- A wealthy investor who loses a million dollars, representing one percent of his net worth, has lost less than a middle-class investor who loses $100,000, representing half of his assets. Yet the sentencing guidelines undervalue these realities. The irony is that Holmes might well have gotten a shorter sentence if she had been convicted only of the more serious crimes….
- The guidelines give far too much weight to the quantity of financial losses, and too little to the qualitative realities of the risky investment world.
- Read more…
You are here: / / / Weird Sentencings: Is Elizabeth Holmes’s 11-Year Sentence Excessive?