Elizabeth Holmes' PR campaign continues(theverge.com) |
Elizabeth Holmes' PR campaign continues(theverge.com) |
I think it’s bad that she defrauded so many people but still has massive enough cash that she’s paying a PR firm while she’s in prison. So the lesson here is to suck, lie, and be a mean person and you still walk away with cash.
If she ends up launching a Gwyneth Paltrow-type style brand after release, I’m going to weep a little bit.
It’s likely a mix of several things:
1. Society’s fascination with “big crime”, especially fraud—figures like Frank Abagnale, Anna Delvey, Jordan Belfort, and obviously Holmes herself have all been turned into popular films or TV series.
2. She has a knack for “branding” and generating a cult of personality, even if (maybe because) her ethics are nonexistent.
3. She seems to have landed on some financial stability through her spouse, which I’m sure is being used in small amounts for things like this.
4. In a strange way, she appears eager to redeem herself. An ethical person might do this through charity or similar means, but for her, being seen as a “titan of industry” likely equates to redemption.
Your observation isn’t off—I wouldn’t be surprised if she launches some kind of lifestyle brand after her release.
She knows what country she is in, at least.
Pretty sure she doesn't have any money herself as she has been declared insolvent. However, her husbond is heir to 3 luxury hotels. And she doesn't come from a poor background either.
Only a person who themselves exhibits those qualities or someone cynical to the point of foolishness would conclude that is the lesson. Nothing indicates that walking away with cash cannot be achieved without sucking, lying and being mean.
The lesson is that a person who does what Holmes did may get caught and may suffer consequences. She has two young kids. She sits in prison as they grow up.
So ... same person? "would have done differently" seems like a very empty statement, what could it possibly mean? Just not get caught?
The amazing thing about all this is her company apparently had nothing of value, not even an idea anyone that some company chose to buy after the fact.
What would The Verge prefer? To be any more explicit would require openly calling Holmes out of her mind. I’m quite capable of reading that between the lines.
Many mothers are in prison for far less, don't believe she should get a free pass.
"...she's continuing to write patents for new inventions and plans to resume her career in healthcare technology after her release."
The most charitable interpretation of her behavior is that she is still too uneducated to understand that what her company was built on could never work. There was a reason none of the traditional biotech VC's would listen to her.
And it wasn't like the fraud she perpetuated was harmless.
Then, while under indictment, she has two kids? The only ones who I feel sorry for are her children.
The sooner we stop hearing about this sociopath the better.
It feels good for someone else to point it out, since in this case it really rings hollow for basically everyone.
Why should we humanise and care about someone who was a terrible boss, a terrible fraudster and a bare-face liar.
What endeavours were not financed because of her? Who's career was torpedoed and who was stolen away from noble causes because of her lies? Taking some accountability is rare, she should, and we don't have to applaud her for it. It should be expected.
It's trite at this point to say we, the readers, are part of the problem. But it does make me wonder why we keep needing to glamorize the successful. They've made it, no? Do they need to be continually propped up? Probably the human instinct for worship gone astray.
When bad people in media are only portrayed in media as stereotypical villains, it's harder to detect bad people in real life. Bystanders see a gentile, caring, vulnerable person, and they immediately assume they can't be bad, because "bad people aren't gentile, caring, or vulnerable"! Except they are, just not always.
Also, at least some people deserve a chance at forgiveness. When evil is only portrayed as black-and-white, even tiny accidents cause someone to be irredeemable, because "bad people can never do right" implies "good people can never do wrong".
That doesn't mean we should forget bad deeds and eliminate all punishment. Accepting people can be good doesn't mean unconditionally forgiving them, and forgiving =/= forgetting. Like, if Elizabeth Holmes founds another company I'd be very skeptical, and if anyone seemed to trust her I'd actively refer them to Theranos. But specifically in online discourse, moral polarization is one of the biggest issues I see today.
We do get conversations with former convicts who are doing good things for their communities sometimes, and that is worthy of a hagiography, a proper redemption and an understanding that the person was not 1-dimensional.
Just in the interest of earnestness, there are people who are exactly as black as they are painted. I'm not sure if Holmes is one of them, she certainly had opportunities that many will never be afforded and I don't think this point can be denied. But if she wants a redemption arc then it must be earned; not paid for.
Humanising villains is important, but this is not what's happening, these pages are implying that she was wronged, that she's the victim. But it's clear as day that she is the architect of her own misery.
But... the parable of the prodigal son? The whole point it makes is that we should be happy when the lost person is found. It specifically tries to talk us out of transactional relationships where we would somewhat instinctively assume that we should treat others proportionately well, compared to how well they treated us. And the point it's trying to make is that human dignity isn't something that can be measured or compared, it just is. And everyone has it, and should be treat as such.
----
The article makes it sound though as if Holmes is far from seeking absolution. So, maybe, the concept doesn't apply to her in particular. But, the answer still stands to the more general question.
This point should be clear to anyone. Holmes' PR team is essentially trying to get us to trust her again, more-so than she deserves for violating that trust in the first place.
It's not about stealing some rich men's money, though that is certainly reprehensible, it's about the actual abuse she presided over for her own glory, fame and fortune.
She is an example of a narcissist gaining power and she should be a lesson to those who would attempt the same.
After her time is served, she can go liver her life however she wants. She does not deserve to be trusted again.
I'm in favour of being, as a society, so ambitious that you want to give all criminals a second chance, and in that sense, she deserves one.
But that's not, _at all_, how the US justice system is designed. If _she_ gets a second chance, that's.. a ridiculous injustice.
Recently pardoned silk road dude got his second chance and HN largely looked favorably at that situation (I'm not attibuting this view to you here). What makes Holmes worse, if anything?
Problematic people are still people, and pretending otherwise in order to feel better about needing them out of society is maybe not a great idea.
https://www.newsweek.com/steven-hayes-connecticut-linda-mai-...
So, it's not an attempt to deny that Holmes has done evil things. And, in fact, from the article it looks like she's unrepentant... but, my answer was literally to the question as asked. Also, admittedly, you don't have to subscribe to the Christian moral codex, and may reject the notion of every human having dignity as their inalienable right. But that would require a sophisticated and substantial argument.
Also, it looks like Holmes is being already punished for what she's done. So, no point of adding more on top. The frustrating aspect is that, at least according to the article, is that she still doesn't acknowledge her guilt. But, I don't think we have it in the criminal law to punish people second time if they disagree with the first punishment. It's upsetting that someone does that, but it's not a crime.
I’d rather never hear about either one ever again.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-...
Incarceration, if done properly, might make people less likely to reoffend simply because they get older and their health gets poorer, thus having less energy and becoming less of a nuisance. But that's not done because of insufficient prison capacity. They nearly all get out while still young enough to remain a massive problem.