Hacker News Reader

Comment by zapdrive | Hacker News Reader

Good. Send her to prison, where she belongs.

I think they should send her to prison, but conditionally release her for 48 hours so that she can help to solve a crime.

48 Hrs. is a fantastic movie -- maybe Eddie Murphy's best (and first) -- but I need you to explain the connection between that film and Elizabeth Holmes or her current situation.

I'd have to say that Eddie Murphy's best movie is actually 'Best Defense'.

But perhaps the plot for Holmes could be that she has 48 hours to find out who is responsible for Covid-19. Teaming up with Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the unlikely trio find themselves in a race against time. Was it Fauci? Or someone else?

Bonus: She both solves a crime and diagnoses a medical condition from drops of blood found at the crime scene.

It's actually not good. It is totally legal to appeal a conviction. The size of a bank account is not a measurement in this.

Stranger is US law in general, where the outcome of convictions depends on the emotional stability of a judge and the thoughts of a jury.

Law is an emotional process in the US. In Europe there are no emotions involved in the sentencing.

I think this reflects the responds like "Send her to prison, where she belongs". There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.

> There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.

I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction.

In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer.

The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal.

So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else.

Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.

Why should we push down wealthy people just because the poor have it worse? Would it not be better to focus on improving the conditions of the poor?

Because the rich won’t have any incentive to change the system otherwise.

As if the poor couldn’t vote to change things if they wanted to.

One of the worst things I've learnt about US, is that like the poor can't just go to vote, as it is not a public holiday but they need to ask for permission from their bosses? Like there are a lot of bad things I've learnt along the years about of US treats poors, and I think this one is on the podium

Voting is done at a local/state level in the US. 30 states mandate employer provided time off, while 20 do not.

https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state...

Vote for whom? Which political party represents interests of the people who are looking for systematic changes in favor of the working class?

It's extremely hard to democratically enact change even in countries with multiple political parties and proportional representation. The US doesn't even have that, it's an illusion of choice with 2 parties who are equally corrupt.

If this was genuinely an important issue to even just the 38 million people living under the poverty line, they could certainly find candidates. If you count low-income people as poor, you’re speaking of something like a hundred million people.

The real problem is that people simply don’t care. People are much more willing to go to the polls over their right to own guns than issues like this.

Which they have been doing, as you might have noticed. This has led to lavishly-funded opposition aimed at splitting that coalition - note the sums poured into misrepresenting the SF DA, for example. The case of making treatment of the poor more humanely is more sympathetic so there’s every reason to believe that opposition to consequences for rich people would be _less_ well funded and more affluent people would find excuses not to support it, just as we’ve see for things like trying to get rich people to pay taxes at the same rates.

Conservative commentators everywhere would no doubt be delighted at the suggestion that all poor people should wait out an appeal in a $13k/mth mansion.

Wait out an appeal at their home. Rich people have fancier homes? Boo hoo.

I assume you're unfamiliar with the British system, where it's not unusual for people who can't afford bail to be jailed for years before their case even comes to trial.

Does the US not operate in the same way? Is it not the case that rich people can hire expensive lawyers at every stage of the process while poor people can't?

Clearly the size a bank account is very relevant indeed.

It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the UK system either. Bail in the UK means adherence to specific conditions, i.e. live somewhere the police can find you, stay away from the victim and don't leave the country. It doesn't involve cash changing hands. If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue.

The person you're responding to is referencing that sentencing is done by a judge who is supposed to be more objective when determining sentence, as opposed to emotional juries who simply determine if they are guilty or not of accused crimes.

Cash bail totally exists in the UK, even if uncommon.

I’ve had to hand over money to get a friend out after he was arrested due to an extradition request.

> If you've done something very bad, or are a big flight risk you will not be granted bail, but again, not a money issue

It absolutely is a money issue. The bigger surety you can put up, the less those things matter.

It absolutely is not. It's about risk of absconding. Secondly, no, cash bail is not a thing in the UK. Someone being arrested in the UK for extradition is not part of the UK justice system, they are merely passing through at the request of a foreign nation. Unsurprisingly, foreign nationals can't have their passport taken away by a foreign country, who'd have thought?!?!??!

You are very confidently wrong, but still wrong.

>It's about risk of absconding

And putting up a bigger deposit obviously helps address that risk.

>Secondly, no, cash bail is not a thing in the UK

It is. In the UK it’s called a bail security. It’s not common, but absolutely a thing.

See on lexisnexis https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/securities-suret...

>Someone being arrested in the UK for extradition is not part of the UK justice system

Absolutely is, and the rules regarding bail are the same.

>Unsurprisingly, foreign nationals can't have their passport taken away by a foreign country, who'd have thought?!?!?

What? Of course they can. It’s not at all unusual for people bailed for crimes in the UK to be required to surrender their foreign passports.

  > It is totally legal to appeal a conviction.

Yes and people do it all the time from within their prison cell. As should she. She's been convicted, so the presumption of innocence is gone. Now the onus is on her to prove the trial wasn't handled legally. Which is a claim she is free to make while serving her sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com