Hacker News Reader

Comment by justrealist | Hacker News Reader

If restitution was the most important goal here, they'd allow her to work a (monitored) job on house-arrest with massively garnished wages.

Seems like silly posturing to order massive restitution while also sending her to prison — you can't have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind which is more important — punishment, or compensation for victims.

View on HN

What job is she going to get that will get anywhere near $452M?

> posturing to order massive restitution while also sending her to prison

Under what legal theory can someone only be punished once in one way?

> What job is she going to get that will get anywhere near $452M?

Politician, perhaps.

Take my upvote. That was clever.

> What job is she going to get that will get anywhere near $452M?

She should launch a new startup

Restitution can be paid out of many types of income. Book deals, inheritance, future earnings after she gets out of prison (she probably won't serve the entire 11 years), etc. In some states, the restitution could also be taken from her spouse's income.

It seems unlikely that she will ever pay the full restitution amount, regardless of how much jail time she serves.

This is federal prison so it's extremely unlikely she will serve less than 85% of the 11 years. It would take a presidential pardon to change this.

Who says restitution is the most important goal?

The actual goals of the US DOJ are set out here https://www.justice.gov/doj/doj-strategic-plan-2022-2026

1: Uphold the Rule of Law

2: Keep Our Country Safe

3: Protect Civil Rights

4: Ensure Economic Opportunity and Fairness for All

5: Administer Just Court and Correctional Systems

Like I said, it's fine for the goal to be punishment.

But then don't order these silly un-payable restitutions. It's clearly just posturing that doesn't help the victims.

This order all but guarantees that, even if she games the system and gets time served, she will never have the opportunity to reoffend.

I don't follow how this affects her ability to run a company post-release. It just affects her ability to get (somewhat) rich from it.

> they'd allow her to work a (monitored) job on house-arrest with massively garnished wages.

What is she qualified for?

ted talks?

Voice coaching

Or Courses on how to become a fraudster in 21 days

I think it’s totally justified to add bankruptcy to a prison sentence in this case. She wasn’t even jailed for the bodily harm she did.

Aren't you somewhat leaving out the fact that she may still have assets (she may not, I don't know) ?

To paraphrase Bo Burnham, and she still will but it’s not as fun now.

If she has $50 million squirreled away somewhere she won’t be able to spend it openly. She can be sneaky and keep a slightly comfortable life but she’ll never again have an opportunity to be openly decadent.

Debts handled, excellent health care, a little bribery perhaps, and an occasionally get away to somewhere remote, but no conspicuous consumption, which for these people seems to be more than half of the fun.

How do you get excellent health care when you pay under the table? Surely no one reputable is going to take cash?

Medical tourism was the angle I was thinking.

> How do you get excellent health care when you pay under the table?

As is very common, you're thinking within the confines of your borders.

Typically when rich people outside of the US/EU need specialist healthcare they fly to the US/EU. Is your claim that 'excellent' health care can be found outside of these areas, or that paying cash for healthcare is a reasonable proposition in the US/Europe?

When people of intermediate means need major surgery, India is now emerging as a place where you can get better than 80% of the healthcare for 20% of the cost.

Try not paying alimony and see what happens. Go to jail AND continue having to pay them. No difference here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com