[samfisher83]

Why aren't Holmes and the other guy in jail. I mean there are people in jail for smoking pot and these guys did massive fraud and they are free.

I hope they don't just give them some fine. Makes the judicial system look bad.

[tptacek]

Pretty obviously because a pot charge is typically simple to adjudicate (you were arrested, you had pot, that's illegal) and white-collar investor and product fraud cases are not. The criminal case against Balwani and Holmes is complicated, and it will take time to resolve.

(Relatively few people are at this point in jail for smoking pot, for whatever that's worth to you).

[eganist]

> Pretty obviously because—

It's not. It might seem to be the case to you, me, and others with some understanding of the legal system in the United States, but when we consider the background knowledge of the legal system required to understand how cases are adjudicated, this is objectively quite generally not obvious.

> (Relatively few people are at this point in jail for smoking pot, for whatever that's worth to you).

Compared to what? If Virginia is any indication of trends among non-decriminalized or non-legalized states, it's relatively high. (I'm nitpicking, of course: there's a substantial difference between jail and prison; I'm assuming your definition—innocently, mind you—does not distinguish between the two.) https://ww.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/n...

[tptacek]

Virginia should jail fewer weed users. I mean, it's going to legalize recreational marijuana within the next 10 years like everyone else; the ship has sailed. What are we arguing about?

What's obvious is that a complicated white-collar fraud case is harder to prosecute than a trivial drug possession case. You don't need to know anything about the criminal justice system to grasp that.

[DSingularity]

I don’t know how I feel about this. At some point this just seems like BS, a rigged system where the crimes of the rich and white are “too complicated to prosecute” while the crimes of the poor and the minorities are so simple and easy.

Please. One day this system will collapse on itself.

[tptacek]

No, you've made up a false debate. This case isn't "too complicated to prosecute"; it's just taking a long time to prosecute. Complex cases always will, because they're complex.

[bruceb]

Or just rich. Notice 1 of the 2 main defendants in the case isn't white.

As has been pointed out the more complex the crime the more time and money it takes to prove. Generally wealthier people can commit financial crimes that the poor can not.

[volkl48]

The rich can afford expensive lawyers who require an airtight case to prosecute successfully. They also violate the law in much more convoluted schemes that require a lot of work to be able to piece together a case that a jury will understand and believe.

The poor have a shitty public defender who advises them to plead guilty even if they aren't, and if they committed a crime it's likely something simple and straightforward to explain and prove.

[HarryHirsch]

It's worse than that. I'm currently waiting for my former landlord to return the security deposit. The law insists that it be returned within a certain time with an accounting, otherwise there are punitive damages; the punitive damages serve to encourage the landlord to be honest in his dealings.

The clock has run out, but my lawyer advises against against asking for damages. Looking at the law, it should be a slam-dunk deal, but apparently the district judge is sufficiently corrupt not to be trusted.

It's not my job to school the landlord to be honest, and since there are no consequences for bad behaviour they will be dishonest and will continue to cheat students and other out-of-towners out of what is rightfully theirs. That, friends, is the reality in the US: groups of the population have good reason to believe that the legal system is not working for them.

Recently, a political TV program commented on the Brazilian election - on one side is a fascist, on the other a representative of party so corrupt that it's unelectable. The situation is approaching a civil war. In the US it's not quite as bad as in Brazil, but it's getting there.

[tptacek]

I think your lawyer is not good at their job. It's likely if you took your landlord to court, it'd take 12-18 months (during which you'd do nothing and incur minimal expenses waiting on the court calendar), and then, before you got to trial, your landlord would offer to settle for 50%.

The case itself, hit or miss, but 50% > 0%.

My big lesson from taking landlords to court is that the security deposit is a negotiation.

[HarryHirsch]

No, the law is not good at its job. This is in a small college town, it's a large property administration company that looks after ~ 100 investment properties. From what I hear, they habitually do not return the deposit. This shouldn't happen.

How much are you willing to bet? The demand letter is in the mail, if the money doesn't show up next Friday the matter will end up at the qadi's.

[tigershark]

Is small court claim not an option in US?

[tptacek]

It is, if your security deposit is below the limit. It's usually 1-1.5x rent.

[adventured]

For anyone curious about the numbers around what tptacek is saying (given the popularity of the myth that the US mass incarcerates pot smokers):

https://i.imgur.com/whWAVs3.jpg

The strong majority of all prisoners are in for violent crime and property crime. Public order offenses (which includes eg weapons and DUIs) are nearly as large as all drug offenses.

There are about 60% as many people in state prisons for just burglary, as all drug offenses.

In 2015, only 3.4% of people in state prisons were in for drug possesion of any type. Marijuana would be a small subset of that figure.

[kleopullin]

Well played. Now, what percentage of people were in local jails for drug possession? Pre- and post-conviction?

[SEJeff]

And what you will find by reading Thomas’s HN or twitter feed is that he’s often opinionated yet rarely wrong.

[anoncoward111]

While you aren't wrong, I think the original commenter was trying to say "it shouldn't be this way".

Pre-trial detention is a thing too, of course. They can afford bail, but many innocent people who literally did not do the crime they're accused of still sit in jail for months/years waiting for a trial.

[tptacek]

I'm not sure what "should" has to do with it! Complicated cases are complicated. Simple cases aren't.

I think directionally most people on HN already agree with you about cash bail. I certainly believe it should be done away with.

[stefan_]

Yeah, it's very difficult to win cases when you only use tools like raids or wiretaps against people unlikely to mount any sort of legal challenge.

[throwaway2048]

Yeah just for possessing it, such a major difference.

[tptacek]

Relatively few people are in prison for pot at all, was I guess my point. But I'm not looking to litigate weed law, which is something that virtually everyone on HN directionally agrees about anyways.

[dmoy]

Even still, relative to other prisoners, weed is pretty minor. You're talking like ~1% of the prison population.

Arrest rates are way higher though.

[propman]

They were arrested and out on a $500k bail. The same happens for those now in jail for smoking pot or dealing or whatever. The trial is now going on and the prosecution thinks it has a potentially far bigger case that can net more on charges.

Holmes settled the civil case with the SEC I believe so she’s cleared there. She absolutely could be jailed for a long time, but the wheels of justice turn slowly.

[felipelemos]

It's too easy to get rich by fraud and use it to pay for you bail out.

The wheels of justice turns slow if you have money.

[matt4077]

Incarceration is supposed to protect the upcoming trial, from the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence or witnesses.

It is not a punitive measure. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

So while it's fair to criticise the disparate abilities to post bail, changing the system to incarcerate more rich accused would just be compounding injustice.

[andrewaylett]

On the other hand, in the UK: "Under s. 4 of the Bail Act 1976, on each occasion that a person is brought before a court accused of an offence, or remanded after conviction for enquiries or a report, he must be granted bail without condition, if none of the exceptions to bail apply."

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

Charging an arm and a leg to receive bail doesn't seem like it's serving any useful purpose?

[tptacek]

Now you're getting some of the logic of civil asset forfeiture. (I don't support or not support it).

[avip]

Maybe because they haven't been convicted yet.