[whywhywhywhy]

Sometimes it's not all just about the monetary amount. Someone choosing to use the threat of violence or death on a single individual one time to even take as little as $20 doesn't belong in a society.

Even if you're lying to trick some companies and investors to give you millions you're still not as evil or dangerous to society as the person who chooses to terrorize individuals for their gain. The actions are what matters.

[richthegeek]

  “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"

  "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.

  "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"

  "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.

  "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

  "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

- Going Postal, Terry Prachett

Fraud is not a zero-victim crime and less than petty theft is. Just because the investors can 'afford' it, their losses are passed on to society eventually.

[neuronic]

She's ruined anyway, doesn't mean she should get life in prison but I know Americans tend to thrive on cruelty.

[CRConrad]

The reverse, that you are in effect advocating, amounts to letting the big fish get away with fleecing LOTS of people while coming down much harder on the small fry that robs one person at a time.

Also a very American way of thinking AFAICS.

[uncomputation]

Right, and it wasn’t cruel at all for her to put out medical devices she knew could and did produce false results for patients - in one case a false positive for HIV - solely for her own gain?

[ljm]

I think this is an interesting perspective because there have to be some unconscious biases at play to see these things so differently, even down to one person 'tricking some investors' and the other 'terrorizing individuals for their gain'. Furthermore, one of these people is 'more evil' and 'more dangerous'. In my own mind there's an element of classism involved because of how we see these two kinds of people so differently, and how we imagine them to live their lives.

In that sense, this CEO could be like the Sackler family - responsible for so much suffering across American society for the past decade or so, but because the scale is so large they've effectively abstracted themselves away from the evil and terror they are responsible for. The implication being that the opioid addict gets the full judgment of the law and society for terrorizing individuals to feed their addition, but the people who made the addiction possible get away with being tricksters. The only reason Elizabeth Holmes doesn't approach that level is because she and her startup got caught before they could release their fake products at scale, before the more serious consequences would begin.

If you ask me, I'd prefer to see both being held appropriately accountable, preferably in a way that encourages rehabilitation and not retribution or cruelty.

[CRConrad]

> but because the scale is so large

Above all, I think, because it's so diluted across a lot of people. To me, all these fraud-on-a-grand-scale-apologists are as naïve as Moist von Lipwig in the Pratchett quote in a sibling comment.

Personally, I'm with the gholem.

[jklinger410]

People are just making stuff up in this thread lmao