[thunfischtoast]

When was the last time a rich and/or famous person faced actual repercussions for their bad actions? Actions that, would they be comitted by the lower 99,9% of the world, would yield at least a fine that actually hurts, or jail. Serious jail, not "house arrest" in a big mansion. Jail time that actually lasted to the end and was not prematurely lifted after 6 months? When the current systems are failing the solution is not to replace them with another system.

[dylan604]

Martha Stewart went to jail. Famous parents from the college admission scandal did time. There have been examples, but yeah, it does make obvious the "two tier" system

[myvoiceismypass]

Martha Stewart went to jail for like a half year for lying during an insider trading investigation, it was a pretty big deal back then. That sort of behavior today would be totally excused by the current grifters in charge, though.

[bryanlarsen]

SBF? Epstein? Weinstein?

[nullhole]

Madoff as well

[marginalia_nu]

They threw Epstein in prison. Maxwell is doing time now as well. Bernie Madoff got 150 years, died in the same prison R Kelly is doing a 31 year stint in.

[Larrikin]

Black men are usually punished no matter how much money they have.

Rich Women have a lower threshold than rich white men, if their crimes hurt or have the potential to hurt rich people. Holmes was punished for defrauding the investors, not the people who took her fake blood tests.

[thaumasiotes]

> Holmes was punished for defrauding the investors, not the people who took her fake blood tests.

There's more to this than you imply. I'm unfamiliar with the details, so take this comment more as a discussion of a hypothetical (that is phrased as if it was all factual) than as fact.

1. The formal charge was defrauding the investors. But that isn't necessarily the behavior that got her charged. If you're a prosecutor looking to score some political points, you prosecute an outrageous person over a crime you can convict them on, but the crime doesn't have to be outrageous itself.

2. If someone had been harmed by a fake blood test ("the test said no cancer, but there was cancer!"), that would have made it into the prosecution. As you note here, it makes the prosecutor look better and Holmes look worse.

3. But if you don't rely on the results of an experimental blood test and suffer harm, there is no injury to prosecute for. Theoretically people who paid for experimental tests could sue for a refund.

4. Holmes' conduct, restricted only to defrauding investors, was outrageous and easily merited a hefty prison sentence.

[SpicyLemonZest]

But you haven't engaged with two of the four examples in the comment you're responding to. I don't think developing just-so stories for why some rich and famous people were prosecuted and ignoring others to whom the stories don't apply will be helpful for your understanding.

[Dylan16807]

Well one of them originally got a year and a half which is barely anything for the crimes.

[marginalia_nu]

Well at the same time P Diddy barely saw any consequences either.

Probably tricky to say much based on such a small sample size, regardless. There aren't that many rich and/or famous people in the first place, and an even smaller portion that engage in some sort of major crimes.

[butlike]

You don't address Epstein or Madoff in your retort.

[c22]

Sam Bankman-Fried is probably an even better example.

Still, it's shameful how long all these individuals were able to operate large criminal enterprises in brazen defiance of the law without being called out on it.

If any of these people were scared enough of consequences to put even a little effort into covering their tracks we may never have become aware of their transgressions.