Like many other people, I was enthralled by the new movie You Can See Everything. I found it stunningly original, and the three hours never dragged for me. (Before we go any further, there are no spoilers in this review, at least assuming you already know who Elizabeth Holmes is.)
But while watching it, I had a recurring thought: Holmes should not be in prison. To be clear, I do not doubt the jury’s findings of guilt. Nor am I trying to argue she was a naïf, trapped into crime by a cruel and hostile world.
What I did observe in the film, and knew about already, is that she has two small children. Furthermore, although her offenses were egregious—creating and marketing Theranos, a fraudulent blood-testing company—Holmes did not commit nor threaten any violence. The main charges that held up in court were wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, or in more commonsense terms, defrauding her investors of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Ross Douthat. Abigail Shrier. Douglas Murray. Niall Ferguson. Coleman Hughes. Caitlin Flanagan. Nellie Bowles. Arthur Brooks. Kat Rosenfield. Tyler Cowen. The voices you trust, all in one place. For a limited time only, subscribe for 20% off The Free Press.
There is, in my view, no good reason to put her away in prison. I do favor as much restitution as possible, as already was established in the initial judgment, which placed a $452 million burden on her and Ramesh Balwani, also involved in the Theranos crimes. Instead of prison, I would put her under some form of house arrest and allow her to raise her children. To do otherwise is to impose a severe penalty on her children, namely having no present mother for up to 11 years and three months, the length of her initial sentence, noting it was later reduced to 10 years and three months, and in reality she may get out in 2030.