Angelo Mozilo, for example, the former chief executive of Countrywide, faced intense criticism for spreading bad mortgages across America. That’s true. That’s what Countrywide did. But he was not charged with the sale of mortgages of mass destruction because he wasn’t the one actually doing it. The dirty work was done by junior employees. Even at Enron, some of the most egregious behavior never resulted in criminal charges because lawyers and accountants signed off on it, thus insulating executives.We’re also willing to throw the book at those who violate society’s unwritten laws, even when they can’t be charged with the crime for which we think they’re guilty. Take Martin Shkreli. Some called him the most hated man in America when he raised the price of the drug Daraprim, used mainly to treat a potentially fatal parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis, by 5,000 percent. That may be a moral crime, but it isn’t technically illegal. Yet he went to prison anyway — for defrauding investors in an entirely different incident, a case that might never have been brought had it not been for his actions with Daraprim.Did his prosecution have any larger meaning? Did it even mean that we won’t tolerate people ripping off the system using lifesaving drugs? Well, no, it didn’t mean that at all. Big Pharma has continued to raise prices on its drugs aggressively, and because we spend so much more on drugs other than Daraprim, their actions have far more deleterious consequences for America’s out-of-control spending than Mr. Shkreli’s did.Which brings us back to Elizabeth Holmes. For those who believed she was guilty of a great crime, it’s a disappointing verdict. The jury essentially said she was both visionary and fraudster. She was convicted of very specific lies but not of running a criminal enterprise writ large. In acquitting her of lying to patients and doctors, the jury seemed to believe that she had a right to rely on reassurances from some underlings that her technology worked. On the charges on which the jury deadlocked, at least one juror believed that in those instances, she didn’t lie to investors, either.It was precisely the opposite of the verdict I’d expected — and frankly wanted. I thought she’d be convicted on the charges of lying to patients but found not guilty of the charges that she defrauded investors, who in my view should have done the homework that others who refused to give Theranos money did. Yes, even I wanted to send a larger message to entrepreneurs: that it wasn’t OK to lie to patients, who shouldn’t have to do any homework to make sure the provider of their blood tests isn’t lying to them.But I didn’t get what I wanted, because the jury looked at the specific charges and the specific evidence and came to a different conclusion. The judge’s instructions to the jury did not say, “Please send a message to the world.” And there was no larger message, no attempt to punish her beyond what the jury thought the technical details of the law permitted.Isn’t that precisely as the law should work? If you were charged with a crime, you wouldn’t want the jury to use your case to send a message to anyone, aside from the verdict it delivered to you.Bethany McLean (@bethanymac12) is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a co-author of “The Smartest Guys in the Room.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Opinion | A Very American Question About Elizabeth Holmes and the Price of Success
