It’s likely a mix of several things:

1. Society’s fascination with “big crime”, especially fraud—figures like Frank Abagnale, Anna Delvey, Jordan Belfort, and obviously Holmes herself have all been turned into popular films or TV series.

2. She has a knack for “branding” and generating a cult of personality, even if (maybe because) her ethics are nonexistent.

3. She seems to have landed on some financial stability through her spouse, which I’m sure is being used in small amounts for things like this.

4. In a strange way, she appears eager to redeem herself. An ethical person might do this through charity or similar means, but for her, being seen as a “titan of industry” likely equates to redemption.

Your observation isn’t off—I wouldn’t be surprised if she launches some kind of lifestyle brand after her release.

Pretty sure she doesn't have any money herself as she has been declared insolvent. However, her husbond is heir to 3 luxury hotels. And she doesn't come from a poor background either.

Only a person who themselves exhibits those qualities or someone cynical to the point of foolishness would conclude that is the lesson. Nothing indicates that walking away with cash cannot be achieved without sucking, lying and being mean.

The lesson is that a person who does what Holmes did may get caught and may suffer consequences. She has two young kids. She sits in prison as they grow up.

It's trite at this point to say we, the readers, are part of the problem. But it does make me wonder why we keep needing to glamorize the successful. They've made it, no? Do they need to be continually propped up? Probably the human instinct for worship gone astray.

When bad people in media are only portrayed in media as stereotypical villains, it's harder to detect bad people in real life. Bystanders see a gentile, caring, vulnerable person, and they immediately assume they can't be bad, because "bad people aren't gentile, caring, or vulnerable"! Except they are, just not always.

Also, at least some people deserve a chance at forgiveness. When evil is only portrayed as black-and-white, even tiny accidents cause someone to be irredeemable, because "bad people can never do right" implies "good people can never do wrong".

That doesn't mean we should forget bad deeds and eliminate all punishment. Accepting people can be good doesn't mean unconditionally forgiving them, and forgiving =/= forgetting. Like, if Elizabeth Holmes founds another company I'd be very skeptical, and if anyone seemed to trust her I'd actively refer them to Theranos. But specifically in online discourse, moral polarization is one of the biggest issues I see today.

But... the parable of the prodigal son? The whole point it makes is that we should be happy when the lost person is found. It specifically tries to talk us out of transactional relationships where we would somewhat instinctively assume that we should treat others proportionately well, compared to how well they treated us. And the point it's trying to make is that human dignity isn't something that can be measured or compared, it just is. And everyone has it, and should be treat as such.

----

The article makes it sound though as if Holmes is far from seeking absolution. So, maybe, the concept doesn't apply to her in particular. But, the answer still stands to the more general question.

I'm in favour of being, as a society, so ambitious that you want to give all criminals a second chance, and in that sense, she deserves one.

But that's not, _at all_, how the US justice system is designed. If _she_ gets a second chance, that's.. a ridiculous injustice.

Problematic people are still people, and pretending otherwise in order to feel better about needing them out of society is maybe not a great idea.

https://www.newsweek.com/steven-hayes-connecticut-linda-mai-...