But who has standing to sue? Whoever suffered a stroke because their warfarin dose was too high or too low is dead, they cannot sue any longer. Whose dose was accidentally correct or whoever was lucky enough not to suffer a stroke did not suffer harm, so they can't bring suit either.
And Holmes and the board believed in good faith that their prothrombin test was accurate. No mens rea, no culpability. No prison for anyone.
Past experience with industrial accidents is that fines for safety violations resulting in death is a few ten thousand dollars. No one goes to prison ever, even if the omissions that caused the incident were grave. Here is a report on the fallout from an incident that caused four deaths and much head-shaking in the chemical engineering community: http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2015/05/osha-fines-dupont...
With that background, your faith in the system is touching but unwarranted.
The government always has standing for criminal cases (the only kind that involve jail) because the offense is against society. The families of a deceased person has standing to sue in a civil case. Any one who had a test run by the company has standing to sue as well, even if there was no harm - they did not receive the product that was advertised, namely a validated test.
I doubt this will result in jail time for the principles, but they should be expecting lawsuits over this.
I would expect there are already multiple attorneys preparing to file class action lawsuits against Theranos (and Walgreens) on behalf of impacted lab test customers. The attorneys are probably searching for a suitable lead plaintiff right now. It's not necessary to prove that the patients were medically harmed by bad lab tests, just that they didn't receive the promised service. Theranos will probably settle to avoid an ugly trial, the lawyers will pick up a quick few million $, and the class members will get tiny partial refunds.
The federal agency tasked with that responsibility I would naively presume, or do you prefer trial by media ? And why, exactly, would someone that acted in good faith deserve prison ?
You don't have to mean for something bad to happen to get jail time. You're still responsible for your actions, intentional or not.
I'm not lawyer, so bear with me, but my lay understanding is that if it can be shown that they should have been aware of the quality and other issues regarding their results, they could be criminally negligent. Feel free to correct me.
I'm not a lawyer either. And being responsible for your actions certainly seems reasonable to me. But I cannot see how you could have acted in good faith if you were aware of quality and other issues regarding your result. That would be acting in bad faith.
And Holmes and the board believed in good faith that their prothrombin test was accurate. No mens rea, no culpability. No prison for anyone.