Fraud is different from theft. Fraud is manipulating consent. Theft is taking by force what isn't yours. I don't know why everyone seems to be conflating the two everywhere in this thread.
In this case, fraud is far worse than theft. She defrauded investors of hundreds of millions of dollars and spent them on a what was essentially a vanity project. She destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of private property.
Destroying 100 million is best compared to something like a "killdozer"[0] rampage. Holmes' crime was the destructive equivalent of leveling ~300 homes.
The question is not just the state of the victim, it is (mainly) the intent of the perpetrator and the means used. That's why you don't get the same sentence if you harm somebody by accident or if you meant to do it.
The sentiment that sentencing is justified by retribution is the number one reason why the US criminal justice system is messed up. The concept of right-and-wrong and mens rea are inextricably one.
Intent. Both fraud and theft require intent, rear ending a car can happen regardless of intent, and would be a much more severe charge if there was intent.
