3 ms·
> People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted becaus
by JackFr 9y ago
> People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are).
He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts is evidence that the jury made a determination based on facts, rather than their feeling towards him.
That being said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and the jury determines the facts, especially as they pertain to the credibility of testimony. If the defendant is an outrageous asshole, it's possibly more likely that the jury would interpret inconclusive evidence less favorably. I don't think that's necessarily the worst thing in the world, and it's also not clear that a panel of judges wouldn't be subject to similar biases.
- SilasX 9y ago>He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. Well, yes and no. They only bothered looking for his other crimes and prosecuting his because he became unpopular. That's disturbing. What if I'm the victim of financial crimes by someone who didn't piss of Congress and the public? Where's my justice?
- andrewflnr 9y agoThe judicial system mostly prosecutes people who have not managed to piss off Congress and the public.
- SilasX 9y agoThe point is that the bad reasons disproportionately affect their decision of which cases to pursue.
- JackFr 9y agoWell, maybe. Shkreli was first investigated by the SEC in 2003, and had two multimillion dollar judgements against his two bankrupt hedge funds for failing to cover puts and short sales. So when he shows up running a new company, it's not unimaginable that he was on some people's radar.
- XorNot 9y agoThe solution to your problems is not found in questioning why one set of crimes which occurred was correctly prosecuted.