6 ms·

>Perhaps that makes me a bad person. Not bad, merely ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone you presumably know very little about, all while

>Perhaps that makes me a bad person. Not bad, merely ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone you presumably know very little about, all while searching for "true" victims ("perhaps the public?") to fuel your indignation.

wavefunction 9y ago
I feel great. Shrekeli's a terrible person and I'm comfortable with him being held to account for his crimes.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Perhaps society doing a societal good. A shot across the bow when organs of state have failed them.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud.
    - Overtonwindow 9y ago
      Didn't he commit tax fraud, though? There was no stretch of the law was there?
      - cm2187 9y ago
        There wasn't but he was hit hard for tax fraud really to punish him for his other crimes.
- throwaway7312 9y ago
  Glee at the suffering of others hardly marks a man as more evolved. From where I sit, I do not see much difference between the man this article is about, and those enjoying schadenfreude at his expense. All are trapped in the same place.
lomnakkus 9y ago
No, I think you actually mean bad. (That's not to say I don't understand your sentinment towards me, but really... I haven't hiked prices on life-saving medicines by upwards of 1000%, etc., so at least I win on moral relatisivm points?) This man has harmed quite a few people... or their insurance companies... which of course means harming of their customers, i.e. "us" (who can even afford insurance). I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. Do I need to know how much he loves his children, or something equally conceited and pointless? No, no I don't. EDIT: Oh, wait, you're one of those extremist libertarian types, aren't you? (At least judging by your most recent 5 comments). EDIT: Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. (For ultimately unrelated reasons, as it turns out. I'm guessing I'm a bad person for that.)
- lend000 9y ago
  > I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. That isn't what this trial is about. Just because you don't like someone because of one thing, doesn't mean they should be getting a harsh sentence for a separate crime (which apparently had no victims). Perhaps instead of vilifying characters who break the not at all free market pharmaceutical industry, and name-calling people who espouse ideologies that conflict with your pre-existing beliefs, you should instead consider why a single guy was able to stir up so much trouble in your heavily regulated medical industry. Was it because there wasn't enough government to protect people? Or was it more likely due to an extremely high barrier to entry to the pharmaceutical industry imposed by the FDA? (And in other cases, excessive IP protections play a significant role). I'll leave it as an exercise.
- bmelton 9y ago
  > Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. Unfair sentencing is just as much judicial malfeasance as is prosecutorial misconduct, unfair court trials or allegations. As citizens of America (which I assume, but do not know you to be) we should all champion fairness at ever level of the judicial process at all times, lest we ever find ourselves or our friends in the crosshairs of a court that we've allowed to give punitive sentencing to. There are undoubtedly very good debates to be had on what might be considered a fair sentence for a crime of this nature, but if you're damning him for crimes completely disconnected from this case, then by definition you are championing an unfair sentence. That's the sort of thing that has allowed our judicial system to get away with so much unfair treatment in the past, and for all our sakes, we should root against it at every level.

wavefunction 9y ago

I feel great. Shrekeli's a terrible person and I'm comfortable with him being held to account for his crimes.

Overtonwindow 9y ago
Perhaps society doing a societal good. A shot across the bow when organs of state have failed them.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    Didn't he commit tax fraud, though? There was no stretch of the law was there?
    - cm2187 9y ago
      There wasn't but he was hit hard for tax fraud really to punish him for his other crimes.
throwaway7312 9y ago
Glee at the suffering of others hardly marks a man as more evolved. From where I sit, I do not see much difference between the man this article is about, and those enjoying schadenfreude at his expense. All are trapped in the same place.

lomnakkus 9y ago

No, I think you actually mean bad. (That's not to say I don't understand your sentinment towards me, but really... I haven't hiked prices on life-saving medicines by upwards of 1000%, etc., so at least I win on moral relatisivm points?) This man has harmed quite a few people... or their insurance companies... which of course means harming of their customers, i.e. "us" (who can even afford insurance). I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. Do I need to know how much he loves his children, or something equally conceited and pointless? No, no I don't. EDIT: Oh, wait, you're one of those extremist libertarian types, aren't you? (At least judging by your most recent 5 comments). EDIT: Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. (For ultimately unrelated reasons, as it turns out. I'm guessing I'm a bad person for that.)

lend000 9y ago
> I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. That isn't what this trial is about. Just because you don't like someone because of one thing, doesn't mean they should be getting a harsh sentence for a separate crime (which apparently had no victims). Perhaps instead of vilifying characters who break the not at all free market pharmaceutical industry, and name-calling people who espouse ideologies that conflict with your pre-existing beliefs, you should instead consider why a single guy was able to stir up so much trouble in your heavily regulated medical industry. Was it because there wasn't enough government to protect people? Or was it more likely due to an extremely high barrier to entry to the pharmaceutical industry imposed by the FDA? (And in other cases, excessive IP protections play a significant role). I'll leave it as an exercise.
bmelton 9y ago
> Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. Unfair sentencing is just as much judicial malfeasance as is prosecutorial misconduct, unfair court trials or allegations. As citizens of America (which I assume, but do not know you to be) we should all champion fairness at ever level of the judicial process at all times, lest we ever find ourselves or our friends in the crosshairs of a court that we've allowed to give punitive sentencing to. There are undoubtedly very good debates to be had on what might be considered a fair sentence for a crime of this nature, but if you're damning him for crimes completely disconnected from this case, then by definition you are championing an unfair sentence. That's the sort of thing that has allowed our judicial system to get away with so much unfair treatment in the past, and for all our sakes, we should root against it at every level.