6 ms·

Like it or hate it, this is what the SEC does. You think Martha Stewart deserved jail time for making 50k in an insider trading scheme she didn't really care a

by birken 9y ago

Like it or hate it, this is what the SEC does. You think Martha Stewart deserved jail time for making 50k in an insider trading scheme she didn't really care about? The SEC finds very public cases and then brings the hammer down in order to act a deterrent. Martin Shkreli broke the law, something he didn't have to do. It isn't like it was mob justice and some hugely biased jury convicted him of all the crimes he was committed of without thought. The jury by all accounts fairly deliberated his actions and convicted him of crimes that he did, while letting him off for crimes he didn't do. Then all Shkreli had to do was show some remorese and kiss the ring a little bit, but he continued to be a troll and mock the justice system. He downplayed his crimes literally minutes after being convicted of them, which showed a lack of remorse (and maybe honestly so, but the justice system doesn't like that). He continued to be a troll, including the whole Hillary Clinton incident, many of these statements used against him in sentencing. This isn't a case of the tall blades of grass getting cut first. It's a case where we have a subjective justice system that doesn't want to be mocked while it is doing it's job. Shkreli went out of his way to mock it, he went out of his way to mock the SEC, all the while he actually did commit a crime. Yes, it is a witch hunt in that the SEC will throw the book at some people while letting other people who committed worse crimes off the hook (Phil Mickelson vs Martha Stewart), but that how any limited investigative body works. If you don't want to be a target of a witch hunt, don't break the law. And if you do, kiss the ring. I'm not convinced it is a huge indictment of our society that people who break the law all the while trolling everybody get unfairly harsh punishments, though I admit it is unfair in the sense that life as a whole is unfair.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
The SEC, DOJ, et al also have limited amounts of resources. They just can't go after everyone.
- presidentender 9y ago
  The fact that they can't go after everyone doesn't mean that they should punish Shkreli extra hard for what amounts to being a jerk.
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    It does actually. If you waste their time by trolling them and drawing excessive attention, it consumes their resources responding to comments from the media. Instead of y'know, performing their investigatory/judicial functions.
    - psyc 9y ago
      Parent said should. This is not how law works, so it’s not how its enforcement should work.
  - refurb 9y ago
    It's pretty common for defendants who show remorse to get lighter sentences, no?
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    No, but the fact that Shkreli is a jerk, and showed no remorse for what he did, and disrespected the court mean that they shouldn't go easy on him, either.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    One would assume however, that given the choice between 1) guy who lied to investors, still made them money (ie. Shkreli) 2) guy who lied to investors, lost 90% of their money (for example, ironically, Clinton's son in law [2], who has lost more money than the GDP of about 70 countries, and yet [3] happened) They would have a strong preference for 2). But the SEC is a HUGE example of selective justice. Harsh "correct" treatment for whomever offends the elite, just for insulting and rejecting them (Shkreli IS an idiot, VERY publicly rejecting and insulting one of the elites WHILE she was running an election for president AND giving her an excuse ("threatening her") to send the law after him), or just by being poor. But nothing ever gets done about members of the elite, even if they're very low level. And I get it, what Mr. Mezvinsky did was probably in a panic, and it was political decisions of someone else that did him in, nothing he could have done (as I'm sure is true for 90%+ of criminals of course, it never seems to count as an excuse). And it did do serious damage to his career. But he should be in prison, and owe hundreds of millions of dollars to people. The issue I have with that is, if you or I, or probably anyone who may read this did what he did, we'd be locked in a maximum security prison for 40+ years, as well as being destitute. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mezvinsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mezvinsky [3] https://www.recode.net/2017/5/18/15660060/social-capital-hires-marc-mezvinsky-investment https://www.recode.net/2017/5/18/15660060/social-capital-hir...
- charlysl 9y ago
  They have limited resources precisely so that they can't go after everyone. Add revolving doors to this and everything makes sense. On top of this, Shkreli brought a seedy but commonplace practice in the mighty pharma industry to the front page during a presidential campaign and made powerful enemies, including public opinion. He wasn't sentenced for that, just like Al Capone wasn't sentenced for gangsterism.
danso 9y ago
Well put. Just because O.J. was found not guilty and no big bankers went to jail in 2008 doesn't mean judges in other courtrooms are going to relax their standards when you flip them off https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Penelope-Soto-Woman-Who-Flipped-Off-Judge-Set-to-Apologize-to-Him-Friday-in-Court-190256681.html https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Penelope-Soto-Woman-Who-...
- wils1245 9y ago
  OJ is an interesting example, as his sentence for armed robbery was considered extreme compared to the facts of his case, and influenced by the fact he away with murder. I think it’s troubling that judges have the ability to hand down sentences far above some established norm, even if those sentences are legal.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > I think it’s troubling that judges have the ability to hand down sentences far above some established norm I agree, but that's not what happened in Shkreli's case. The crime he committed really does have a very long sentence.
stale2002 9y ago
So what you are saying is that he had his sentance increased because he hurt a judge's feelings? That's basically what this comes down to. Imagine if jay walking was punishable by death but it was only ever enforced against people who mocked Trump. Inconsistent enforcement just allows the people in power to go after their political oponents for the "real" crime of hurting their feelings.
- danso 9y ago
  > That's basically what this comes down to. The judge didn't create the law regarding securities fraud, nor did she instigate the charges of fraud, nor did she even have a voice when it came to deciding to convict (it was a jury trial). So how does this all boil down to a judge's feelings being hurt? All crimes will be inconsistently enforced until we've built a policing apparatus that operates like the equivalent of red-light cameras but for every crime [0]. Hopefully we never get to that point, which means enforcement will continue to be resource-limited and inconsistent, so are you arguing for no enforcement at all? [0] I'm being rhetorical of course. I don't mean to suggest at all that the enforcement of red-light violations, even when caught on camera, is anywhere near consistent: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-met-red-light-camera-tickets-120617-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-met-...
  - daxorid 9y ago
    > So how does this all boil down to a judge's feelings being hurt? The way I read the parent is that this conviction would almost certainly not merit seven years in a typical non-Shkreli case. But the judge handed down seven years, not because of his crime, but because of his attitude. The OP even suggested as much, suggesting if he had just "kissed the ring", the sentence would have been substantially less. I read the parent's outrage as being that justice isn't blind - it metes out sentences based on the feelings of a judge toward a defendant's attitude. The crime itself only matters insofar as judges must abide by minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines. Within those guidelines, how you feel about a defendant is fair game. edit: I would also add that, for those of us with less than stellar social skills, it's easy for social incompetence to be misinterpreted by other people as being an asshole. For us, this aspect of the justice system is at least mildly worrying.
gameswithgo 9y ago
> I'm not convinced it is a huge indictment of our society The indictment of our society is that hundreds of millionaires can enrich themselves further via dishonest and illegal means, wreck world economies, and suffer no consequences, while a regular joe can be chocked to death for selling cigarettes on the street (disruptive!) This isn't an impossible problem to fix. We just start voting for politicians willing to execute white collar criminals.
- AnabeeKnox 9y ago
  you sound a bit mental tbh
  - sctb 9y ago
    This kind of thing is a bannable offense on Hacker News, so could you please comment civilly and substantively instead? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mdpopescu 9y ago
> Then all Shkreli had to do was (...) kiss the ring a little bit An American writes this and doesn't shriek in anger. 2018.

by birken 9y ago

s73v3r_ 9y ago

The SEC, DOJ, et al also have limited amounts of resources. They just can't go after everyone.

presidentender 9y ago
The fact that they can't go after everyone doesn't mean that they should punish Shkreli extra hard for what amounts to being a jerk.
- AFNobody 9y ago
  It does actually. If you waste their time by trolling them and drawing excessive attention, it consumes their resources responding to comments from the media. Instead of y'know, performing their investigatory/judicial functions.
  - psyc 9y ago
    Parent said should. This is not how law works, so it’s not how its enforcement should work.
- refurb 9y ago
  It's pretty common for defendants who show remorse to get lighter sentences, no?
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  No, but the fact that Shkreli is a jerk, and showed no remorse for what he did, and disrespected the court mean that they shouldn't go easy on him, either.
- candiodari 9y ago
  One would assume however, that given the choice between 1) guy who lied to investors, still made them money (ie. Shkreli) 2) guy who lied to investors, lost 90% of their money (for example, ironically, Clinton's son in law [2], who has lost more money than the GDP of about 70 countries, and yet [3] happened) They would have a strong preference for 2). But the SEC is a HUGE example of selective justice. Harsh "correct" treatment for whomever offends the elite, just for insulting and rejecting them (Shkreli IS an idiot, VERY publicly rejecting and insulting one of the elites WHILE she was running an election for president AND giving her an excuse ("threatening her") to send the law after him), or just by being poor. But nothing ever gets done about members of the elite, even if they're very low level. And I get it, what Mr. Mezvinsky did was probably in a panic, and it was political decisions of someone else that did him in, nothing he could have done (as I'm sure is true for 90%+ of criminals of course, it never seems to count as an excuse). And it did do serious damage to his career. But he should be in prison, and owe hundreds of millions of dollars to people. The issue I have with that is, if you or I, or probably anyone who may read this did what he did, we'd be locked in a maximum security prison for 40+ years, as well as being destitute. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mezvinsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mezvinsky [3] https://www.recode.net/2017/5/18/15660060/social-capital-hires-marc-mezvinsky-investment https://www.recode.net/2017/5/18/15660060/social-capital-hir...
charlysl 9y ago
They have limited resources precisely so that they can't go after everyone. Add revolving doors to this and everything makes sense. On top of this, Shkreli brought a seedy but commonplace practice in the mighty pharma industry to the front page during a presidential campaign and made powerful enemies, including public opinion. He wasn't sentenced for that, just like Al Capone wasn't sentenced for gangsterism.

danso 9y ago

Well put. Just because O.J. was found not guilty and no big bankers went to jail in 2008 doesn't mean judges in other courtrooms are going to relax their standards when you flip them off https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Penelope-Soto-Woman-Who-Flipped-Off-Judge-Set-to-Apologize-to-Him-Friday-in-Court-190256681.html https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Penelope-Soto-Woman-Who-...

wils1245 9y ago
OJ is an interesting example, as his sentence for armed robbery was considered extreme compared to the facts of his case, and influenced by the fact he away with murder. I think it’s troubling that judges have the ability to hand down sentences far above some established norm, even if those sentences are legal.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > I think it’s troubling that judges have the ability to hand down sentences far above some established norm I agree, but that's not what happened in Shkreli's case. The crime he committed really does have a very long sentence.

stale2002 9y ago

So what you are saying is that he had his sentance increased because he hurt a judge's feelings? That's basically what this comes down to. Imagine if jay walking was punishable by death but it was only ever enforced against people who mocked Trump. Inconsistent enforcement just allows the people in power to go after their political oponents for the "real" crime of hurting their feelings.

danso 9y ago
> That's basically what this comes down to. The judge didn't create the law regarding securities fraud, nor did she instigate the charges of fraud, nor did she even have a voice when it came to deciding to convict (it was a jury trial). So how does this all boil down to a judge's feelings being hurt? All crimes will be inconsistently enforced until we've built a policing apparatus that operates like the equivalent of red-light cameras but for every crime [0]. Hopefully we never get to that point, which means enforcement will continue to be resource-limited and inconsistent, so are you arguing for no enforcement at all? [0] I'm being rhetorical of course. I don't mean to suggest at all that the enforcement of red-light violations, even when caught on camera, is anywhere near consistent: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-met-red-light-camera-tickets-120617-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-met-...
- daxorid 9y ago
  > So how does this all boil down to a judge's feelings being hurt? The way I read the parent is that this conviction would almost certainly not merit seven years in a typical non-Shkreli case. But the judge handed down seven years, not because of his crime, but because of his attitude. The OP even suggested as much, suggesting if he had just "kissed the ring", the sentence would have been substantially less. I read the parent's outrage as being that justice isn't blind - it metes out sentences based on the feelings of a judge toward a defendant's attitude. The crime itself only matters insofar as judges must abide by minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines. Within those guidelines, how you feel about a defendant is fair game. edit: I would also add that, for those of us with less than stellar social skills, it's easy for social incompetence to be misinterpreted by other people as being an asshole. For us, this aspect of the justice system is at least mildly worrying.

gameswithgo 9y ago

> I'm not convinced it is a huge indictment of our society The indictment of our society is that hundreds of millionaires can enrich themselves further via dishonest and illegal means, wreck world economies, and suffer no consequences, while a regular joe can be chocked to death for selling cigarettes on the street (disruptive!) This isn't an impossible problem to fix. We just start voting for politicians willing to execute white collar criminals.

AnabeeKnox 9y ago
you sound a bit mental tbh
- sctb 9y ago
  This kind of thing is a bannable offense on Hacker News, so could you please comment civilly and substantively instead? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mdpopescu 9y ago

> Then all Shkreli had to do was (...) kiss the ring a little bit An American writes this and doesn't shriek in anger. 2018.