3 ms·

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...
- detaro 9y ago
  [2] and the links going from it don't suggest anything about "lying to investors", merely making bad bets in Greece shortly before the crisis, in a fund that was advertised as making bets in Greece. Got a source about that, or is the argument just that everyone loosing a lot of money has to be fraudulent?

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...

detaro 9y ago
[2] and the links going from it don't suggest anything about "lying to investors", merely making bad bets in Greece shortly before the crisis, in a fund that was advertised as making bets in Greece. Got a source about that, or is the argument just that everyone loosing a lot of money has to be fraudulent?