3 ms·

> 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 yea

> 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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jkaplowitz 9y ago
In the US federal justice system, the US Sentencing Guidelines are officially advisory as of several years ago. Judges have to consult them and are expected to explain any deviation they adopt, but they can impose any sentence allowed by the statute which was violated. I guess the statute text has embedded minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines in a sense, but the term Sentencing Guidelines in the US federal judicial context means something specific.
danso 9y ago
Why don’t we approach his sentence from the opposite direction: the prosecution proposed a 15-year sentence, which is less than a reported max of ~25 years under federal guidelines. 7 years is a fraction of what Shkreli could face, so why don’t we accuse her of being emotionally swayed to be lenient? I agree that feelings are inextricably involved when human judges and juries make decisions. And all initiatives to correct for this — such as the 3-strikes law and mandatory sentencing guidelines — are likewise imperfect. I’m personally surprised at the severity of Shkreli’s sentence, but that’s because I don’t know this area of law or its precedent. And in the arguments I’ve seen asserting the sentence is too severe, I haven’t seen citations and evidence that contradict the precedent she used in her judgment. Yes, much of Shkreli’s situation has no precedent. But we should consider that judges can act cautiously in extremely publicized trials, especially ones involving defendants who are rich enough to mount an appeal. You think the judge faces no risk if she decides to draw up a sentence without defensible legal basis? I agree that we should worry if justice is meted out by judges who aren’t aware or empathetic toward defendants who are socially incompetent or otherwise social/psychological outliers. But just because popular media/opinion seems to hate Shkreli doesn’t necessarily mean we can ascribe such bias to the judge without empirical evidence.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >Why don’t we approach his sentence from the opposite direction: the prosecution proposed a 15-year sentence, which is less than a reported max of ~25 years under federal guidelines. 7 years is a fraction of what Shkreli could face, so why don’t we accuse her of being emotionally swayed to be lenient? Because other, similar cases seem to have lesser sentences, not greater. This case has a larger sentence compared to other actual practical cases, though clearly it wasn't as large as it could legally have been.
  - danso 9y ago
    I’m ready to be convinced, but which similar cases are we talking about?
- daxorid 9y ago
  Thank you for this response. I'm genuinely curious about this, though: > You think the judge faces no risk if she decides to draw up a sentence without defensible legal basis? What are the risks that judges face? My understanding is that Federal judges are appointed for life, with no chance of removal outside of impeachment. Is this not the case?
  - danso 9y ago
    I didn’t mean to imply an obvious direct risk (e.g. impeachment or being voted out), but I do assume the judge is not completely uninterested in moving up the federal circuit. Being called out, or having a decision overturned due to impropriety, on a very famous case, may not be necessarily nothing to the judge. Of course it works both ways — a too lenient sentence puts her under scrutiny too. But I think burden of proof is on those who think she is being too harsh when it specifically comes to Shkreli.
mwfunk 9y ago
That's not at all what's being said. There are far more possible cases that could be prosecuted than there are resources to prosecute them, so to better discourage all crime they will tend to go after higher profile targets, in particular those who flaunt their criminality. Similarly, cops don't spend all their time giving out tickets to every single jaywalker or every single speeder. That would be a waste of their time. But they need to give out some tickets every once in a while or else the law becomes meaningless. Given a choice between giving a ticket to a random person spotted jaywalking, vs. giving a ticket to someone who took out a full page ad the day before declaring the time and place in which they plan to jaywalk and taunting the police for being unable to do anything about it, the police will choose to give the ticket to the latter person, and that totally makes sense to me. That's very different from going after socially awkward people who don't know when they're being assholes.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  > But they need to give out some tickets every once in a while or else the law becomes meaningless. This has actually been shown to be a very bad idea. It is way better to punish immediately, even if lightly, every single transgression than to do it randomly but more severely. (Probably because we're all thinking "it won't happen to me".) What you're saying afterwards is "the mundanes should not taunt their rulers". True in the world-as-is, but that reinforces a caste system. No. The cops and the judges are NOT nobility. They should NOT be treated as superior to the little people.
  - danso 9y ago
    Shkreli is one of the “little people”?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jkaplowitz 9y ago

In the US federal justice system, the US Sentencing Guidelines are officially advisory as of several years ago. Judges have to consult them and are expected to explain any deviation they adopt, but they can impose any sentence allowed by the statute which was violated. I guess the statute text has embedded minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines in a sense, but the term Sentencing Guidelines in the US federal judicial context means something specific.

danso 9y ago

Why don’t we approach his sentence from the opposite direction: the prosecution proposed a 15-year sentence, which is less than a reported max of ~25 years under federal guidelines. 7 years is a fraction of what Shkreli could face, so why don’t we accuse her of being emotionally swayed to be lenient? I agree that feelings are inextricably involved when human judges and juries make decisions. And all initiatives to correct for this — such as the 3-strikes law and mandatory sentencing guidelines — are likewise imperfect. I’m personally surprised at the severity of Shkreli’s sentence, but that’s because I don’t know this area of law or its precedent. And in the arguments I’ve seen asserting the sentence is too severe, I haven’t seen citations and evidence that contradict the precedent she used in her judgment. Yes, much of Shkreli’s situation has no precedent. But we should consider that judges can act cautiously in extremely publicized trials, especially ones involving defendants who are rich enough to mount an appeal. You think the judge faces no risk if she decides to draw up a sentence without defensible legal basis? I agree that we should worry if justice is meted out by judges who aren’t aware or empathetic toward defendants who are socially incompetent or otherwise social/psychological outliers. But just because popular media/opinion seems to hate Shkreli doesn’t necessarily mean we can ascribe such bias to the judge without empirical evidence.

ameister14 9y ago
>Why don’t we approach his sentence from the opposite direction: the prosecution proposed a 15-year sentence, which is less than a reported max of ~25 years under federal guidelines. 7 years is a fraction of what Shkreli could face, so why don’t we accuse her of being emotionally swayed to be lenient? Because other, similar cases seem to have lesser sentences, not greater. This case has a larger sentence compared to other actual practical cases, though clearly it wasn't as large as it could legally have been.
- danso 9y ago
  I’m ready to be convinced, but which similar cases are we talking about?
daxorid 9y ago
Thank you for this response. I'm genuinely curious about this, though: > You think the judge faces no risk if she decides to draw up a sentence without defensible legal basis? What are the risks that judges face? My understanding is that Federal judges are appointed for life, with no chance of removal outside of impeachment. Is this not the case?
- danso 9y ago
  I didn’t mean to imply an obvious direct risk (e.g. impeachment or being voted out), but I do assume the judge is not completely uninterested in moving up the federal circuit. Being called out, or having a decision overturned due to impropriety, on a very famous case, may not be necessarily nothing to the judge. Of course it works both ways — a too lenient sentence puts her under scrutiny too. But I think burden of proof is on those who think she is being too harsh when it specifically comes to Shkreli.

mwfunk 9y ago

That's not at all what's being said. There are far more possible cases that could be prosecuted than there are resources to prosecute them, so to better discourage all crime they will tend to go after higher profile targets, in particular those who flaunt their criminality. Similarly, cops don't spend all their time giving out tickets to every single jaywalker or every single speeder. That would be a waste of their time. But they need to give out some tickets every once in a while or else the law becomes meaningless. Given a choice between giving a ticket to a random person spotted jaywalking, vs. giving a ticket to someone who took out a full page ad the day before declaring the time and place in which they plan to jaywalk and taunting the police for being unable to do anything about it, the police will choose to give the ticket to the latter person, and that totally makes sense to me. That's very different from going after socially awkward people who don't know when they're being assholes.

mdpopescu 9y ago
> But they need to give out some tickets every once in a while or else the law becomes meaningless. This has actually been shown to be a very bad idea. It is way better to punish immediately, even if lightly, every single transgression than to do it randomly but more severely. (Probably because we're all thinking "it won't happen to me".) What you're saying afterwards is "the mundanes should not taunt their rulers". True in the world-as-is, but that reinforces a caste system. No. The cops and the judges are NOT nobility. They should NOT be treated as superior to the little people.
- danso 9y ago
  Shkreli is one of the “little people”?