Just because it didn't work for Shkreli doesn't make it any less of a reasonable argument in general. In Shkrelis case the judge dismissed this argument specif

Just because it didn't work for Shkreli doesn't make it any less of a reasonable argument in general. In Shkrelis case the judge dismissed this argument specifically because he only paid his investors back after they had already became suspicious, had he done so before that his behavior would have almost certainly been viewed differently. It is absolutely normal to take things like this into account during sentencing. And since it seems to be terribly difficult for some people here to understand, I'm not defending Shkreli and nor do I think there's anything wrong with his sentence.