5 ms·
Won’t see a day of jail time while Shkrelli gets 7 years.
by megadeth 9y ago
Won’t see a day of jail time while Shkrelli gets 7 years.
- sseveran 9y agoWell he did mouth off to congress. Once that happened they were always IMHO going to dig until they got him on something.
- charlesdm 9y agoMartin Shkreli was, honest to god, an idiot. He got several chances to "kiss the ring" and show remorse, and what did he do? He put some extra oil on the fire and kept acting like an idiot until the very last moment. Sometimes you need to realise when to fold and suck it up.
- newnewpdro 9y agoWas?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- daxorid 9y agoAlternative take: it's disgusting and offensive to the foundational concept of blind justice that punishment is more highly correlated with charisma and obsequiousness to judges than it is to actual crimes committed.
- charlesdm 9y agoIt comes down to basic human decency. Of which he has none. And that does not make him very likeable. You can raise drug prices like he did and do it in a moral way. He was basically laughing in people's faces about what he did. I agree courts, juries and judges are to be neutral, but a person like him just ends up getting under most people's skin. Even if there was no rational decision to go hard on him, I wouldn't be surprised if people subconsciously make that decision.
- briandear 9y agoNot being decent isn’t a crime. Fraud, however is. The FBI should recommend charges for this Holmes lady.
- pkaye 9y agoThere are other correlations like being rich and having connections.
- edanm 9y agoI kind of agree [1], but I don't think that's why there's a difference between the cases. First of all, the Theranos people haven't yet been brought up on criminal charges, but it's still possible they could be, no? Secondly, I think there were lots of material differences between the two cases that caused them to be prosecuted differently. You can't just lump every instance of fraud as the same thing. [1] The reason I only kind-of agree: you're phrasing it in a way that makes it seem clear. But I can easily phrase it as "it makes sense that defendants who show remorse, and are therefore less likely to commit the crime again, will get a lighter sentence, as opposed to defendants who are much more likely to repeat the crimes".
- charlesdm 9y agoOn showing remorse: it's a bit ridiculous to think of this, since showing remorse does not mean you actually feel remorse. But it might mean you are intelligent enough to realise you need to show remorse to get off the hook.
- artursapek 9y agoThat's exactly what it boils down to. The justice system makes you get on your knees.
- cma 9y agoBut on the other hand there are probably few false positives the other way: not showing remorse and mocking the proceedings probably does mean you don't actually feel remorse.
- danso 9y agoMartin Shkreli was extremely intelligent, and the court recognized that. He continued to not show remorse (I think it's arguable that he did a bit more than simply not show remorse), why shouldn't the court believe that he truly is not remorseful?
- charlesdm 9y agoHe was not remorseful. He probably should have acted like he was remorseful if he wanted to get off the hook. He was also disrespectful of the court, I guess.
- pron 9y agoPublicly showing deference to society's rules and values is not offensive to the concept of justice.
- cloakandswagger 9y agoUsing the threat of force from the state to try and make someone prostrate themselves to authority is absolutely an injustice.
- pron 9y agoMany believe that when it comes to certain issues (like fraud) it is society that determines what justice is, and it has the right to force its members to comply.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoWhy? Are you saying that remorse should not be taken into account?
- daxorid 9y agoCorrect. Further, even if I did believe that, I wouldn't wish it in practice: Criminality and psychopathy are tightly correlated, particularly with fraudsters. Psychopaths are excellent at faking remorse and other emotions that they do not actually feel. I would not want the punishment of a criminal dependent on their acting skills.
- danso 9y agoThe judicial system makes calculations to mitigate punishment based on belief of whether someone will present a danger to society. This includes the sentencing decided by the court, and subsequent reviews by parole boards. You think it better to eliminate such leniencies and move toward mandatory sentencing and 3-strikes type of policies?
- threatofrain 9y agoYour last sentence is certainly a stretch, that the removal of remorse as a consideration means the removal of recidivism prediction, and the rigid use of policies represented by 3-strikes.
- onecooldev24 9y agoActing like a idiot is not ILLEGAL !!!
- charlesdm 9y agoHe acted against the law, and was an idiot.
- cloakandswagger 9y agoApplying the law extra hard to people who are disliked by you/the general public really isn't in the spirit of our justice system. What happened to Martin is an injustice, and I'm saddened and disturbed by the people who celebrate it just because it was an injustice done against a "bad guy".
- danso 9y ago“extra hard” compared to whom?
- EpicEng 9y agoIf you think that your attitude and words have no bearing on what happens to you in these situations you're beyond naive. The justice system is made up of people, not robots. Nothing unethical was done it him, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. If you get pulled over and call the cops a dick the second he walks up to your car, you're gonna have a bad time (and you deserve it.)
- onecooldev24 9y ago"Nothing unethical was done it him, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly" Dumbfounded by your words, a 800% increase from the average sentence is, I think completely ok in a just system.
- charlesdm 9y agoBut there are generally ranges someone can be convicted in, for certain crimes 1 to 5 years, 5 to 10, etc. That he got an 800% increase in sentence doesn't matter, as long as the conviction fell within the ranges set up by the law. You can call a judge biased, but if he feels it's a correct sentence, then you're out of luck. You do know that is why we have judges right? In part to make judgement calls on sentences.
- sebasmurphy 9y agoand lost his wu-tang album :(
- rb808 9y agoYou dont really think a working class Albanian would get treated the same as a well connected blonde woman do you? This is America here. Shkreli got convicted because he was running "Ponzi Scheme" where no one lost money. Figure that one out.
- swarnie_ 9y agoAll he had to do was keep quite. Smirking to congress and being obnoxious in TV studios wasn't the smart play. Offering a bounty for Clinton's DNA while she was under the protection of the secret services was pure suicide. I quite like the guy if im honest.
- mikeyouse 9y agoIf you rob a bank and then go to a casino and bet it all on 'Black', you're not absolved of that original crime if Black hits and you pay back the bank. Shkreli lied to his investors (he claimed he had $55M under management when it never surpassed $6M), produced false financial statements, told prospective investors that his original investors had doubled their money (when they actually lost everything), raided the fund's money for personal expenses, backdated financial statements to defraud banks for new debt.... this is all laid out in the indictment: https://www.scribd.com/doc/293530336/1-main https://www.scribd.com/doc/293530336/1-main If you think that financial criminals should face repercussions, Shkreli belongs in jail. Others surely deserve jail as well, but 'fairness' isn't letting Shkreli off, it's punishing the rest of them too.
- onecooldev24 9y agoWhat about the fact that Holmes actually lost money for investors and got no jail time. While martin lost no money but got 7 years of jail time. Where is the fairness? I am surprised by the stupidity I view on this forum, which is suppose to be frequented by people working in top tech.
- mikeyouse 9y agoMaybe cool it on the insults if your facts aren't right. > What about the fact that Holmes actually lost money for investors and got no jail time. While martin lost no money but got 7 years of jail time. A few things about this point. 1. Shkreli lost 100% of his original investors' money. He then lied to them all and told them that he doubled it. He then created fake financial statements that he used to raise new money, lying to new investors as well. He also embezzled his hedge fund's money to buy himself Picassos and Wu-Tang albums. After all of that, he undertook a very risky bet that paid off, at which time he paid back his original investors, again lying about what happened. 2. Holmes didn't "get no jail time" since the SEC can't arrest or convict people. They're a civil institution that can only apply civil remedies, like fines and management bans. The Department of Justice is also investigating Theranos and Holmes, it remains to be seen if they will issue criminal indictments. In any case, Holmes is cooperating and had agreed to settle. 3. Shkreli had the chance to settle, plead guilty, admit wrong-doing and avoid jail time. Instead he chose to have a jury trial, where 12 of his peers found him guilty of serious financial crimes that would result in 7 years in prison.
- artursapek 9y agoWhile I see the same distinction and it's hard to watch, we can enumerate Shkreli's mistakes: 1. giving the finger to Congress 2. refusing to settle and going to court 3. talking shit the entire time he was on trial, both to court journalists and on TV ("junior varsity", etc.) 4. offering money for Clinton's DNA while on bond shortly after she lost the most embarrassing election of all time (while hilarious and obviously satire, of course "they" used this against him) And I'm sure someone else could add to my list. Meanwhile, I don't even know what Holmes looks like, let alone what her voice sounds like.
- bethly 9y agoWell, she didn't disrespect Wu-Tang. More seriously, this is why often people who know they've been caught dead-to-rights settle early: the government wants the W and doesn't want to have to spend money to get it. Shkrelli made them go for the conviction, and so he got the actual, un-discounted penalty.
- danso 9y agoAFAIK Theranos is still under criminal investigation, which hasn't yet publicly concluded: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/business/theranos-sec-justice-department-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/business/theranos-sec-jus...