3 ms·
I 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 crim
by edanm 9y ago
I 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.