121–130 of 446 posts
It does say something depressing about our laws that he got sent to prison for the thing where he lied to rich people while still making them money rather than the thing where he extorted sick poor people...which is still fully legal even if the majority of society thinks it shouldn't.
This is a travesty. He is sentenced not for drug prices but for this: he started a hedge fund which lost money, used some of the funds to start a pharma co, the pharma co did well went public and he returned the investors their money at a huge profit for them. Who sufffered? No one. But he misrepresented his funds performance and did not inform them of the pharma co investment. This man is an entrepreneur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but you are getting distracted by exactly what you were supposed to get distracted by. He was hated because he hiked drug prices (and he was a dick). The news jumped all over this story and he was a perfect scapegoat. Sadly, It's still perfectly legal to corner a drug and hike the prices. That was the bigger crime, and it continues to go on, costing taxpayers and patients millions if not billions of dollars, and…
In this dialog, only one party has constructed a narrative that involves drug prices, and it is not 9889095r3jh.
Really recommend watching Shkreli's interview with The Breakfast Club where he's attacked for all the things he's become infamous for in the public sphere (drug price hikes, wu-tang album, etc.) The guy gets it, and played the game the way it was presented to him. He actually comes across as a very smart, thoughtful, and respectful guy that can roll with the punches and dish back when needed. Sure he's a bit of a tro…
Well he wasn't sentenced for any of those things. His real "play" was securities fraud.
Unfortunately for him he has a hateable face, fit into the "young rich person flying too close to sun" story arc, and was dumb enough to continue his trolling activities instead of fading from the limelight and allowing the mob to pass on to the next social media pariah.
Think about it...his crime was that he lied to a few rich people who gave him money, then ended up making these rich people even more money in the end, ending positively for them. Then ask yourself why prosecutors have failed to go after any of the bankers responsible for the great financial crisis, which affected hundreds of millions of people and their families, causing many people to lose their homes, jobs, etc. Is that really a fair system? Or are people just gloating about this guy going to jail as some type of proxy for justice being served somewhere, in some fashion for white collar financial crime that many have been indirectly victimized by, but have never received due compensation/justice.
Really, nobody on HN should care that he's going to prison, drug price gouging will still continue on unabated, and 20 more snake oil ICOs will pop up tomorrow to steal investors money. This conviction is hardly a sign that the system is working as intended.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/why-are...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do when you also commit fraud with a 7 year sentence.
Remember this when you end up on the wrong side of the law, and the book is thrown at you when it shouldn't be. Easy to cast the first stone. Aaron Swartz was eligible for 50 years in prison and a million dollar fine based on his computer crimes. That's fair too, right? Y'all need some empathy and compassion. People are human, and make mistakes. The punishment should fit the crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron…
The allowance for empathy, compassion and mistakes are what lead to the (to you) unfair punishment that was given.
This is insane. Sentencing guidelines for his crime was 0-12 months. He didn't even lose his investors any money.
Elsehwere in the thread I've linked to the UK version, and it seems he'd have got a similar sentence over here. Although we do have parole, so he'd be out a lot sooner.
This is insane. Sentencing guidelines for his crime was 0-12 months. He didn't even lose his investors any money.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-shkreli/pharma-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t assume that people who disagree with you are distracted or deluded.
He was arguing the wrong topic; whether or not Shkrelli got a just sentence. That's what we are supposed to be talking about; not the fact that it's legal to monopolize a drug then pursue monopolistic pricing practices on said drug. That's what Shkrelli was infamous for, not fraud. I may or may not agree with the justness of the sentence, but that wasn't the thrust of my argument, therefore the distraction.
And thus the "here's what happened" attitude is exactly false; what happened was a petulant fraudster got a middle-of-the-road sentence for exactly the crime he was on trial for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think the outcome should matter. According to the article, "prosecutors had pushed for at least 15 years, saying Shkreli had not shown remorse for his actions" How come the jury is allow to consider his alleged lack of remorse but is not allowed to consider the outcome ? Both are current events
If I push my wife off a cliff for life insurance but she falls onto and kills a terrorist or school shooter does that lessen my crime? Does it even change the nature of my crime? No so it shouldn't enter in.