Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison • Hacker News Board

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#401

Post by tedunangst » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 4:31 AM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #370

tedunangst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was his argument. The judge decided that payback after the loss was mostly irrelevant, and loss is loss, even if never realized.

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…

All comments here seem to be terribly difficult to understand.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#402

Post by seabird » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

meowface wrote: post #366

ecommerceguy wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gosh I wonder if a replacement was made for Daraprim.. >Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceutical company that creates compounded drugs, released a $1 a pill alternative to , a toxoplasmosis treatment whose price skyrocketed by over 5,000% in recent months. >While the new pill is a boon for patients in need of treatment for the food-borne illness, especially those with weak immune systems like HIV/AIDS and…

He wasn't charged for raising the price of daraprim. That wasn't illegal. Defrauding investors is illegal. I highly doubt the case will be overturned.

He was prosecuted for raising the price of Daraprim, at least indirectly. This case is peanuts in the world of investment fraud, but Shkreli was an extremely soft target and a prosecutor looking to make a name for themselves saw the opportunity and took it.

There's very little chance of the case being overturned, but I'm guessing he'll go for a sentence reduction by trying to emphasize that his sentence is based on a hypothetical loss number.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#403

Post by wpietri » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 4:44 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #398

wpietri wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, Harry, if you had bothered to read the link in my comment, you'd discover that there are laws against price gouging. Fair pricing can be tricky to determine. However, in Shkreli's case, his entire strategy was to take drugs where a fair price had already been determined by the market and then take advantage of supply constraints to raise the price drastically, by 20-50x. If you really can't tell the ethical…

And yet, William, if you had bothered to read the link in your comment, you'd discover in the "Opposition to laws against price gouging" section that there are numerous people who think these laws are bad and that they make some pretty good points. In the case of Shkreli and Daraprim the price change induced Imprimis to bring a new drug online which added strength and diversity to the marketplace which is what we exp…

There's a big difference between "some pretty good points" and "don't have an ethical leg to stand on". If you're now acknowledging that there is in fact a reasonable case for anti-gouging, that's a step forward. Thanks.

Sure, one of Shkreli's attempts to gouge was partially thwarted by a competitor. Were all of them? Is there any guarantee that all future gouging attempts would be equally pointless? Of course not. Because, your free-market fundamentalism aside, markets fail all the time. That's why to get well-functioning marketplaces we outlaw a great variety of market-harming behaviors. Including things like price gouging for things people need to survive.

Markets are not ends in themselves. They exist, with extensive societal support, because they're a useful mechanism to provide a reasonable distribution of goods and services to humans in those societies. When parasitic actors use those mechanisms to cause societal harm, it's entirely reasonable to tinker with the mechanism.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#404

Post by Larrikin » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 4:46 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #246

walshemj wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes going "fuck you judge" whilst on trial does tend to have that effect. Its also why contempt of court and malfeasance in public office has such harsh panties

Are judges Kings now and if we hurt their ity bity feelings, they will send men with guns to arrest us for it? This is exactly the same thing as when Kings used to kill people because they insulted their honor or something.

Are people computers? It's not always perfect, but judges ideally have leeway in sentencing because the circumstances around the same crime are always different. A person that actually understands the gravity of a crime and is remorseful shouldn't get the same sentence as someone who has no respect for the law and seems willing to repeat the same crime or similar. It's actually a pretty big complaint about mandatory minimum sentencing when it is used against poor people of color.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#405

Post by purplezooey » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #5

He was so obnoxious that I guess it is easy to be happy about that, but he was so small time in the grand scheme of things. But nearly no bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis ever went to jail: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

Excellent point. 0 bankers went to jail (other than that one BofA dude). One of the great travesties of this decade.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#406

Post by charlysl » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #175

birken wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or hate it, this is what the SEC does. You think Martha Stewart deserved jail time for making 50k in an insider trading scheme she didn't really care about? The SEC finds very public cases and then brings the hammer down in order to act a deterrent. Martin Shkreli broke the law, something he didn't have to do. It isn't like it was mob justice and some hugely biased jury convicted him of all the crimes he was…

The SEC, DOJ, et al also have limited amounts of resources. They just can't go after everyone.

They have limited resources precisely so that they can't go after everyone.

Add revolving doors to this and everything makes sense.

On top of this, Shkreli brought a seedy but commonplace practice in the mighty pharma industry to the front page during a presidential campaign and made powerful enemies, including public opinion.

He wasn't sentenced for that, just like Al Capone wasn't sentenced for gangsterism.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#407

Post by loggedinmyphone » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 6:05 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #361

bhouston wrote: post #5

He was so obnoxious that I guess it is easy to be happy about that, but he was so small time in the grand scheme of things. But nearly no bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis ever went to jail: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

The interesting thing about this casae, if I recall the facts correctly (I'm sure someone will fact check this, I'll attempt to and update this in a bit), is that in this case the breaking of the law was mostly an attempt to make sure his investors were left whole. Here's the facts as I understand them: 1) He ran a hedge fund, and lost a lot of money. 2) He didn't disclose to his investors that he lost the money, and…

Punishment seldom if ever fits the crime. There's a strong case that punishment exists to give society a chance for collective catharsis. Otherwise it makes little sense to imprison someone for 7 years. If they can be rehabilitated then do so; if they need to be removed from society permanently then do that. Public ostentatious punishment is really a form of vicarious group sadism directed at the unpopular.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#408

Post by solatic » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 7:40 AM UTC

jogjayr wrote: post #392

adventured wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But nearly no bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis ever went to jail That is a myth. Dozens of bankers were arrested and put in prison over crimes related to the 2008 financial crisis. That includes a number of bankers at large enterprises. It excludes the very top tier bankers, at the systemically important financial firms, who all managed to skate. It's not illegal, generally speaking, to make dumb i…

I'm no expert on the financial crisis, most of my knowledge comes from The Big Short . But wasn't there actual fraud also being perpetrated? E.g. the ratings agencies that knowingly assigned A grades to bundles of decidedly low-grade debt just to keep clients happy?

The agencies' ratings are essentially protected by the First Amendment, as the rating represents the agency's opinion on whichever security offering.

Fraud isn't purchasing a house that's advertised as "clean" only to discover that there was asbestos in the basement. Fraud is advertising as such after a legal definition for the word "clean" has been established to include "asbestos-free" and yet the house has asbestos anyway.

There aren't any strict legal definitions for what "BB" and "BBB" and "A" and etc. mean, and that's why the ratings agencies could rate them as AAA, because the subjective expectation (as unfounded as it was) was for the housing market to keep booming forever, which was enough to slap a AAA rating without it being fraudulent.

(note I'm not trying to excuse or justify the ratings agencies behavior, only to explain)

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#409

Post by mdpopescu » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 7:41 AM UTC

birken wrote: post #149

bhouston wrote: post #5

He was so obnoxious that I guess it is easy to be happy about that, but he was so small time in the grand scheme of things. But nearly no bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis ever went to jail: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

Like it or hate it, this is what the SEC does. You think Martha Stewart deserved jail time for making 50k in an insider trading scheme she didn't really care about? The SEC finds very public cases and then brings the hammer down in order to act a deterrent. Martin Shkreli broke the law, something he didn't have to do. It isn't like it was mob justice and some hugely biased jury convicted him of all the crimes he was…

> Then all Shkreli had to do was (...) kiss the ring a little bit

An American writes this and doesn't shriek in anger. 2018.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#410

Post by mdpopescu » Sat, Mar 10, 2018, 7:55 AM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #367

daxorid wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 t…

> 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.