I don't think it's desirable or even possible, and even if, it would be prohibitively expensive. Ultimately, the society itself is held together by trust and assumption that people generally behave morally. In every area where this assumption doesn't hold we have to enact laws and systems that counter bad behaviour, and those are usually very costly and slow things down (just think about airport security). Trust is what allows us create efficient systems that save money by not having to strongarm people into particular patterns of behaviour, assuming instead they'll follow those patterns of their own accord.
Moreover, systems disconnected from human morality seem to be an ultimate case of following the letter instead of spirit of the law. It risks turning a system into self-perpetuating one that doesn't care about its intended purpose. If everything in healthcare would follow just the letter, how would we make sure it serves its actual function, i.e. keeping people healthy and happy?
Lastly, I believe that codifying things is a tradeoff with a serious cost - written laws have much smaller expressive power than intent-based rules. The world is complicated, people are complicated, but we all share the same brain architecture that does most of the work for us. To codify a simple "be good to each other" rule, you have to write and maintain thousands and thousands of pages of legalese, ridden with contradictions and corner cases. That's a huge cost.
I'm not saying we shouldn't write laws, or design systems to minimmize individual impact. But we need to remember that it's a trade-off. It's like the main problem of programming: computers are dumb, they don't know what we mean. The laws don't know it either (they're basically code). But we do. We have a tremendous advantage built right in. We shouldn't be so quick to reject it because we're afraid of others.
OP is referring to when prosecutorial discretion permits "the powers that be" to use this fact against people who fall into disfavor.
Shkreli has been under criminal investigation since January, pleaded the fifth, is the target of a civil lawsuit with some pretty strong allegations and made some pretty self-incriminating statements.
Political prosecutions are bad but this clearly isn't the case here http://www.newsweek.com/martin-shkreli-drug-manipulation-dar...
It seems that the prosecutorial groups are more likely to shine their light on people they find morally repugnant.
Isn't that the same thing? You won't pick morals that say you're in the wrong.
Yet, in Washington State, Tim Sheldon has a illegal PAC called "American Values First" and broke a whole host of campaign finance laws as well as 501(c)4 violations, and yet that guy never saw the inside of a courtroom.
We have the IRS that has targeted groups based solely on political views as well.
When the government attempts to use it's power to shut down voices (regardless of the politics) we're about 1 step away from the worst aspects of Communist China.
The case the prosecution has to prove is that they were fake. Tough job unless they have a snitch from the old firm.
It should be.
EDIT: I'm not defending the guy or the drug industry necessarily, just asking how you'd craft a law that makes drug prices "fair" but also isn't incredibly arbitrary.
Yulia Tymoshenko, former prime minister of Ukraine was convicted of "embezzlement and abuse of power". Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks is facing extradition. Elliot Spitzer, former attorney general, was ousted from power due to a prostitution scandal that appeared targeted.
Whatever you think about US health care and drug prices, we should not rely on a system that requires individual actors to be good people. We should strive for a system that does not require moral actors to function.
Of course I could be wrong. Shkreli arrest could be legit and be purely coincidental to the outrage that he has drawn.