Re:Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
by SilasX on Friday August 04, 2017 @05:06PM
(#14932265)
>He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law.
Well, yes and no. They only bothered looking for his other crimes and prosecuting his because he became unpopular. That's disturbing.
What if I'm the victim of financial crimes by someone who didn't piss of Congress and the public? Where's my justice?
Re:Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
by JackFr on Friday August 04, 2017 @08:35PM
(#14933537)
Well, maybe.
Shkreli was first investigated by the SEC in 2003, and had two multimillion dollar judgements against his two bankrupt hedge funds for failing to cover puts and short sales.
So when he shows up running a new company, it's not unimaginable that he was on some people's radar.
Re:Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
by XorNot on Saturday August 05, 2017 @10:10AM
(#14935783)
The solution to your problems is not found in questioning why one set of crimes which occurred was correctly prosecuted.
Re:Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
by andrewflnr on Friday August 04, 2017 @05:45PM
(#14932584)
The judicial system mostly prosecutes people who have not managed to piss off Congress and the public.
He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts is evidence that the jury made a determination based on facts, rather than their feeling towards him.
That being said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and the jury determines the facts, especially as they pertain to the credibility of testimony. If the defendant is an outrageous asshole, it's possibly more likely that the jury would interpret inconclusive evidence less favorably. I don't think that's necessarily the worst thing in the world, and it's also not clear that a panel of judges wouldn't be subject to similar biases.