If you don't uphold the civil rights of the loathsome, then those protections won't be there to protect the righteous.
It's worth remembering that while Shkrelli is super unlikeable, at various points in history, so were Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.
They were jailed because the system was broken. And it would be better if the system was NOT broken.
In absolute terms, it was bad that those people were jailed, but with respect to the system, it was good that those people were jailed because it served to highlight the clear disconnect between the laws and what was right and wrong to society. It's unrealistic to expect institutions to make changes without going through the process. If Rosa Parks never went to jail there would have never been the protests which brought about change.
If you think the actions by Shkreli should have strong punishment, it's a bad thing if Shkreli gets the book thrown at him artificially. You're not setting precedent and you're not fixing the system. Someone in the future will do something similar and, depending on the court, they'll get off with a slap on the wrist. You should root for things to be done by the book so that everyone can realize, "hey, this book sucks!" and it gets changed through legislation.
If you don't like the system, we have something called legislature to change it.
But we do live in that system. That's how Google and Apple pay no taxes.
Rules have to mean something. Retroactively changing the rules because you don't like the outcome is like having no rules at all.
I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...."
Like what if you had a stalker who wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any of the terms of his restraining order but was doing everything in their power to make your miserable anyway? Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it to them?