He really screwed himself over while he was on bail. He probably could have gotten off with what his attorneys wanted (around a year) if he just shut up until after the sentencing was over. But he kept trolling on livestream and twitter and acting like it was a given that he would get off easy. Obviously he was joking around with the Clinton "threat" but he should not have given prosecutors anything to use against him. I like the guy overall, his educational streams were pretty good, but trolling very powerful people while you are facing potential 20 years in prison is insane.

Shkreli taught me lots. If it wasn't for shkreli's advice and guidance my stock portfolio would be a mere fraction of what it is today.

Wow, it really is a treasure trove. I'm interested in biotech and could definitely use this kind of primer. Are you investing in biotech or are you just speaking in general?

I do minor investing in biotech. The skills I learnt generally helped me to focus on sectors that applied to my knowledge base more.

As a quick first pass at this, it looks like Shkreli was convicted of 2 counts of securities fraud (15 USC § 78j) and 1 count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 USC § 1343) [0][1]. According to the US Sentencing Guidelines[2] §2B1.1, each offense of securities fraud carries, conservatively, 6 points, plus let's say 4 additional points under §2B1.1(19) for being an officer or broker, which it's my understanding he was. Let's ignore the fact that this fraud deals with potentially millions of dollars, and how that increases the number of sentencing points. Let's just say the conspiracy conviction carries the same penalty (although it seems like it could actually be higher, but not sure).

This all adds up to 30 sentencing points, which carries a recommended sentence of 97 to 121 months in federal prison under the US sentencing table [3].

A 7 year sentence (84 months) in prison doesn't seem cruel or unusual by any stretch of the imagination, and if anything seems like he got off easy. The judge didn't have it out for him, he committed a serious crime, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and is now going to serve serious federal time for it. He broke the law and knew what he was doing. Maybe the guidelines are harsh, but that's way our laws our written. Take it up with congress.

[0] http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/04/news/martin-shkreli-verdict/...

[1] https://www.scribd.com/doc/293530336/1-main

[2] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-manual/2016-...

[3] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

Excuse me, the first statue should be 18 USC § 1348, not 15 USC.

The judge forced him to actively troll people, including goading his large audience into physically harassing a presidential candidate? I don't have a position either which way, but judges can consider whether the defendant shows a measure of responsibility and understanding [0] (e.g. remorse). Shkreli was bragging post-conviction on livestreams [1] and interviews that he wouldn't be spending time in prison. Whether people like Skilling deserved more punishment or not is orthogonal to Shkreli giving the court plenty of room to doubt he had recognized what he had been found guilty of.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_responsibility

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/martin-shkrelis-lawyers-fa...

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

Damn You Autocorrect.

Genuine ROTFL I think I will leave that typo in :_)

My brain autocorrected it right back to what was intended on both the first and second readings :P

ha me too, had to read a third time to see what the typo was.

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.

No, judges are not kings. The concept of a judicial branch came as a response to monarchies in which kings and ministers were given unchecked executive and judicial powers. That doesn't mean the judicial branch can operate without having laws and standards to prevent proceedings from falling into chaos. Shkreli and lawyer were made well aware of these laws.

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.