> I don't think the outcome should matter.

According to the article, "prosecutors had pushed for at least 15 years, saying Shkreli had not shown remorse for his actions"

How come the jury is allow to consider his alleged lack of remorse but is not allowed to consider the outcome? Both are current events

If he shows no remorse, and he faced no consequences, why wouldn't he pull another scam? That makes him more of a danger.

1 time is an accident, 2 times is a trend.

What jury? Federal criminal sentencing is done by the judge, not a jury.

Also, I don't agree with GP, but arguably the outcome is less relevant to the risk to society posed by reoffense than is genuine remorse or the lack thereof.

If I push my wife off a cliff for life insurance but she falls onto and kills a terrorist or school shooter does that lessen my crime? Does it even change the nature of my crime? No so it shouldn't enter in.

Judges take into account the "impact" of the crime all the time in sentencing. As they should.

In this case, his crime had no negative impact on anyone, and the unduly harsh sentence sure looks like a sentence for the unlikable (but perfectly legal) price hikes he did.

If you intend to kill someone and fail its less of a crime than if you succeeded. So maybe