First of all, the Theranos people haven't yet been brought up on criminal charges, but it's still possible they could be, no?
Secondly, I think there were lots of material differences between the two cases that caused them to be prosecuted differently. You can't just lump every instance of fraud as the same thing.
[1] The reason I only kind-of agree: you're phrasing it in a way that makes it seem clear. But I can easily phrase it as "it makes sense that defendants who show remorse, and are therefore less likely to commit the crime again, will get a lighter sentence, as opposed to defendants who are much more likely to repeat the crimes".
I agree courts, juries and judges are to be neutral, but a person like him just ends up getting under most people's skin. Even if there was no rational decision to go hard on him, I wouldn't be surprised if people subconsciously make that decision.
Criminality and psychopathy are tightly correlated, particularly with fraudsters. Psychopaths are excellent at faking remorse and other emotions that they do not actually feel.
I would not want the punishment of a criminal dependent on their acting skills.
If you get pulled over and call the cops a dick the second he walks up to your car, you're gonna have a bad time (and you deserve it.)
Dumbfounded by your words, a 800% increase from the average sentence is, I think completely ok in a just system.
That he got an 800% increase in sentence doesn't matter, as long as the conviction fell within the ranges set up by the law.
You can call a judge biased, but if he feels it's a correct sentence, then you're out of luck. You do know that is why we have judges right? In part to make judgement calls on sentences.
What happened to Martin is an injustice, and I'm saddened and disturbed by the people who celebrate it just because it was an injustice done against a "bad guy".
1. giving the finger to Congress
2. refusing to settle and going to court
3. talking shit the entire time he was on trial, both to court journalists and on TV ("junior varsity", etc.)
4. offering money for Clinton's DNA while on bond shortly after she lost the most embarrassing election of all time (while hilarious and obviously satire, of course "they" used this against him)
And I'm sure someone else could add to my list. Meanwhile, I don't even know what Holmes looks like, let alone what her voice sounds like.
More seriously, this is why often people who know they've been caught dead-to-rights settle early: the government wants the W and doesn't want to have to spend money to get it. Shkrelli made them go for the conviction, and so he got the actual, un-discounted penalty.
Shkreli lied to his investors (he claimed he had $55M under management when it never surpassed $6M), produced false financial statements, told prospective investors that his original investors had doubled their money (when they actually lost everything), raided the fund's money for personal expenses, backdated financial statements to defraud banks for new debt.... this is all laid out in the indictment: https://www.scribd.com/doc/293530336/1-main
If you think that financial criminals should face repercussions, Shkreli belongs in jail. Others surely deserve jail as well, but 'fairness' isn't letting Shkreli off, it's punishing the rest of them too.
> What about the fact that Holmes actually lost money for investors and got no jail time. While martin lost no money but got 7 years of jail time.
A few things about this point.
1. Shkreli lost 100% of his original investors' money. He then lied to them all and told them that he doubled it. He then created fake financial statements that he used to raise new money, lying to new investors as well. He also embezzled his hedge fund's money to buy himself Picassos and Wu-Tang albums. After all of that, he undertook a very risky bet that paid off, at which time he paid back his original investors, again lying about what happened.
2. Holmes didn't "get no jail time" since the SEC can't arrest or convict people. They're a civil institution that can only apply civil remedies, like fines and management bans. The Department of Justice is also investigating Theranos and Holmes, it remains to be seen if they will issue criminal indictments. In any case, Holmes is cooperating and had agreed to settle.
3. Shkreli had the chance to settle, plead guilty, admit wrong-doing and avoid jail time. Instead he chose to have a jury trial, where 12 of his peers found him guilty of serious financial crimes that would result in 7 years in prison.
Source? I hadn't heard that.
http://fortune.com/2017/08/05/why-martin-shkreli-is-guilty-w...
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2015/comp-pr2015-2...
> 44. On March 2, 2011 , Shkreli stated in e-mails to MSMB investors that "MSMB returned +4.24% in February 2011 " and had "returned +41.71 % since inception on 11/1/2009." In fact, by the end of February 2011, MSMB had virtually no assets. MSMB had suffered over $7 million in losses in its account at Executing Broker as the result of its trading in Company A on February 1, 2011. Even setting aside the losses at Executing Broker, the net asset value of MSMB's prime brokerage account and the cash balance in its bank account amounted to only about $58,500.
> 45. Shkreli continued to send "performance estimates" until September 2012, when he informed the limited partners that through June 2012, MSMB had "returned +79.49% net of fees since inception on 11 /1/2009." At the end of June 2012, however, MSMB had no assets in its prime brokerage account or its bank account.
He lost 100% of his investors' money and was creating fake financial statements to lie to them about his massive losses.
Eventually, he used other people's money and huge gambles to recoup these losses. He also entered into fraudulent 'consulting agreements' with disgruntled investors from his hedge fund to make them whole using a different company's assets, essentially stealing from that company's shareholders.
All of this is incredibly illegal.
I guess its like Bernie Madoff's investors got most of their money back, but Citigroup investors lost 90%.
He was convicted by a jury of his peers on Federal charges and was sentenced using the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which are universal across all cases. Shouting in all caps doesn't make something unfair...
Offering a bounty for Clinton's DNA while she was under the protection of the secret services was pure suicide.
I quite like the guy if im honest.