I don't even find him to be particularly loathsome, really.

The thing is, Shkreli is a provocateur. He says and does things to elicit a reaction from people. He very clearly said one too many stupid things and as a result of it, they are throwing the book at him VERY hard here.

Whereas with someone else in his position, there probably would have been a quiet settlement for time served with little to no fines (as there are no real damages that I can see) there's literally no way that they can do that here. There are WAY too many eyes on this case for them to cut him a deal even if such a deal is de rigueur and that is 100% Shkreli's fault. He pushed and he pushed and he pushed till he built up so much bad karma that he literally ended up in jail. Even when he does things that, when you look into them REALLY deeply are perhaps good (like the Epi-Pen fiasco), he comes off 100% as an arrogant asshole who deserves condemnation anyway.

Funnily enough, I think his issue is he's too principled. He hadn't allowed himself to be silenced by people he rightfully viewed as misinformed or poorly motivated. He's very proud and stubborn, and it'd be dishonest to say he doesn't deserve it.

You can be principled and not an asshole about it. Shkreli is both.

> I don't even find him to be particularly loathsome, really. The thing is, Shkreli is a provocateur. He says and does things to elicit a reaction from people.

I'd like to expand on my previous response: Saying things you don't believe for no better reason than that you enjoy pissing people off is loathsome. Whether or not he deserves jail time, he's still an asshole, and "provocateur" seems unnecessarily euphemistic.

> The thing is, Shkreli is a provocateur. He says and does things to elicit a reaction from people.

The word you're looking for is "troll."

Yes - the original Usenet definition of the word, before it was genericised to just be a synonym for “griefer”.

Provocateurs wreak havoc by emboldening the idiots that love them. That's enough to make an example of him.

People shouldn't be judged, or jailed, for the actions of others.

When you encourage people to commit a crime, and offer money for said crime, you should absolutely be jailed and judged for that.

>You can’t really have rule of law and increase someone’s punishment because, well, they’re an asshole

His punishment is not even known yet, the sentencing is not due for another seven weeks.

Perhaps you meant it more broadly, then where do you see injustice being done? Is the evidence made up? Was the jury rigged or unduly influenced? Was he deprived of legal counsel?

I'm not so sure. If a person has historically been an outstanding citizen, I think that it should be considered when judging someone. Otherwise, why not just have a single punishment with a predetermined timespan for every single conviction?

This is me half-heartedly playing devil’s advocate. I think a lot of other people have caused more harm, but they are going after him and his toys because he’s being such an obnoxious little shit.

But that’s a bit of a problem. You get one high-profile conviction of this rent-seeking troll, and not as much attention towards more systemically harmful actors. So, a bit of a “finite legal resources” model and a bit of “bread and circus”.

But it’s a half-argued argument. I’m glad to see financial engineering narcissists get karmic Justice.

The opposite is supposed to be a component of our judicial system, in that during sentencing leniency can be applied for people that have otherwise been good citizens/are actually apologetic about their crime. It has been thoroughly been abused in that aspect, especially when it comes to sentencing for similar crimes when there is simply a difference of race.

But in the case of people being uncooperative and showing no remorse the system was designed to be able to allow the judge to give them the maximum sentence. He did everything possible to ensure that outcome.