Why does Martin get 7 years in prison while Elizabeth walks scot-free?

Who knows. But that's how law works.

No matter what kind of policies are written for sentences, it's always a judgement call. And that's the sad part. You'd think there would be much more scrutiny and uniformity, but anything can happen.

That's why Murderer A might get 5 or 10 years, while Murderer B gets 20 years.

Then some 18 year old robbing a gas station for cash and didn't hurt anyone some reason gets life in prison with no parole. Then another guy robs a variety store and get probation.

Justice takes many different forms. I would generally prefer non-violent crimes be given less/no prison time because the cost of housing prisoners is exorbitant. Punish them with strict probation, tons of community service, restrictions, etc. Yes prison time is partly rehab, partly to separate criminals from society, and partly a deterrent. But it's very expensive.

We'd have to see the info from each case, what was presented, what was decided, and what the law requires. Different states have different rules, or it could be federal rules. But to Occasionally's point, anything can happen - a judge exercises his/her own discretion.

Just to make a point, just read a Canadian has been in prison for 35 years for allegedly raping and killing a child (can't remember age). Only evidence was BS confessions after many hours in custody. They are now testing the DNA to see if he's innocent. Point is, 35 years? In Canada a life sentence is 25 years. This guy couldn't get parole for the last 10 years even? No justice. I suspect an exoneration followed by a hefty sum paid to him by the government.

So I'm not the only person who noticed that, huh? I literally brought that up in a discussion a few days ago.

Could be as simple as their reputation. Martin Shkreli was a known douchebag. Elizabeth Holmes was previously known as a figurehead for female empowerment in the corporate world.

It's these obviously lopsided sentences that makes people question the justice system. We should be striving for consistency.

rhuarc29 said:

So I'm not the only person who noticed that, huh? I literally brought that up in a discussion a few days ago.

Could be as simple as their reputation. Martin Shkreli was a known douchebag. Elizabeth Holmes was previously known as a figurehead for female empowerment in the corporate world.

It's these obviously lopsided sentences that makes people question the justice system. We should be striving for consistency.

Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath. There is a lot of misandry in the system. Just consider Homolka and Bernardo. He is never getting out nor should he, but she only did twelve years. I understand he is in solitary yet she did relatively easy time. Go figure.

I nearly forgot who Elisabeth Holmes was, it's a classic case of investors beware. She was attempting to turn a profit for the greater good, she's a fraudster but she benifited from the mercy of the court.

Martin Shkreli, like Bernie Madoff before him, flaunted capitalism. When a crime that corrodes the faith of the public in the markets happens, the State will always apply the thumbscrews. Or so it would appear. James Cayne, Joe Gregory and Joseph Cassano should all still be in jail. They are the worst culprits of 9/2008 but President Obama choose not to prosecute them.

i think thats why people get to try for a retrial? no?

Mable said:

Don't hold your breath. There is a lot of misandry in the system. Just consider Homolka and Bernardo. He is never getting out nor should he, but she only did twelve years. I understand he is in solitary yet she did relatively easy time. Go figure.

Click to expand...

woman on the average receive 1/3 of the custody time that a man receives committing the exact same crime. this would be one of many female privileges that people deny.

Smallcock said:

So Martin Shkreli recently got sentenced to 7 years in prison for being unethical and fraud worth $7 million.

Meanwhile Elizabeth Holmes swindled investors out of $700 million yet no prison time at all. Considering her youth, that figure would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Why is that?

Click to expand...

The Holmes name was unknown to me, so I read your link. It clearly states she and the prosecutors reached a plea agreement so she paid a $500,000 fine, returned all her shares and is barred from corporate office for the next decade. That's on top of the earlier judgments and penalties that refunded the cheated customers and left her with a net worth of nothing.

Again, from your link: Shkreli, just months older than Holmes, (you said age mattered, for some reason) fought his charges, breached his bail and was convicted by a jury after a trial where he had every opportunity to establish innocence or reasons for leniency. He's still managed to hang onto $27 million or so in personal assets which should be waiting to support him on release. You can do any per-year calculation you care to on that amount, while taxpayers pay his food and lodging.

Unless you really were asking why Madoff would have blushed, as your post reads, it seems obvious that Shkreli's punishment reflects his personal belief he could 'get away with it' and the consequences of his ethical code, one that amounts to 'make me'. Which is what the law has done. On the other hand, Holmes cooperated with the law, accepted sanctions imposed, the corporation she once controlled made restitution to its victims, and she's now broke, and must find a whole new way to make a living.

What more do you want, and why? One could say his treatment demonstrates that fighting tooth and nail, even though you're evil and guilty as charged, leaves the outlaw way better off than actually owning up, making good and taking their punishment like, … well, like a man, which is what she did. Is that the legal standard and social behaviour you think we should aim for?

^ Excellently stated Oldjones.

I read that Holmes still potentially faces some criminal charges.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-settle-u-s-fraud-charges-sec-idUSKCN1GQ2HC

"Peikin did not comment on whether the civil charges preclude future criminal charges or whether other agencies were engaged in ongoing criminal investigations against the company."

Different defence lawyers, different prosecutors, different judge, different jury, different states?

I am guessing all the talks he gave, justifying his capitalist greed didn't help his cause. He is his own worse enemy:

In September 2015, Shkreli received widespread criticism when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for the antiparasitic drug Daraprim and raised its price by a factor of 56 (from US$13.5 to US$750 per pill), leading him to be referred to by the media as "the most hated man in America" and "'Pharma Bro'"

If you are the "most hated man in America", you really don't want to face a jury

icespot said:

I am guessing all the talks he gave, justifying his capitalist greed didn't help his cause. He is his own worse enemy:

In September 2015, Shkreli received widespread criticism when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for the antiparasitic drug Daraprim and raised its price by a factor of 56 (from US$13.5 to US$750 per pill), leading him to be referred to by the media as "the most hated man in America" and "'Pharma Bro'"

Click to expand...

The sentence is unrelated to the price increase but it would be nice, Do unto others... you raised the price I'll increase your sentence... this guy is a douchebag on so many levels who basically showed no remorse in and out of the courtroom. He was his own demise plus he is a repeat offender in the financial markets known for shorting stock and not making margin calls.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cnb...bout-iq-and-having-no-overt-psych-issues.html

However he should have gotten 15 or the 25 max instead.

VBB

The smirk cost him 7 years. as it should.

Shkreli was pooched because he acted like a pompous asshole... He pissed people off for being such dweeb. As such, he goes to jail.

Unlike the Michael Pearson who ran Valeant making untold amounts of money while skirting the law.

I would do her she looks hot.

Goodoer said:

Shkreli was pooched because he acted like a pompous asshole... He pissed people off for being such dweeb. As such, he goes to jail.

Unlike the Michael Pearson who ran Valeant making untold amounts of money while skirting the law.

Click to expand...

Whether you skirt the line closely, skating precisely, or run a bulldozer that requires a different sort of care, the point is to stay cleanly on the right side. Shkreli didn't.

If we don't like the line Pearson took, we get to re-draw it. Unfortunately democracy often makes that difficult by pitting masses of money against massed opinion, but it does offer freedom, and stupid or smart, eventually the masses always win.

Which is why our first concern should always be about making us masses as smart as we can. Smart enough not to fall for these people. How severely we punish them afterwards, is a sideshow that keeps us foolish.