Alternative take: it's disgusting and offensive to the foundational concept of blind justice that punishment is more highly correlated with charisma and obsequiousness to judges than it is to actual crimes committed.
I kind of agree [1], but I don't think that's why there's a difference between the cases.
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".
On showing remorse: it's a bit ridiculous to think of this, since showing remorse does not mean you actually feel remorse. But it might mean you are intelligent enough to realise you need to show remorse to get off the hook.
Martin Shkreli was extremely intelligent, and the court recognized that. He continued to not show remorse (I think it's arguable that he did a bit more than simply not show remorse), why shouldn't the court believe that he truly is not remorseful?
He was not remorseful. He probably should have acted like he was remorseful if he wanted to get off the hook. He was also disrespectful of the court, I guess.
But on the other hand there are probably few false positives the other way: not showing remorse and mocking the proceedings probably does mean you don't actually feel remorse.
Many believe that when it comes to certain issues (like fraud) it is society that determines what justice is, and it has the right to force its members to comply.
It comes down to basic human decency. Of which he has none. And that does not make him very likeable. You can raise drug prices like he did and do it in a moral way. He was basically laughing in people's faces about what he did.
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.
Correct. Further, even if I did believe that, I wouldn't wish it in practice:
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.
The judicial system makes calculations to mitigate punishment based on belief of whether someone will present a danger to society. This includes the sentencing decided by the court, and subsequent reviews by parole boards. You think it better to eliminate such leniencies and move toward mandatory sentencing and 3-strikes type of policies?
Your last sentence is certainly a stretch, that the removal of remorse as a consideration means the removal of recidivism prediction, and the rigid use of policies represented by 3-strikes.
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".