
Public Enemy: quotes from the Martin Shkreli jury selection process - jbg_
https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/
======
popctrl
So does the fact that so many people know about and despise Shkreli mean that
the jury selection process will select for people who are less informed or
don't reflect the values of the general population (Or just people who are
willing to lie about their ability to be impartial)? Is there a term for this,
or how is this accounted for in the process?

~~~
jstanley
Actually the people who hate Shkreli are almost universally under-informed.

Listen to the man speak for 5 minutes, instead of listening to the media's
portrayal of him, and you'll learn he's an intelligent guy doing no harm.

Nobody was priced out of being able to get Daraprim. Only 2000 people take it.
70% of it was given away FREE to people who said they couldn't afford it.
Insurance companies paid the increased price. Drug prices are a very small
percentage of the costs insurance companies pay (most of it going towards
doctors' fees IIRC). The extra profit was put into researching improvements on
Daraprim, which was a 70 (?) year old drug. The only reason Shkreli's company
even acquired the rights to Daraprim is because other companies couldn't make
enough money on it to want to keep making it.

~~~
sremani
Martin Shkreli has a pretty active YouTube channel with pretty solid stuff
about Finance, Investing and Organic Chemistry. Of course, his live sessions
are a bit tedious but can be insightful. Based on the videos, I found him
intelligent and fairly geeky. The media portrayal did not do him justice, I
guess that is the case with pretty much every one.

~~~
dmix
Martin purposely feeds into the image the media created for him as this greedy
capitalist big-pharma monster.

You can see him do it sarcastically on Twitter and see how effective it works.

It's a common tactic these days to exploit the tendency for the news to
breathlessly cover insignificant/minor actions of fringe people and blow them
up into these exaggerated caricatures of powerful people that need to be
stopped/fired/shut down/etc.

When it reality the entire 'power' of these 'monsters' is due to their
subsequent notoriety in the media. This is how they gained their following and
how they grow it.

If they were ignored they would go back to being nobodies.

The same thing is happening to many people the media calls 'alt-right' and
(actual) white supremacists. They're useful idiots for lazy journalists and
motivated political groups looking for exaggerated adversaries from which they
can rescue the world from.

The media hands them power, which makes them _seem_ powerful and influential.
Then a small group of people willing to ignore the 'bad' stuff being said
about them, or they actually research it and see it was all blown out of
proportion, then joins their cause - people who would otherwise have never
heard of them.

The wonderful side effect of outrage culture is that it fuels the things they
are outraged about and in many ways becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There's far deeper implications to insisting the media takes a balanced and
reasoned approach to their coverage than simply having class.

~~~
antisthenes
What can be done to make sure the incentives don't align?

Right now the fringe groups get what they want through "any publicity = good
publicity" and low effort journos get what they want through stirring up fake
outrage and getting more views by writing exaggerated clickbait about these
fringe groups.

Thus they both keep doing what they're doing, which poisons the public debate
(by making fringe groups seem more significant than they are, sometimes to the
point of drowning out the more reasonable voices)

~~~
dmix
The only hope is that the people on the both sides see the flaws in both of
their failed strategies.

In the current form that means that

a) the left realizes their obsession with outrage culture have taken fringe,
nobody, groups like the 'alt-right' and made them powerful, when they
otherwise wouldn't have been. While also making Trump look like an oppressed
underdog speaking the 'truth' against a barage of largely overblown
exageration and fear mongering. As well as having empowered a number of
unhelpful leftist groups in their own ranks who only further alienate their
cause amongst the centrists whom they desperately need.

b) the right realizes they will need to see beyond emotional gratification of
having fringe groups like Trump and 'alt-right' gain new found power at the
left's expense and look for the actual ROI these groups bring. People who gain
power through controversy are only good at controversy, smart rational people
are needed if you want good productive output.

------
will_brown
I think this is so important and less reflective of either Shkreli or the
legal system, rather it shines a bright light on how many people are
struggling to afford both adequate healthcare/drug coverage and simple can't
afford their own prescriptions and as a result do not/can not take them.

It is a damn shame. It is also a damn shame people in this country have to be
in court/under oath (potential jury members are during the selection process)
to admit to these financial shortcomings, because such admissions of financial
difficulty are social stigmas that almost anyone would try to avoid admitting
(it's the same with millions who were in foreclosure during the Great
Recession who would never admit it).

------
chomp
I understand that Martin may not be popular to many people, but everyone
deserves a fair trial, even those who are repugnant. I am glad that these
people recognized that they were biased and spoke up, rather than taint the
jury.

~~~
MrZongle2
True honesty should always be commended, but I have to wonder: how many of
those folks just wanted out of jury duty?

~~~
ramy_d
definitely this one:

    
    
      juror no. 52: When I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake — not knowing who he was. I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.

------
refurb
How many of these people just wanted to get out of jury duty. I did jury duty
a couple years ago and it was entertaining how hard some people tried to
appear impartial so they would be excused.

Lawyer - "Do you think people have the right to self-defense?"

Potential juror - "No. If someone shoots at you, it's murder if you shoot
back."

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Except there are places (like Canada) where if you shoot back, this is prima
facie evidence that you were violating the safe storage laws.

~~~
hourislate
I'm not sure you can legally defend yourself in Canada in the event of a life
threatening situation. If someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill
you, you have the right to defend yourself but don't have the right to cause
them death or grievous bodily harm.

Canadian Bill C26 Self-defence against unprovoked assault 34\. (1) Every one
who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified
in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause
death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him
to defend himself.

I read a story about some man swatting at a Raccoon with a broom that almost
got 2 years in prison. That's more time than what a rapist or child molester
might spend behind bars. There was another story about a Chinese corner store
owner who apprehended a thief who had been stealing from him regularly and
almost went to prison for it. It's scary proposition when it comes to
defending yourself. If you cause any harm to the assailant you will be
prosecuted. The law in Canada typically favors the criminal.

~~~
bryanlarsen
If Canada actually favoured the criminal you would be saying "went to prison"
instead of "almost went to prison".

~~~
hourislate
What I meant is the system favors the criminal but the public uproar most
likely saved the Chinese store owner and the Raccoon man escaped with
probation and fines and public shaming. He begged for his life.

------
pesch3
>>> juror no. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.

clearly the best reason to be biased

~~~
DeepRote
Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of Shkreli. Great guy, excellent financial
instincts, pharma wizard etc.

I'm surprised he didn't get assassinated for some of that stuff with Wu-Tang,
especially in NY. I know I've been waiting a new full-featured Wu-tang album
for a LOOOONG time, and I know a lot of new yorkers were too. Multiply that
anger by several million people and media deception, it shocks me that he's
still around.

The lesson I've learned about all this is the value in nobody knowing your
name. Shkreli was fucked over HARD by the media, he's really just a cool guy
playing the game, and they spin him as this terrible evil mastermind.

He used to stream all the time, you couldn't watch him for more than five
minutes before falling in love with him. He's a man of the people in the
truest sense. More than anyone I've ever met.

I hope he finds a way through all this.

~~~
and0
I don't follow Shkreli closely but him sexually harassing journalist Lauren
Duca (he still continues to do this: "when I'm acquitted, I'm going to fuck
Lauren Duca") makes him very much not a "man of the people in the truest
sense".

~~~
DeepRote
What's not manly about that? I'd fuck Lauren too. Granted, I might not tweet
it out quite like that, but yeah.

You don't get to determine morality based off someone's speech, only off their
actions.

Until they actually fuck, it's that big of a deal. People that complain about
mean things online were recently attacking people with dangerous weapons the
other day. I have become suspicious of most people who want to gatekeep other
people, it's usually a signal that they have no respect for the concept of
personal property and human rights.

~~~
and0
Speech is an action, I'm not sure why that isn't obvious.

Your denial of it, and the weird generalizations you're making, make me think
you're not actually open to rethinking any of this. Oh well.

------
jessaustin
Anyone surprised by this has never sat _voir dire_. No one on earth is as
biased and judgmental as the yokels trying to get out of jury duty claim to
be. Both times I've gone through this I was hoping the judge would start
handing out contempt of court citations.

~~~
cafard
In Washington, DC, nobody but the judge and the lawyers gets to hear what the
potential juror says. I suppose it would diminish the boredom of the voir
dire, but when juror _x_ gets sent back to the waiting room early or shuffled
out of the box during the final cull, none of the other jurors have a clue
what it is about.

------
cowsandmilk
Many comments seem to be unaware that the trial is now over. He was convicted
on 3 of 8 charges[1]. I guess one could argue that an extremely biased jury
would just have convicted him on everything.

[1]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/dealbook/martin-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/dealbook/martin-
shkreli-guilty.html)

------
Redoubts
One should note that people come up with tons of crazy excuses for why they
can't serve on a jury when they don't want to be there.

Source: I was in jury selection for a simple possession trial that lasted two
fulls days, and watched peoples excuses become more and more elaborate as the
process wore on.

~~~
ghaff
Right. And I assume that this [EDIT: was expected to be] a long, high profile
trial that most people would really prefer to not be empaneled for.

A while back I was called in for jury selection for a Grand Jury which would
have involved something like 4 days a week for multiple months, i.e.
completely awful from my perspective. The thing that surprised me in that case
was that a fair number of people basically volunteered to be chosen--though
many obviously did not. (The DA let them go through voir dire first before
picking from people who were less inclined to do it.)

------
mmahemoff
Is this a story about what happens when potential jurors have access to Google
prior to the interview?

Shkreli is internet-meme famous and not exactly a national celebrity. I'd be
surprised if so many people would recognise him by name without having an
omniscient device in their pocket, let alone sneak in an obscure reference to
his Wu-Tang Clan album. I guess people don't know what the case is when
they're invited to selection, but nowadays they find out some minutes or hours
before the actual interview?

------
jstanley
It's sad that a bunch of idiots acting like this get to decide who is guilty
and who is innocent.

In this case maybe he got lucky because they'd already heard of him and made
their stupidity apparent straight away. But what if they hadn't? What if they
only learnt about his drug pricing during the trial and then convicted him
based on that?

~~~
jessaustin
That would have been an instant mistrial, since the charges had nothing to do
with drug pricing.

------
gizmo
Hilarious, but if those people really wanted to see Shkreli convicted they
would pretend to be impartial.

~~~
jessaustin
Of course, what they _really_ want to do is not serve on a jury.

------
convery
As an outsider, why are juries not "blindfolded"? As in, given a fake name,
only the transcribed testimonies, and relevant evidence. It's just strange
that the accuseds identity and (potential) reputation could influence the
trial (positively or negatively).

~~~
cardiffspaceman
I think your answer is that just reading the transcripts would not be as good
as hearing and observing the testimony.

The first thing that potential jurors are asked is if they know anyone in the
courtroom, and this is in the presence of the judge, bailiffs, attorneys for
both sides, defendant, and a few other people. If you answer that you do know
someone, they ask if your knowledge of the person would prevent you from
rendering an impartial verdict in the trial to come. The question of whether a
potential juror knows a particular person comes up repeatedly.

In the trial I served on, the attorneys also informed us of the sexual
orientation of the defendant and asked if that would be a problem.

The jury is allowed to form an opinion of the credibility of the statements of
any of the players and use that to weigh anything said against anything else.
But it will be from an opinion formed in the courtroom, not from a preexisting
opinion, nor from internet research.

BTW I never had to serve the USA in the military, so I weigh the inconvenience
of six or seven days of jury service spread over three or four weeks against
the fact that my life was not in danger.

------
jaclaz
Interesting transcript, but I would be actually more curious to see the
transcript of the questions (and answers given by them) asked to the jurors
that were actually selected.

------
mcguire
Ah, is this nonfiction?

------
k__
When will the US get rid of these juries? How can they seriously trust
judicial decisions on random people?

~~~
monochromatic
It's like democracy: the worst system there is, except for all the others.

~~~
k__
We don't have this system in Germany and it's clearly better.

------
nailer
> I have several friends who have H.I.V. or AIDS who, again, can’t afford the
> prescription drugs that they were able to afford.

Skreli's defense for this is that the costs are primarily borne by insurance
providers. I have no idea about US healthcare which seems a bit of a quagmire,
is this true?

------
petraeus
Smart enough to land himself in prison .. is an oxymoron?

------
corndoge
Regardless of Martin's guilt or innocence (prior to conviction) this is virtue
signalling at it's finest.

~~~
praptak
"It has become popular to describe certain behaviour as ‘virtue signalling’.
[...] As popular as it is, it’s a stupid term that misuses the concepts it
invokes, it encourages lazy thinking, and it’s hypocritical.

The term signalling does not mean the same thing as 'saying' or 'showing off'
when it is used by economists or biologists. Signalling means _credibly_
giving information that is difficult to prove just by saying it. For example,
banks used to have very grand buildings. Any bank could claim to be safe, but
only a bank that had lots of money could afford a grand office."

[https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/stop-saying-virtue-
signalling](https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/stop-saying-virtue-signalling)

~~~
corndoge
"Guano (from Quechua "wani" via Spanish) is the accumulated excrement of
seabirds, seals, or cave-dwelling bats.[1] As a manure, guano is a highly
effective fertilizer due to its exceptionally high content of nitrogen,
phosphate and potassium: nutrients essential for plant growth."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano)

In other words -- why do I give a shit what Adam Smith's opinion is?

