I don't think the point is for the jury to strive for some sort of moral reasoning that is beyond the understanding of the Society, and I don't think it's possible for a jury to be completely independent (what is independent completely in the world anywhere?) but I see what you mean, you bring about a compelling point. This person was already convicted in the hearts of the jury, not really leaving much room for the judiciary process. The process, however unbalanced and messed up it may be, still has a lot of merit and potential. In the ideal way, anyone who is innocent will never ever be found guilty, and someone who is guilty will probably be found guilty. For my personal point of view these days, I think it is more important for no innocent person to go to prison, than to make sure that all the guilty ones (and some not guilty ones) go. That's a big question of implementation.
The tricky thing with a case like Shkreli's is that what you are being tried for, and what the jury wants to put you into jail for, are potentially different things. Very difficult to extricate. If he was in court for grand theft auto and he had a perfect alibi, he still might be found guilty just because it's an opportunity for the jury to deal out some "righteous punishment" given the opportunity. Is this judiciary morality and ethics? Is it a greater-scope of ethical absolution? It's really hard to say. The court tries you on a specific set of bullet points, and if you don't get convicted you're free to go, but the emotional closure may not have happened.
At any rate, I don't think "Punishment for the Crime" is the only adage we can continue with in our modern society. We also need to make provisions for rehabilitation, amelioration, healing, and in general promoting the psychic health and welfare of people who are deemed "perpetrators" instead of labeling them as lost causes (until of course they re-emerge into Society and the issues have been substantially compounded).