I don't think the outcome should matter. Lying to investors should land you in jail. It shouldn't become okay "if investors still made money"
According to the article, "prosecutors had pushed for at least 15 years, saying Shkreli had not shown remorse for his actions"
How come the jury is allow to consider his alleged lack of remorse but is not allowed to consider the outcome? Both are current events
Also, I don't agree with GP, but arguably the outcome is less relevant to the risk to society posed by reoffense than is genuine remorse or the lack thereof.
In this case, his crime had no negative impact on anyone, and the unduly harsh sentence sure looks like a sentence for the unlikable (but perfectly legal) price hikes he did.