5 ms·

I'm not going to argue Ulbricht shouldn't be serving a serious sentence, assuming legitimacy of the evidence of his murder-by-hire attempt. However, he wasn't

I'm not going to argue Ulbricht shouldn't be serving a serious sentence, assuming legitimacy of the evidence of his murder-by-hire attempt. However, he wasn't convicted on those charges. He was convicted of 'conspiracy to traffic narcotics', money laundering, and 'computer hacking'. The 'hacking' and laundering were only necessities of the narcotics trafficking business, so it really does boil down to him being convicted to a life sentence for the drug distribution business. I'd take no issue with a life sentence for procuring murder, but see it as an absolute travesty that drugs are demonized to the point where a life sentence for trafficking is even a possibility.

mirimir 9y ago
It's arguable that killing people was the FBI's idea. It's a standard tactic for them. Edit: I should have said "LEA's".
- s73ver 9y ago
  No, it's not. He ordered the hits. He, himself, did it.
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    yet to be proven
    - s73ver 9y ago
      His own chat logs show him ordering hits.
      - accountyaccount 9y ago
        The burden of proof is on the government to prove that those were his chat logs and they weren't altered. Until he's formally tried he's innocent of that accusation.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Yes, he apparently did. But it's not clear where the idea came from. Some say that it was his mentor Roger Thomas Clark aka Variety Jones aka Cimon. Some say that it was DEA agent Carl Force aka Nob. In any case, it's clear that Ross was initially shocked by the idea.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      No, the opposite is true. As the appeals decision points out multiple times, Ulbricht was startlingly casual both about hte decision to order people killed and in his reaction to evidence that the killings had occurred. His ostensible hired assassin informed Ulbricht that he could have a target killed, but that he couldn't attmept to recover Ulbricht's funds unless he also paid for the assassination of several of the target's associates --- people Ulbricht had no ostensible connection to at all. Ulbricht essentially said "fuck it, whatever you think will help recover some of my funds" and paid for additional gratuitous killings. Importantly: this case had apparently nothing at all to do with Force, who was involved in a different murder-for-hire scheme, one for which Ulbricht could still stand trial (but probably won't, since his life sentence is now overwhelmingly likely to stand).
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Weren't those other "murders" all cons by scammers? I'm arguing that he was initially shocked by the idea of killing people. But I don't disagree that he later became comfortable with the idea.
        tptacek 9y ago
        We don't know. The prosecution's burden was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury, that Ulbricht himself believed he was ordering people killed. They succeeded, and it's not hard to see why.
        mirimir 9y ago
        I don't disagree that he was ordering people killed. Even if it was all shadow play, driven by scammers and LEA entrapment, it was a moral failure. In hindsight, the better option would have been adequate security, to prevent interference by adversaries. Also, there should have been policy and mechanisms in place for dealing with adversaries. Silk Road clearly demonstrated a broad unmet demand for drugs from trusted sources. With trust based on user ratings. And by philosophy and necessity, it operated outside mundane society. If there were no laws against drug use, he could have just sued people or filed criminal charges. In future, the second realm will need its own enforcement services. And insurance.
- tptacek 9y ago
  One of the killings is traceable to an investigator. Four others were not.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Nob was apparently a very dark influence on him. And nobody was actually killed.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Check out lawcomic.net for a good explanation of inchoate crimes.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Sure, I get that. But LEA does commonly engage in entrapment. Maybe Roger Thomas Clark is also an undercover agent. I wonder if he'll ever go to trial.
devoply 9y ago
I don't think it's just for a lifetime sentence for anything but murder itself... or someone who is an actual danger to individuals or society itself. I think what got Ulbricht in the end was the fact that he was acting like a drug kingpin and so they threw the book at him hard. It wasn't one of those things that did him in, it was all of those things combined that earned him a life sentence.
- theWatcher37 9y ago
  The biggest crime is that the people who wrote, voted for, and executed these laws won't see a day behind bars.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  That's it. Diversity of crime plus arrogance in execution usually equals a strong punishment.
bluetwo 9y ago
1.2 billion dollars in drugs, making him a "kingpin".
- saulrh 9y ago
  So I went looking at this number to see how it stacks up to existing drug distribution. The US market for illicit marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin was just over $100B in 2010. This lines up well with estimates that legal marijuana in Colorado was around $1B. If we're going to look at how big this guy was in absolute terms, his global market was the size of a single illicit drug in a single state. This is where I run out of data. What's the usual sentence for single-state single-drug distributors? My impression was always that it took huge infiltration operations to get the management with more than a few years on technicalities, and the only way to get more than that was to hit them with charges like murder, bribery, or conspiracy.
  - bluetwo 9y ago
    The minimum sentence for the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute is 20 years, but pretty much everyone gets life, once all the other charges are added on. Saying he only had 1% of the US market is a ridiculous way to look at it. I'm sorry but I can't muster any sympathy for this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Criminal_Enterprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Criminal_Enterprise
    - saulrh 9y ago
      Thanks for the legal link. I'd gone googling for "kingpin law" and hadn't found it. That explains that, and why my guess was wrong: I'd been looking at cases from before its introduction. > I'm sorry but I can't muster any sympathy for this guy. If we're really going to get into this discussion... The marketplace was inherently driven by "customers find and buy" rather than "suppliers market and sell" and the supply chain had tighter feedback loops, meaning that there were few mechanisms or motivations for suppliers to worsen their customers' habits. Additionally, the use of mail, cryptocurrency, and a website reduced the possibility for Things To Go Wrong, eliminated threats of force, disallowed predatory loans and bartering, and I presume provided conflict-resolution protocols that didn't involve "busting a cap in yo ass". Finally, doing it by internet and mail reduced or eliminated suppliers' ability to interact each other, forcing them to compete by attracting customers The Way Smith and Young Intended and wiping out entire classes of harm relating to organized crime and bad product. This guy was not a saint, he did something bad, the lesser of two evils should not get off. But I hold the position that the silk road was the economic equivalent of a safe injection site, unquestionably a better harm-reducer than the War on Drugs, and that a rational approach to harm reduction supports it.
greggh 9y ago
The murder for hire charges were dropped. No evidence of them was shown in court. Because they knew they couldn't win on that one.
- tptacek 9y ago
  This is simply false, and moreover, false in each of its particulars. First: as the appeal opinion clearly states, there's still an open case against Ulbricht for the Force-related murder-for-hire scheme in Maryland. The charges have not been dropped. Second, evidence of the murder-for-hire charges was presented in court. It was an element of the conspiracy charge. Not only was it presented, but it was presented in a way that Ulbricht's defense was obligated to rebut it. Finally, the murder charges were presented again during sentencing, and proven to a "preponderance of evidence" standard during that process as well. These details are all spelled out in the appeals decision.
  - 2845197541 9y ago
    I thought they couldn't even prove that the people to be murdered even existed.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      They don't have to. In federal law (and in several states), you're guilty of attempt if prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the intent to commit a crime, and took some substantial step towards it. They've more than cleared that bar here.
      - Mtinie 9y ago
        Even if there is no actual target? For example: Is the rational that if I earnestly believed I was planning on murdering someone who I thought existed, that it is the lead up and consideration that is the crime, rather than the actual attempt (which could never happen)?
        9y ago

mirimir 9y ago

It's arguable that killing people was the FBI's idea. It's a standard tactic for them. Edit: I should have said "LEA's".

s73ver 9y ago
No, it's not. He ordered the hits. He, himself, did it.
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  yet to be proven
  - s73ver 9y ago
    His own chat logs show him ordering hits.
    - accountyaccount 9y ago
      The burden of proof is on the government to prove that those were his chat logs and they weren't altered. Until he's formally tried he's innocent of that accusation.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Yes, he apparently did. But it's not clear where the idea came from. Some say that it was his mentor Roger Thomas Clark aka Variety Jones aka Cimon. Some say that it was DEA agent Carl Force aka Nob. In any case, it's clear that Ross was initially shocked by the idea.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    No, the opposite is true. As the appeals decision points out multiple times, Ulbricht was startlingly casual both about hte decision to order people killed and in his reaction to evidence that the killings had occurred. His ostensible hired assassin informed Ulbricht that he could have a target killed, but that he couldn't attmept to recover Ulbricht's funds unless he also paid for the assassination of several of the target's associates --- people Ulbricht had no ostensible connection to at all. Ulbricht essentially said "fuck it, whatever you think will help recover some of my funds" and paid for additional gratuitous killings. Importantly: this case had apparently nothing at all to do with Force, who was involved in a different murder-for-hire scheme, one for which Ulbricht could still stand trial (but probably won't, since his life sentence is now overwhelmingly likely to stand).
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Weren't those other "murders" all cons by scammers? I'm arguing that he was initially shocked by the idea of killing people. But I don't disagree that he later became comfortable with the idea.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        We don't know. The prosecution's burden was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury, that Ulbricht himself believed he was ordering people killed. They succeeded, and it's not hard to see why.
        mirimir 9y ago
        I don't disagree that he was ordering people killed. Even if it was all shadow play, driven by scammers and LEA entrapment, it was a moral failure. In hindsight, the better option would have been adequate security, to prevent interference by adversaries. Also, there should have been policy and mechanisms in place for dealing with adversaries. Silk Road clearly demonstrated a broad unmet demand for drugs from trusted sources. With trust based on user ratings. And by philosophy and necessity, it operated outside mundane society. If there were no laws against drug use, he could have just sued people or filed criminal charges. In future, the second realm will need its own enforcement services. And insurance.
tptacek 9y ago
One of the killings is traceable to an investigator. Four others were not.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Nob was apparently a very dark influence on him. And nobody was actually killed.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Check out lawcomic.net for a good explanation of inchoate crimes.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Sure, I get that. But LEA does commonly engage in entrapment. Maybe Roger Thomas Clark is also an undercover agent. I wonder if he'll ever go to trial.

devoply 9y ago

I don't think it's just for a lifetime sentence for anything but murder itself... or someone who is an actual danger to individuals or society itself. I think what got Ulbricht in the end was the fact that he was acting like a drug kingpin and so they threw the book at him hard. It wasn't one of those things that did him in, it was all of those things combined that earned him a life sentence.

theWatcher37 9y ago
The biggest crime is that the people who wrote, voted for, and executed these laws won't see a day behind bars.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
That's it. Diversity of crime plus arrogance in execution usually equals a strong punishment.

bluetwo 9y ago

1.2 billion dollars in drugs, making him a "kingpin".

saulrh 9y ago
So I went looking at this number to see how it stacks up to existing drug distribution. The US market for illicit marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin was just over $100B in 2010. This lines up well with estimates that legal marijuana in Colorado was around $1B. If we're going to look at how big this guy was in absolute terms, his global market was the size of a single illicit drug in a single state. This is where I run out of data. What's the usual sentence for single-state single-drug distributors? My impression was always that it took huge infiltration operations to get the management with more than a few years on technicalities, and the only way to get more than that was to hit them with charges like murder, bribery, or conspiracy.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  The minimum sentence for the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute is 20 years, but pretty much everyone gets life, once all the other charges are added on. Saying he only had 1% of the US market is a ridiculous way to look at it. I'm sorry but I can't muster any sympathy for this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Criminal_Enterprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Criminal_Enterprise
  - saulrh 9y ago
    Thanks for the legal link. I'd gone googling for "kingpin law" and hadn't found it. That explains that, and why my guess was wrong: I'd been looking at cases from before its introduction. > I'm sorry but I can't muster any sympathy for this guy. If we're really going to get into this discussion... The marketplace was inherently driven by "customers find and buy" rather than "suppliers market and sell" and the supply chain had tighter feedback loops, meaning that there were few mechanisms or motivations for suppliers to worsen their customers' habits. Additionally, the use of mail, cryptocurrency, and a website reduced the possibility for Things To Go Wrong, eliminated threats of force, disallowed predatory loans and bartering, and I presume provided conflict-resolution protocols that didn't involve "busting a cap in yo ass". Finally, doing it by internet and mail reduced or eliminated suppliers' ability to interact each other, forcing them to compete by attracting customers The Way Smith and Young Intended and wiping out entire classes of harm relating to organized crime and bad product. This guy was not a saint, he did something bad, the lesser of two evils should not get off. But I hold the position that the silk road was the economic equivalent of a safe injection site, unquestionably a better harm-reducer than the War on Drugs, and that a rational approach to harm reduction supports it.

greggh 9y ago

The murder for hire charges were dropped. No evidence of them was shown in court. Because they knew they couldn't win on that one.

tptacek 9y ago
This is simply false, and moreover, false in each of its particulars. First: as the appeal opinion clearly states, there's still an open case against Ulbricht for the Force-related murder-for-hire scheme in Maryland. The charges have not been dropped. Second, evidence of the murder-for-hire charges was presented in court. It was an element of the conspiracy charge. Not only was it presented, but it was presented in a way that Ulbricht's defense was obligated to rebut it. Finally, the murder charges were presented again during sentencing, and proven to a "preponderance of evidence" standard during that process as well. These details are all spelled out in the appeals decision.
- 2845197541 9y ago
  I thought they couldn't even prove that the people to be murdered even existed.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    They don't have to. In federal law (and in several states), you're guilty of attempt if prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the intent to commit a crime, and took some substantial step towards it. They've more than cleared that bar here.
    - Mtinie 9y ago
      Even if there is no actual target? For example: Is the rational that if I earnestly believed I was planning on murdering someone who I thought existed, that it is the lead up and consideration that is the crime, rather than the actual attempt (which could never happen)?
      - 9y ago