4 ms·

Well . . . the charges themselves were all for non-violent offenses. But part of the reason why the sentencing was so harsh was that whole thing where he paid t

Well . . . the charges themselves were all for non-violent offenses. But part of the reason why the sentencing was so harsh was that whole thing where he paid to have five people killed. > "I find there is ample and unambiguous evidence that [Ulbricht] commissioned five murders to protect his commercial enterprise," Forrest [the judge in the case] said, leaving out one alleged attempted murder for which Ulbricht was charged in a different case. -- https://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-life-prison/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbrich...

ekianjo 8y ago
Maybe you conveniently forget that there was no such proof and that is why the "procuring murder" charge was dropped by the prosecution. > Of the six murder indictments trumpeted by the U.S. government in the days following Ulbricht’s Oct. 2013 arrest, five have fallen off the table and the sixth sits untouched in a separate indictment (legalese for an unproven allegation) that was purposefully left out of the upcoming trial. > Prosecutor Serrin Turner used the murder-for-hire allegations to get the judge to deny bail. Now, Turner isn’t even going to charge Ulbricht with the murders. > Why have six of the most important accusations been left as yet uncharged? > “Maybe you don’t have that proof,” criminal defense attorney Jay Leiderman told the Daily Dot. “Maybe the proof isn’t as good as you thought it was.” > There are a couple of other possibilities that deserve mention. First, there may be informants out there that the prosecution doesn’t want to expose, that they want to use for other cases, so they’re willing to leave half a dozen murders uncharged in order to protect him. Second, they may have determined that a relevant informant is unreliable and can’t be used in trial. > Either way, the murder accusations are buried and uncharged. from: https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/ https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross...
- rhombocombus 8y ago
  Apparently in spite of that they still used that evidence in determining his sentencing. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it it would be the difference between getting pulled over with a lot of drugs vs getting pulled over with a lot of drugs and a lot of guns that you legally own: Even if you only get charged and convicted of the drug possession the case with the trunk full of guns will in all likelihood experience harsher sentencing.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    > Even if you only get charged and convicted of the drug possession the case with the trunk full of guns will in all likelihood experience harsher sentencing. That's not how the Rule of Law works.
    - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
      It actually is how the law works, though, since (for better or worse) there is judicial discretion in sentencing.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Yes it is? Are you honestly trying to say that one cannot take the context of things into account when sentencing?
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
  I quoted someone who was intimately involved in the trial saying there was ample and unambiguous evidence. Your theory on why those charges were not included is one of a number of possible explanations. Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses.
  - nostromo 8y ago
    > didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses Oh, come now. What prosecutor is going to drop murder charges in favor of money laundering and computer hacking charges when they have unambiguous evidence?
    - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
      I don't know. I don't know too many prosecutors, and whenever I read about them, it's normally related to sensational news stories or even more sensational fictional TV shows. Perhaps you have more direct experience with these elusive creatures and have a better understanding of their mentalities.
    - paulgb 8y ago
      He is serving life without parole. Why would they prove anything beyond what was necessary to get that?
  - DINKDINK 8y ago
    >Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses. Your argument is equivalent to: "As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed" . It's the equivalent of arguing for a system that is ok with police breaking into a house without a warrant as long as they find something illegal.
    - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  Also don't forget he still has a trial pending for the procuring murder charge in Maryland.
nostromo 8y ago
It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for. He wasn't even tried for those charges, which should give us pause. I'm surprised a judge is even allowed to site "unambiguous evidence" for charges that weren't even brought before the court.
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
  > It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for. I feel like judicial discretion in sentencing is pretty well understood, but I guess it could seem strange if you haven't spent much time reading about or experiencing the legal system.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I feel like this is a handwavy answer that doesn't say anything meaningful. In no way does belittling the parent commenter's experience answer why unproven allegations are acceptable to consider in sentencing.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Defendants are allowed to call "character witnesses" during sentencing hearings to tout what a good person they are, and judges can take that into account. I fail to see why the other way should not be allowed either.
- wang_li 8y ago
  >It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for. Sentencing is a range. Based on the facts presented to the judge during trial and through third parties in the sentencing phase (victim statements, letters from your pastor, parents, friends, and teachers, etc.) judges can choose the low end of the range or the high end of the range. It's no more strange to give someone the high end due to unproven statements of assholerly, than sentencing being more lenient for good qualities that have never been proven.

ekianjo 8y ago

Maybe you conveniently forget that there was no such proof and that is why the "procuring murder" charge was dropped by the prosecution. > Of the six murder indictments trumpeted by the U.S. government in the days following Ulbricht’s Oct. 2013 arrest, five have fallen off the table and the sixth sits untouched in a separate indictment (legalese for an unproven allegation) that was purposefully left out of the upcoming trial. > Prosecutor Serrin Turner used the murder-for-hire allegations to get the judge to deny bail. Now, Turner isn’t even going to charge Ulbricht with the murders. > Why have six of the most important accusations been left as yet uncharged? > “Maybe you don’t have that proof,” criminal defense attorney Jay Leiderman told the Daily Dot. “Maybe the proof isn’t as good as you thought it was.” > There are a couple of other possibilities that deserve mention. First, there may be informants out there that the prosecution doesn’t want to expose, that they want to use for other cases, so they’re willing to leave half a dozen murders uncharged in order to protect him. Second, they may have determined that a relevant informant is unreliable and can’t be used in trial. > Either way, the murder accusations are buried and uncharged. from: https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/ https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross...

rhombocombus 8y ago
Apparently in spite of that they still used that evidence in determining his sentencing. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it it would be the difference between getting pulled over with a lot of drugs vs getting pulled over with a lot of drugs and a lot of guns that you legally own: Even if you only get charged and convicted of the drug possession the case with the trunk full of guns will in all likelihood experience harsher sentencing.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > Even if you only get charged and convicted of the drug possession the case with the trunk full of guns will in all likelihood experience harsher sentencing. That's not how the Rule of Law works.
  - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
    It actually is how the law works, though, since (for better or worse) there is judicial discretion in sentencing.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Yes it is? Are you honestly trying to say that one cannot take the context of things into account when sentencing?
sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
I quoted someone who was intimately involved in the trial saying there was ample and unambiguous evidence. Your theory on why those charges were not included is one of a number of possible explanations. Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses.
- nostromo 8y ago
  > didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses Oh, come now. What prosecutor is going to drop murder charges in favor of money laundering and computer hacking charges when they have unambiguous evidence?
  - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
    I don't know. I don't know too many prosecutors, and whenever I read about them, it's normally related to sensational news stories or even more sensational fictional TV shows. Perhaps you have more direct experience with these elusive creatures and have a better understanding of their mentalities.
  - paulgb 8y ago
    He is serving life without parole. Why would they prove anything beyond what was necessary to get that?
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  >Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses. Your argument is equivalent to: "As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed" . It's the equivalent of arguing for a system that is ok with police breaking into a house without a warrant as long as they find something illegal.
  - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
ChrisLomont 8y ago
Also don't forget he still has a trial pending for the procuring murder charge in Maryland.

nostromo 8y ago

It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for. He wasn't even tried for those charges, which should give us pause. I'm surprised a judge is even allowed to site "unambiguous evidence" for charges that weren't even brought before the court.

sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
> It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for. I feel like judicial discretion in sentencing is pretty well understood, but I guess it could seem strange if you haven't spent much time reading about or experiencing the legal system.
- dpark 8y ago
  I feel like this is a handwavy answer that doesn't say anything meaningful. In no way does belittling the parent commenter's experience answer why unproven allegations are acceptable to consider in sentencing.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Defendants are allowed to call "character witnesses" during sentencing hearings to tout what a good person they are, and judges can take that into account. I fail to see why the other way should not be allowed either.
wang_li 8y ago
>It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for. Sentencing is a range. Based on the facts presented to the judge during trial and through third parties in the sentencing phase (victim statements, letters from your pastor, parents, friends, and teachers, etc.) judges can choose the low end of the range or the high end of the range. It's no more strange to give someone the high end due to unproven statements of assholerly, than sentencing being more lenient for good qualities that have never been proven.