4 ms·

Free Ross Ulbricht

61 points by sgt 8y ago

gtirloni 8y ago
Silk Road was an online marketplace with an emphasis on user privacy That's a bit disingenuous.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  Care to explain? That sounds correct to me.
  - ernopp 8y ago
    Permitting sales of illegal drugs & services is a defining feature probably worth mentioning.
  - howiroll 8y ago
    ”cares about user privacy” does not fix a serious vulnerability when reported does not notice fbi had root access to the servers & monitoring every direct messages and transactions pays hackers not to hack him joins stack overflow by rossulbricht@gmail.com to ask tor-php related questions did not hide true ip of server
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
aboutruby 8y ago
> On the last day of trial, Serrin Turner, the NY lead prosecutor, addressed the jury and stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred.[28] One charge of procuring murder was originally filed in October 2013 in a separate pending indictment in Maryland (which was later dismissed in its entirety in July 2018);[8] the other five allegations were never filed.[38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht
- lucozade 8y ago
  > stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred That makes it sound like the prosecutor said that the contracts didn't occur. The way it's worded in the source Guardian article is "The prosecutor says he does not believe any of the killings have occurred." In other words the prosecutor is contending that Ulbricht took out 6 unsuccessful contracts.
simias 8y ago
I get an error 500 on the website so I can't read the argument but quoting Wikipedia: >None of the procuring murder allegations were part of Ulbricht's indictment in New York, although the evidence was factored into Ulbricht's sentence. [...] >On the last day of trial, Serrin Turner, the NY lead prosecutor, addressed the jury and stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred. One charge of procuring murder was originally filed in October 2013 in a separate pending indictment in Maryland (which was later dismissed in its entirety in July 2018); the other five allegations were never filed. I don't really know enough about the American justice system to understand exactly what went on there but apparently the judgement was not solely based on the nonviolent charges?
- t0t4lnoo3v2 8y ago
  https://archive.fo/zjP9W https://archive.fo/zjP9W
cletus 8y ago
This is the country with the "war on drugs" that have 10+ year sentences to largely minorites convicted of possession of a few grams of cannabis so this really shouldn't be that surprising. Focusing on the crimes being nonviolent seems like a poor tactic. Look at the outrage in about no one going to jail for financial malfeasance, for example. But I have 3 particular issues with the sentence here: 1. The government has moved him twice across the country from New York to Colorado then Arizona. The Wikipedia article mentions his mother moved to Colorado to be closer to him. That seems cruel. 2. Why a high security prison that's going to put him in with actual murderers and violent offenders? 3. Life plus 40 years does seem like overkill. I mean look at the sentences for the Elizabeth Smart kidnappers by comparison. At the end of the day though I have limited sympathy. Like what did he expect to happen?
- lucozade 8y ago
  > Why a high security prison..? I'm going to hazard a guess that that's fairly standard for drug kingpins which is what Ulbricht was convicted of (amongst other things). > look at the sentences for the Elizabeth Smart kidnappers by comparison I thought Mitchell got life without parole too, no? Ulbricht's are all concurrent so it amounts to the same sentence.
blake1 8y ago
His sentence seems fair according to the standards of the US justice system, at least from my non-lawyer’s perspective. He profited enormously from drug trafficking, and received a sentence in line with other convicted cartel leaders. Is this site advocating for freeing all such similar cartel leaders? If not, why not? And yes, he was not convicted of the solicitation for murder, but in the US justice system considering this secondary behavior is perfectly legal. I don’t even think it’s all that uncommon or unethical. It’s just the more converse of giving someone a lighter sentence for an otherwise unblemished life.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  > He profited enormously from drug trafficking Honest question: How much profit did pharma execs make fully knowing their drugs were abused and sold illegally en masse? I'm interested in how people think they aren't culpable? Oxycodone is a household name in drug abuse, it kills thousands every year. All those people seem to live very good lives off it's sales. Attempts to make less addictive pain killers is an uphill battle for profitablity in the existing environment. Not defending Ross Ulbright here either, these people should be in jail too.
  - hopler 8y ago
    Some state government is finally taking on the Sackler family (opiod kingpins)
- lucozade 8y ago
  > but in the US justice system considering this secondary behavior is perfectly legal Out of interest, do you know if that's a fact in the Ulbricht case i.e. the judge said she was taking it into account? I'm not sure it matters hugely in the sense that the mandatory minimum for Continuing Criminal Enterprise is life and he was well within the bounds of that. Just curious.
- sktrdie 8y ago
  That seems a bit harsh given that he wasn't directly involved in the trafficking. Was he a facilitator? Sure, but most drug trafficking is facilitated through systems that are considered legal: post office, google searches, emails, medicine labs, etc. Yet, why is the moderator of a platform the one who has to pay the biggest price? So considering that, yes, his punishment far exceeds his involvement in the illegal activity. The punishment should've been shared by the dozen, if not hundreds, of other parties/groups/dynamics involved. History has proved that killing the platform doesn't fix the problem.
madez 8y ago
I think fixing the sentencing in the USA requires first to overcome the fixation on good and evil and sin which in turn requires overcoming the abrahamistic religions. If you are determinined someone is evil, you are willing to sentence them irrationally harshly based on that. If, however, your guiding principle is, that the justice system is a tool of society to keep peace and minimize injustice (among other things) then you will come to more nuanced judgments. There is no good and evil. These are made-up categories and super subjective. We can unmake them, i.e. make them less powerful on the political level.
- teilo 8y ago
  Well then, lets just commit genocide then, if there is no good and evil. Murder, rape, pillage, extort, blackmail, kidnap, torture, defraud. Go to town. Good and evil are not made up categories.
couterSpell 8y ago
Nah bruh. He's where he deserves to be. Just like the Sackler family, he aided and abetted the destruction of many families and actual death of many drug users.
- mips_avatar 8y ago
  So he deserves a strongly worded Nytimes article? Sounds pretty harsh.
  - couterSpell 8y ago
    If the world was just, the Sackler family would be buried under the jail cell in which Ross Ulbricht will rightfully spend the rest of his days. But alas, Big Pharma can slang dope on every block worldwide with nary a peep.
- sgt 8y ago
  Saying that he deserves a harsh penalty is one thing - but double life sentence and 40 years means he'll effectively never be able to have a life. It's almost like a death penalty (some would think even worse). Ross did facilitate bad things unintentionally and/or turned a blind eye, but he was also young and reckless. It's time to pardon this young man so he can actually contribute positively to society and make up in other ways.
faissaloo 8y ago
The idea that he didn't know what he was harbouring is absurd, Silk Road became well known precisely because of the things that were openly and blatantly sold on there.
the_fonz 8y ago
Dude ran a drug trafficking platform and allegedly took out six (6) assassination contracts, therefore the dude is a dangerous criminal. Trying to portray him as some "innocent civilian" is patently dishonest. He should rot in prison for life for what he's done.

Free Ross Ulbricht

61 points by sgt 8y ago

gtirloni 8y ago

Silk Road was an online marketplace with an emphasis on user privacy That's a bit disingenuous.

VikingCoder 8y ago
Care to explain? That sounds correct to me.
- ernopp 8y ago
  Permitting sales of illegal drugs & services is a defining feature probably worth mentioning.
- howiroll 8y ago
  ”cares about user privacy” does not fix a serious vulnerability when reported does not notice fbi had root access to the servers & monitoring every direct messages and transactions pays hackers not to hack him joins stack overflow by rossulbricht@gmail.com to ask tor-php related questions did not hide true ip of server
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

aboutruby 8y ago

> On the last day of trial, Serrin Turner, the NY lead prosecutor, addressed the jury and stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred.[28] One charge of procuring murder was originally filed in October 2013 in a separate pending indictment in Maryland (which was later dismissed in its entirety in July 2018);[8] the other five allegations were never filed.[38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht

lucozade 8y ago
> stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred That makes it sound like the prosecutor said that the contracts didn't occur. The way it's worded in the source Guardian article is "The prosecutor says he does not believe any of the killings have occurred." In other words the prosecutor is contending that Ulbricht took out 6 unsuccessful contracts.

simias 8y ago

I get an error 500 on the website so I can't read the argument but quoting Wikipedia: >None of the procuring murder allegations were part of Ulbricht's indictment in New York, although the evidence was factored into Ulbricht's sentence. [...] >On the last day of trial, Serrin Turner, the NY lead prosecutor, addressed the jury and stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred. One charge of procuring murder was originally filed in October 2013 in a separate pending indictment in Maryland (which was later dismissed in its entirety in July 2018); the other five allegations were never filed. I don't really know enough about the American justice system to understand exactly what went on there but apparently the judgement was not solely based on the nonviolent charges?

t0t4lnoo3v2 8y ago
https://archive.fo/zjP9W https://archive.fo/zjP9W

cletus 8y ago

This is the country with the "war on drugs" that have 10+ year sentences to largely minorites convicted of possession of a few grams of cannabis so this really shouldn't be that surprising. Focusing on the crimes being nonviolent seems like a poor tactic. Look at the outrage in about no one going to jail for financial malfeasance, for example. But I have 3 particular issues with the sentence here: 1. The government has moved him twice across the country from New York to Colorado then Arizona. The Wikipedia article mentions his mother moved to Colorado to be closer to him. That seems cruel. 2. Why a high security prison that's going to put him in with actual murderers and violent offenders? 3. Life plus 40 years does seem like overkill. I mean look at the sentences for the Elizabeth Smart kidnappers by comparison. At the end of the day though I have limited sympathy. Like what did he expect to happen?

lucozade 8y ago
> Why a high security prison..? I'm going to hazard a guess that that's fairly standard for drug kingpins which is what Ulbricht was convicted of (amongst other things). > look at the sentences for the Elizabeth Smart kidnappers by comparison I thought Mitchell got life without parole too, no? Ulbricht's are all concurrent so it amounts to the same sentence.

blake1 8y ago

His sentence seems fair according to the standards of the US justice system, at least from my non-lawyer’s perspective. He profited enormously from drug trafficking, and received a sentence in line with other convicted cartel leaders. Is this site advocating for freeing all such similar cartel leaders? If not, why not? And yes, he was not convicted of the solicitation for murder, but in the US justice system considering this secondary behavior is perfectly legal. I don’t even think it’s all that uncommon or unethical. It’s just the more converse of giving someone a lighter sentence for an otherwise unblemished life.

A2017U1 8y ago
> He profited enormously from drug trafficking Honest question: How much profit did pharma execs make fully knowing their drugs were abused and sold illegally en masse? I'm interested in how people think they aren't culpable? Oxycodone is a household name in drug abuse, it kills thousands every year. All those people seem to live very good lives off it's sales. Attempts to make less addictive pain killers is an uphill battle for profitablity in the existing environment. Not defending Ross Ulbright here either, these people should be in jail too.
- hopler 8y ago
  Some state government is finally taking on the Sackler family (opiod kingpins)
lucozade 8y ago
> but in the US justice system considering this secondary behavior is perfectly legal Out of interest, do you know if that's a fact in the Ulbricht case i.e. the judge said she was taking it into account? I'm not sure it matters hugely in the sense that the mandatory minimum for Continuing Criminal Enterprise is life and he was well within the bounds of that. Just curious.
sktrdie 8y ago
That seems a bit harsh given that he wasn't directly involved in the trafficking. Was he a facilitator? Sure, but most drug trafficking is facilitated through systems that are considered legal: post office, google searches, emails, medicine labs, etc. Yet, why is the moderator of a platform the one who has to pay the biggest price? So considering that, yes, his punishment far exceeds his involvement in the illegal activity. The punishment should've been shared by the dozen, if not hundreds, of other parties/groups/dynamics involved. History has proved that killing the platform doesn't fix the problem.

madez 8y ago

I think fixing the sentencing in the USA requires first to overcome the fixation on good and evil and sin which in turn requires overcoming the abrahamistic religions. If you are determinined someone is evil, you are willing to sentence them irrationally harshly based on that. If, however, your guiding principle is, that the justice system is a tool of society to keep peace and minimize injustice (among other things) then you will come to more nuanced judgments. There is no good and evil. These are made-up categories and super subjective. We can unmake them, i.e. make them less powerful on the political level.

teilo 8y ago
Well then, lets just commit genocide then, if there is no good and evil. Murder, rape, pillage, extort, blackmail, kidnap, torture, defraud. Go to town. Good and evil are not made up categories.

couterSpell 8y ago

Nah bruh. He's where he deserves to be. Just like the Sackler family, he aided and abetted the destruction of many families and actual death of many drug users.

mips_avatar 8y ago
So he deserves a strongly worded Nytimes article? Sounds pretty harsh.
- couterSpell 8y ago
  If the world was just, the Sackler family would be buried under the jail cell in which Ross Ulbricht will rightfully spend the rest of his days. But alas, Big Pharma can slang dope on every block worldwide with nary a peep.
sgt 8y ago
Saying that he deserves a harsh penalty is one thing - but double life sentence and 40 years means he'll effectively never be able to have a life. It's almost like a death penalty (some would think even worse). Ross did facilitate bad things unintentionally and/or turned a blind eye, but he was also young and reckless. It's time to pardon this young man so he can actually contribute positively to society and make up in other ways.

faissaloo 8y ago

The idea that he didn't know what he was harbouring is absurd, Silk Road became well known precisely because of the things that were openly and blatantly sold on there.

the_fonz 8y ago

Dude ran a drug trafficking platform and allegedly took out six (6) assassination contracts, therefore the dude is a dangerous criminal. Trying to portray him as some "innocent civilian" is patently dishonest. He should rot in prison for life for what he's done.