3 ms·

And yet that's profoundly unsatisfying. Ulbrecht was not convicted of murder-for-hire; he was accused of it, and that accusation influenced his sentence for oth

And yet that's profoundly unsatisfying. Ulbrecht was not convicted of murder-for-hire; he was accused of it, and that accusation influenced his sentence for other crimes. Which a fairly large part of this community believe aren't actual crimes.

tptacek 6y ago
He was convicted of the charge for which the murder-for-hire was a predicate! A finding of fact in the trial was in fact that he ordered someone's murder!
- stickfigure 6y ago
  He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and evidence of a murder-for-hire plot was used to support the narcotics trafficking conspiracy. You may think this indirection is a minor technical difference, but I see a totally different standard of evidence. This isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the prosecutors thought they could sustain a murder-for-hire charge, I'm sure they would have prosecuted it. It's a more serious crime! So I'm skeptical. Taking a different tack here - even if he was in fact guilty of attempted murder-for-hire, what's a reasonable punishment for that? Is 7 years in prison long enough?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I dont know, but gut feeling wise, murder for hire feels very wrong. Operating an exchange where consenting adults bought and sold dangerous substances where they had a reasonable idea what the risks were seems much less so. I think its fair to spend >7 years on muder for hire (if that was the charge). The other charges not so much, but most drug charges in usa seem excessive to me, so that's probably par for the course.
  - scott_w 6y ago
    I don’t know enough about the law in the USA to give an answer to your first point (whether the attempted murder allegations should factor into sentencing). However, to your second point: no, 7 years is not enough for attempted murder. Failing to commit a crime (because your hitmen were actually the police) is as morally reprehensible as succeeding. You performed the actions, formed intent, it’s just the victim got lucky. Your sentence shouldn’t be reduced because of their luck.
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    I don't think there should be much of a difference at all between the punishments for attempted murder and murder. Just enough to keep someone from trying to finish the job if they feel that they might need to kill someone to reduce the likelihood of going to jail for attempted murder.
  - matkoniecz 6y ago
    > even if he was in fact guilty of attempted murder-for-hire, what's a reasonable punishment for that? He was not prosecuted and sentenced for that so life time in prison seems unjust. But such sentence would be reasonable for a serious attempted murder (like for succesfull murder). I see no reason to significantly lower penalty just because someone was incompetent or stopped. 7 years seems clearly too low for that.
- KMag 6y ago
  I'm honestly curious. You're a bright guy, and you seem pretty confident, so I suspect I'm missing something here. Which activity among [money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic fraudulent identity documents, and conspiracy to traffic narcotics] requires murder-for-hire? Is there a fifth charge for which he was convicted that I've missed? Is there some non-intuitive legal definition of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, where conspiracy to traffic requires conspiracy to distribute plus conspiracy to commit murder, or something like that? Also, is there any legal or strategic reason to drop the charge for the predicate crime? It might make sense as a legal strategy to reduce attention on a shaky part of the case, but it seems that the defense would draw plenty of attention to a shaky key pillar of the case anyway.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    The murder-for-hire isn’t a strict requirement to reach a conviction for conspiracy to traffic narcotics, obviously. I don’t think anyone is claiming that.

tptacek 6y ago

He was convicted of the charge for which the murder-for-hire was a predicate! A finding of fact in the trial was in fact that he ordered someone's murder!

stickfigure 6y ago
He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and evidence of a murder-for-hire plot was used to support the narcotics trafficking conspiracy. You may think this indirection is a minor technical difference, but I see a totally different standard of evidence. This isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the prosecutors thought they could sustain a murder-for-hire charge, I'm sure they would have prosecuted it. It's a more serious crime! So I'm skeptical. Taking a different tack here - even if he was in fact guilty of attempted murder-for-hire, what's a reasonable punishment for that? Is 7 years in prison long enough?
- bawolff 6y ago
  I dont know, but gut feeling wise, murder for hire feels very wrong. Operating an exchange where consenting adults bought and sold dangerous substances where they had a reasonable idea what the risks were seems much less so. I think its fair to spend >7 years on muder for hire (if that was the charge). The other charges not so much, but most drug charges in usa seem excessive to me, so that's probably par for the course.
- scott_w 6y ago
  I don’t know enough about the law in the USA to give an answer to your first point (whether the attempted murder allegations should factor into sentencing). However, to your second point: no, 7 years is not enough for attempted murder. Failing to commit a crime (because your hitmen were actually the police) is as morally reprehensible as succeeding. You performed the actions, formed intent, it’s just the victim got lucky. Your sentence shouldn’t be reduced because of their luck.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  I don't think there should be much of a difference at all between the punishments for attempted murder and murder. Just enough to keep someone from trying to finish the job if they feel that they might need to kill someone to reduce the likelihood of going to jail for attempted murder.
- matkoniecz 6y ago
  > even if he was in fact guilty of attempted murder-for-hire, what's a reasonable punishment for that? He was not prosecuted and sentenced for that so life time in prison seems unjust. But such sentence would be reasonable for a serious attempted murder (like for succesfull murder). I see no reason to significantly lower penalty just because someone was incompetent or stopped. 7 years seems clearly too low for that.
KMag 6y ago
I'm honestly curious. You're a bright guy, and you seem pretty confident, so I suspect I'm missing something here. Which activity among [money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic fraudulent identity documents, and conspiracy to traffic narcotics] requires murder-for-hire? Is there a fifth charge for which he was convicted that I've missed? Is there some non-intuitive legal definition of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, where conspiracy to traffic requires conspiracy to distribute plus conspiracy to commit murder, or something like that? Also, is there any legal or strategic reason to drop the charge for the predicate crime? It might make sense as a legal strategy to reduce attention on a shaky part of the case, but it seems that the defense would draw plenty of attention to a shaky key pillar of the case anyway.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  The murder-for-hire isn’t a strict requirement to reach a conviction for conspiracy to traffic narcotics, obviously. I don’t think anyone is claiming that.