11 ms·

On one hand, that makes sense if we think of him as just the person who built the computer platform, but on the other this is the logic the courts used to justi

by lbotos 4y ago

On one hand, that makes sense if we think of him as just the person who built the computer platform, but on the other this is the logic the courts used to justify his sentence: "Using the online moniker “Dread Pirate Roberts,” or “DPR,” ULBRICHT controlled and oversaw every aspect of Silk Road, and managed a staff of paid, online administrators and computer programmers who assisted with the day-to-day operation of the site. Through his ownership and operation of Silk Road, ULBRICHT reaped commissions worth more than $13 million generated from the illicit sales conducted through the site. ULBRICHT also demonstrated a willingness to use violence to protect his criminal enterprise and the anonymity of its users, soliciting six murders-for-hire in connection with operating the site, although there is no evidence that these murders were actually carried out." Should a drug kingpin who built a global network that facilitated the transfer of illegal substances who was willing to kill people to protect that enterprise only get 10 years? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for drugs to be decriminalized in the US, but where the line is crossed for me is that this person was willing to KILL others in service of making money.

notch656a 4y ago
The US criminal justice system is supposed to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty. He was never convicted of the murder-for-hire but yet it was taken into account for his sentencing. That is not right and short-circuits due process.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. Your friends and family will come in to tell what a wonderful person you are, none of it verifiable and often entirely bullshit.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Being wonderful or not wonderful isn't a crime though. His sentencing included presumption of an unproven crime. The US justice system is explicitly based on not considering someone guilty of a crime until proven guilty. You have no right to not be considered a wonderful or horrible person, but you do have a right to not be considered guilty of the crime until convicted.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > The US justice system is explicitly based on not considering someone guilty of a crime until proven guilty. For a criminal conviction, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". For sentencing, judges can consider evidence under a different standard, "preponderance of the evidence". As prosecutors introduced evidence of the murder-for-hire allegations in trial, the judge was permitted to consider it.
  - saurik 4y ago
    FWIW, that probably shouldn't be taken into consideration either? I'd argue they should "clean room" the sentence by having a second judge read an assessment of the evidence by the first judge and have them conduct the sentencing, lest sentences be more about how people look than what they did (and allowing laws to continue to be overly harsh but with enough last minute exceptions that no one "important" has reason to complain).
    - akira2501 4y ago
      Your behavior before, during, and after the crime are incredibly relevant to your sentencing. The court is trying to determine the best course of action to prevent repeating the behavior and minimize future potential harms, these things must be considered. This is not a "one size fits all" or "strictly by the numbers" question, and we are not benefited as a society by treating it that way.
      - 3a2d29 4y ago
        Based on this argument, shouldn’t Ross’ murder-for-hires be included in sentencing then? Clearly he didn’t just build a drug website, he was fine ending lives for it. A slap on the wrist (even if his family thinks he is a good guy) wouldn’t deter him much, it would seem.
        akira2501 4y ago
        They didn't charge him with them, but if you read the sentencing transcript [1] you can see it was definitely considered those facts and the specific facts of each murder for hire plot when arriving at a judgement. And the first judge very much agreed with your assessment. [1]: https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2015-May-29.pdf https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2...
      - randombits0 4y ago
        Then why is Liberty wearing a blindfold? Unequal is not justice.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. Your friends and family will come in to tell what a wonderful person you are, none of it verifiable and often entirely bullshit. True, but I see a bigger problem with sentencing being based on conduct that the defendant was acquitted of. The concept is supposed to be that if you were acquitted, you didn't commit the crime.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      He wasn't acquitted of the murder-for-hire stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Murder-for-hire_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Murder-for-hire_...
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        That's just as much a refutation of your comment as it is of mine. Remember saying this? >>> Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. But still, looking outside this trial, sentences being handed out based on acquitted conduct is very much a thing that happens, and it shouldn't be allowed.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        The issue at play there is the different standards for conviction vs sentencing. The standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The standard for something to be considered in sentencing is "perponderance of the evidence". As such, it's possible for a judge to take a look at a case where a conviction couldn't be obtained, but consider the evidence to be compelling enough to use in sentencing for something else.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Sorry, but "we don't have enough evidence to claim that you did this, but we do have enough evidence to put you in jail for five years" is not a coherent perspective. And it's not relevant anyway. Once you're acquitted, you didn't commit the crime. Hazy evidence that you did commit the crime might be something the sentencing judge can legitimately consider, but it's necessarily overruled by the fact that you didn't commit the crime, which is something the sentencing judge must consider.
- Phlarp 4y ago
  He also never actually had anyone killed, the feds created the personas attempting to 'extort' or 'steal' from DPR. The feds detailed their transgressions to DPR and introduced the idea of murder + offered to commit the murders for a fee. Afterwards they fabricated evidence of the hit(s) to steal money from him. --These were the "above board" official and sanctioned things that the feds did during this investigation. Shaun Bridges of the US secret service and Carl Force of the US DEA were siphoning bitcoin off to their personal accounts throughout the investigation. Bridges even tried to flee the country while on bail. Think what you want about Ulbrict, but the cops that took him down were every bit as dirty as he was, if not more.
  - closewith 4y ago
    > Think what you want about Ulbrict, but the cops that took him down were every bit as dirty as he was, if not more. Obviously the agents who stole the funds were dirty, but the contents of your first paragraph is called a criminal investigation. Nothing untoward there (as described, at least).
    - Phlarp 4y ago
      That's certainly how the courts have interpreted things. As always the distinction between "Legal" and "Justice" is left as an exercise to the reader. For my 2 cents it seems entirely reasonable that an armed gang backed by the state would consider themselves to be individually above the law, since they are constantly told that the ends always justify the means, no matter how odious those means may be.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      It’s called entrapment, and it’s not a normal part of a criminal investigation. It’s why they knew they wouldn’t be able to land the murder-for-hire charges. It could have invalidated the whole case.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    From your "Bridges tried to flee while on bail", it seems like both agents were caught and prosecuted. And, AFAIK, the claim was never made that they fabricated evidence. Heck, I don't know who disputes his guilt, just the appropriate sentence.
- sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
  From what I understand it was proven that he solicited, which is a crime in itself, regardless of whether or not it was carried out.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    He was not convicted of any murder/homicide related solicitation.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Again, this is false. The murder-for-hire scheme was a predicate to a conviction charge, and the prosecution was obligated to prove it. He was found guilty of the associated charge.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Again, this is false. None of the things Ross was convicted of are "predicated" of a murder related act for a conviction. Murder, conspiracy for murder, solicitation for murder would be. General drug-related conspiracies in no way are predicated of something homicide or murder related for a conviction.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The murder-for-hire scheme was in fact charged conduct, was introduced at trial, was rebuttable by the defense, and he was found guilty of the associated charge.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    - tptacek 4y ago
      It's going to take you more than one snarky sentence to explain what's deceitful about Ulbricht being charged with a conspiracy for which half of the predicate overt acts were murder-for-hire schemes. They're spelled out in detail in the indictment.
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        I don't know the details of this case, but I read above that at least some of these were made up by agents?
        tptacek 4y ago
        The Internet believes a bunch of stuff about this case that is trivially refuted by reading the actual case documents.
        Phlarp 4y ago
        Did anyone die as a direct result of Ross giving an order / paying for a murder? Did the police investigating Ross misrepresent these murders to him while they were occurring? Did the police investigating Ross attempt to enrich themselves by stealing illicit funds from his drug enterprise or by selling him details of the pending investigation? I'll give you that the courts have repeatedly held the police can legally do most of these things, and that even having lying/stealing cops running the investigation doesn't invalidate the fruits of that investigation. Perhaps you could also concede that a lot of observers are going to have difficulty seeing the difference in these two shades of grey?
- tzs 4y ago
  A given (alleged) act or fact can support multiple possible charges. For example suppose I were convicted for reckless driving for driving 300% over the speed limit in a school zone while school was in session. That same evidence could have been used for a speeding charge instead of a reckless driving charge. It would not be violating innocent until proven guilty or due process if my sentencing for reckless driving took into account my extremely high speed, even though I was not charged or convicted of speeding. My driving 300% over the speed limit was proven as part of convicting me for reckless driving and the court can treat my driving that fast as a fact. In the Ulbricht case the murder-for-hire stuff was part of the basis for one of the conspiracy charges, evidence was heard for it in regards to that, and he was convicted on that charge. So the court can take it as a fact because of that and use it when considering the sentencing for that conviction.
parkingrift 4y ago
>Should a drug kingpin who built a global network that facilitated the transfer of illegal substances who was willing to kill people to protect that enterprise only get 10 years? The murder for hire claims lack necessary evidence to convict. Outside that it becomes a question of whether platform owners are responsible for the content on their platform. I am personally in favor of content owners being responsible. I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in prison. However, Mark Zuckerberg is not in prison, and continues to wreak havoc on humanity. Why is Ulbricht responsible for what happened on his platform, but Zuckerberg is not? In my view, Ulbricht should be free so long as Zuckerberg is free.
- duped 4y ago
  Facebook has and continues to police its platform for illegal activity and cooperates with law enforcement. That's not to say they don't facilitate horrible crimes, but they make some effort not to. Facebook also wasn't created for the express purpose of operating drug trafficking. Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform. It's pretty clear what the difference is between someone who makes a platform that can be used by bad actors but makes efforts to stop them, versus someone who makes a platform for bad actors and tries to protect them.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    To me, it feels more like Facebook selectively facilitates the crimes of some and polices the crimes of others. There's names of people in the public Congressional record that you cannot put in any post in any context. The 2020 riots were coordinated on FB. According to the White House press secretary, the WH sends lists of people to Facebook to censor who did not commit crimes. If you are successfully opposed to the regime, for example popular voices against US criminal actions regarding Ukraine, you get nerfed. Azov Batallion was previously banned from FB because they are literally Nazis, but ever since the government started giving weapons to these Nazis you can praise them without concern you will get banned.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
hendersoon 4y ago
Indeed, he deserves to be in jail not for building the Silk Road, or running it, or potentially even for engaging in drug trafficking-- he deserves to be there for attempted murder. There's no ambiguity there, he tried to have people killed to protect his business.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
zucker42 4y ago
> soliciting six murders-for-hire in connection with operating the site This was not proven in court, and at least two federal agents involved in the investigation were found guilty for misconduct related to the investigation, which should at least put doubt on the more salacious elements of the investigation. The judge took the prosecution's accusation that Ross Ulbricht was responsible for murders-for-hire as truth, and used it to justify a sentence that is cruel and onerous given what he was actually convicted for. In my opinion, that should be considered an unconstitutional violation of due process, since the defense did not get to respond to those accusations as they would in a normal trial. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to hear Ulbricht's appeal, IIRC.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Yes, Ulbricht's lawyer did a truly awful job and anyone else would have likely gotten him off on procedural grounds. However the evidence that should have been thrown out was pretty clear he tried to order the murder of numerous people. He should 100% be convicted of that and spend many years in prison because you know, we as a society decided somewhere along the way that paying someone to kill people is bad. Fortunately he just got scammed by the hitman haha. Had he actually been competent enough to hire a real hitman there would be a pile of bodies to his name. He's not a good guy lol. He's a bad guy, who should be out on a technicality for the charges he got convicted on - but really would likely spend the rest of his days in prison for the other things he definitely did do. The government simply chose not to pursue those charges because they'd already lined up a slam dunk. Not because they couldn't charge it, just that they had better things to do than smacking a dead horse around.
meowface 4y ago
I'm a fervent supporter of both sides: - I think his sentencing was unfair and he should have to be convicted of the murder-for-hire charges in order for them to factor into his sentence. His sentence should be overturned immediately. - I think he's almost certainly guilty of the murder-for-hire attempts and I hope he's re-tried, convicted of those charges, and re-sentenced to life in prison.
- throwaway654329 4y ago
  So you want his new trial to also be a preordained show trial? What if he actually isn’t guilty of those accusations? What should happen to the agents of the state who either entrapped (if true) or fabricated (if false) those claims? And really, whole-real-actual-life for a first time offender for a made up crime that didn’t happen and was seemingly initiated by corrupt officers who were convicted of their corruption? I am asking myself: What are the both sides for this person?!
alasdair_ 4y ago
> soliciting six murders-for-hire in connection with operating the site Ulbricht was never charged with this, never-mind convicted.
ddtaylor 4y ago
> ULBRICHT also demonstrated a willingness to use violence to protect his criminal enterprise and the anonymity of its users Those are allegations that were dropped and likely raised in very sketchy circumstances to begin with. Anyone, including you, could have allegations made against them and then dropped later, FWIW.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
an9n 4y ago
If there's one thing the government will protect more jealously than pretty much anything else, it's their monopoly on violence, and preventing the government dipping its beak comes a close second.

by lbotos 4y ago

notch656a 4y ago

The US criminal justice system is supposed to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty. He was never convicted of the murder-for-hire but yet it was taken into account for his sentencing. That is not right and short-circuits due process.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. Your friends and family will come in to tell what a wonderful person you are, none of it verifiable and often entirely bullshit.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Being wonderful or not wonderful isn't a crime though. His sentencing included presumption of an unproven crime. The US justice system is explicitly based on not considering someone guilty of a crime until proven guilty. You have no right to not be considered a wonderful or horrible person, but you do have a right to not be considered guilty of the crime until convicted.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > The US justice system is explicitly based on not considering someone guilty of a crime until proven guilty. For a criminal conviction, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". For sentencing, judges can consider evidence under a different standard, "preponderance of the evidence". As prosecutors introduced evidence of the murder-for-hire allegations in trial, the judge was permitted to consider it.
- saurik 4y ago
  FWIW, that probably shouldn't be taken into consideration either? I'd argue they should "clean room" the sentence by having a second judge read an assessment of the evidence by the first judge and have them conduct the sentencing, lest sentences be more about how people look than what they did (and allowing laws to continue to be overly harsh but with enough last minute exceptions that no one "important" has reason to complain).
  - akira2501 4y ago
    Your behavior before, during, and after the crime are incredibly relevant to your sentencing. The court is trying to determine the best course of action to prevent repeating the behavior and minimize future potential harms, these things must be considered. This is not a "one size fits all" or "strictly by the numbers" question, and we are not benefited as a society by treating it that way.
    - 3a2d29 4y ago
      Based on this argument, shouldn’t Ross’ murder-for-hires be included in sentencing then? Clearly he didn’t just build a drug website, he was fine ending lives for it. A slap on the wrist (even if his family thinks he is a good guy) wouldn’t deter him much, it would seem.
      - akira2501 4y ago
        They didn't charge him with them, but if you read the sentencing transcript [1] you can see it was definitely considered those facts and the specific facts of each murder for hire plot when arriving at a judgement. And the first judge very much agreed with your assessment. [1]: https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2015-May-29.pdf https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2...
    - randombits0 4y ago
      Then why is Liberty wearing a blindfold? Unequal is not justice.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. Your friends and family will come in to tell what a wonderful person you are, none of it verifiable and often entirely bullshit. True, but I see a bigger problem with sentencing being based on conduct that the defendant was acquitted of. The concept is supposed to be that if you were acquitted, you didn't commit the crime.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    He wasn't acquitted of the murder-for-hire stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Murder-for-hire_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Murder-for-hire_...
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      That's just as much a refutation of your comment as it is of mine. Remember saying this? >>> Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. But still, looking outside this trial, sentences being handed out based on acquitted conduct is very much a thing that happens, and it shouldn't be allowed.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        The issue at play there is the different standards for conviction vs sentencing. The standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The standard for something to be considered in sentencing is "perponderance of the evidence". As such, it's possible for a judge to take a look at a case where a conviction couldn't be obtained, but consider the evidence to be compelling enough to use in sentencing for something else.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Sorry, but "we don't have enough evidence to claim that you did this, but we do have enough evidence to put you in jail for five years" is not a coherent perspective. And it's not relevant anyway. Once you're acquitted, you didn't commit the crime. Hazy evidence that you did commit the crime might be something the sentencing judge can legitimately consider, but it's necessarily overruled by the fact that you didn't commit the crime, which is something the sentencing judge must consider.
Phlarp 4y ago
He also never actually had anyone killed, the feds created the personas attempting to 'extort' or 'steal' from DPR. The feds detailed their transgressions to DPR and introduced the idea of murder + offered to commit the murders for a fee. Afterwards they fabricated evidence of the hit(s) to steal money from him. --These were the "above board" official and sanctioned things that the feds did during this investigation. Shaun Bridges of the US secret service and Carl Force of the US DEA were siphoning bitcoin off to their personal accounts throughout the investigation. Bridges even tried to flee the country while on bail. Think what you want about Ulbrict, but the cops that took him down were every bit as dirty as he was, if not more.
- closewith 4y ago
  > Think what you want about Ulbrict, but the cops that took him down were every bit as dirty as he was, if not more. Obviously the agents who stole the funds were dirty, but the contents of your first paragraph is called a criminal investigation. Nothing untoward there (as described, at least).
  - Phlarp 4y ago
    That's certainly how the courts have interpreted things. As always the distinction between "Legal" and "Justice" is left as an exercise to the reader. For my 2 cents it seems entirely reasonable that an armed gang backed by the state would consider themselves to be individually above the law, since they are constantly told that the ends always justify the means, no matter how odious those means may be.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    It’s called entrapment, and it’s not a normal part of a criminal investigation. It’s why they knew they wouldn’t be able to land the murder-for-hire charges. It could have invalidated the whole case.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  From your "Bridges tried to flee while on bail", it seems like both agents were caught and prosecuted. And, AFAIK, the claim was never made that they fabricated evidence. Heck, I don't know who disputes his guilt, just the appropriate sentence.
sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
From what I understand it was proven that he solicited, which is a crime in itself, regardless of whether or not it was carried out.
- notch656a 4y ago
  He was not convicted of any murder/homicide related solicitation.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Again, this is false. The murder-for-hire scheme was a predicate to a conviction charge, and the prosecution was obligated to prove it. He was found guilty of the associated charge.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Again, this is false. None of the things Ross was convicted of are "predicated" of a murder related act for a conviction. Murder, conspiracy for murder, solicitation for murder would be. General drug-related conspiracies in no way are predicated of something homicide or murder related for a conviction.
tptacek 4y ago
The murder-for-hire scheme was in fact charged conduct, was introduced at trial, was rebuttable by the defense, and he was found guilty of the associated charge.
- notch656a 4y ago
  - tptacek 4y ago
    It's going to take you more than one snarky sentence to explain what's deceitful about Ulbricht being charged with a conspiracy for which half of the predicate overt acts were murder-for-hire schemes. They're spelled out in detail in the indictment.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      I don't know the details of this case, but I read above that at least some of these were made up by agents?
      - tptacek 4y ago
        The Internet believes a bunch of stuff about this case that is trivially refuted by reading the actual case documents.
        Phlarp 4y ago
        Did anyone die as a direct result of Ross giving an order / paying for a murder? Did the police investigating Ross misrepresent these murders to him while they were occurring? Did the police investigating Ross attempt to enrich themselves by stealing illicit funds from his drug enterprise or by selling him details of the pending investigation? I'll give you that the courts have repeatedly held the police can legally do most of these things, and that even having lying/stealing cops running the investigation doesn't invalidate the fruits of that investigation. Perhaps you could also concede that a lot of observers are going to have difficulty seeing the difference in these two shades of grey?
tzs 4y ago
A given (alleged) act or fact can support multiple possible charges. For example suppose I were convicted for reckless driving for driving 300% over the speed limit in a school zone while school was in session. That same evidence could have been used for a speeding charge instead of a reckless driving charge. It would not be violating innocent until proven guilty or due process if my sentencing for reckless driving took into account my extremely high speed, even though I was not charged or convicted of speeding. My driving 300% over the speed limit was proven as part of convicting me for reckless driving and the court can treat my driving that fast as a fact. In the Ulbricht case the murder-for-hire stuff was part of the basis for one of the conspiracy charges, evidence was heard for it in regards to that, and he was convicted on that charge. So the court can take it as a fact because of that and use it when considering the sentencing for that conviction.

parkingrift 4y ago

>Should a drug kingpin who built a global network that facilitated the transfer of illegal substances who was willing to kill people to protect that enterprise only get 10 years? The murder for hire claims lack necessary evidence to convict. Outside that it becomes a question of whether platform owners are responsible for the content on their platform. I am personally in favor of content owners being responsible. I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in prison. However, Mark Zuckerberg is not in prison, and continues to wreak havoc on humanity. Why is Ulbricht responsible for what happened on his platform, but Zuckerberg is not? In my view, Ulbricht should be free so long as Zuckerberg is free.

duped 4y ago
Facebook has and continues to police its platform for illegal activity and cooperates with law enforcement. That's not to say they don't facilitate horrible crimes, but they make some effort not to. Facebook also wasn't created for the express purpose of operating drug trafficking. Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform. It's pretty clear what the difference is between someone who makes a platform that can be used by bad actors but makes efforts to stop them, versus someone who makes a platform for bad actors and tries to protect them.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  To me, it feels more like Facebook selectively facilitates the crimes of some and polices the crimes of others. There's names of people in the public Congressional record that you cannot put in any post in any context. The 2020 riots were coordinated on FB. According to the White House press secretary, the WH sends lists of people to Facebook to censor who did not commit crimes. If you are successfully opposed to the regime, for example popular voices against US criminal actions regarding Ukraine, you get nerfed. Azov Batallion was previously banned from FB because they are literally Nazis, but ever since the government started giving weapons to these Nazis you can praise them without concern you will get banned.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

hendersoon 4y ago

Indeed, he deserves to be in jail not for building the Silk Road, or running it, or potentially even for engaging in drug trafficking-- he deserves to be there for attempted murder. There's no ambiguity there, he tried to have people killed to protect his business.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

zucker42 4y ago

> soliciting six murders-for-hire in connection with operating the site This was not proven in court, and at least two federal agents involved in the investigation were found guilty for misconduct related to the investigation, which should at least put doubt on the more salacious elements of the investigation. The judge took the prosecution's accusation that Ross Ulbricht was responsible for murders-for-hire as truth, and used it to justify a sentence that is cruel and onerous given what he was actually convicted for. In my opinion, that should be considered an unconstitutional violation of due process, since the defense did not get to respond to those accusations as they would in a normal trial. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to hear Ulbricht's appeal, IIRC.

arcticbull 4y ago
Yes, Ulbricht's lawyer did a truly awful job and anyone else would have likely gotten him off on procedural grounds. However the evidence that should have been thrown out was pretty clear he tried to order the murder of numerous people. He should 100% be convicted of that and spend many years in prison because you know, we as a society decided somewhere along the way that paying someone to kill people is bad. Fortunately he just got scammed by the hitman haha. Had he actually been competent enough to hire a real hitman there would be a pile of bodies to his name. He's not a good guy lol. He's a bad guy, who should be out on a technicality for the charges he got convicted on - but really would likely spend the rest of his days in prison for the other things he definitely did do. The government simply chose not to pursue those charges because they'd already lined up a slam dunk. Not because they couldn't charge it, just that they had better things to do than smacking a dead horse around.

meowface 4y ago

I'm a fervent supporter of both sides: - I think his sentencing was unfair and he should have to be convicted of the murder-for-hire charges in order for them to factor into his sentence. His sentence should be overturned immediately. - I think he's almost certainly guilty of the murder-for-hire attempts and I hope he's re-tried, convicted of those charges, and re-sentenced to life in prison.

throwaway654329 4y ago
So you want his new trial to also be a preordained show trial? What if he actually isn’t guilty of those accusations? What should happen to the agents of the state who either entrapped (if true) or fabricated (if false) those claims? And really, whole-real-actual-life for a first time offender for a made up crime that didn’t happen and was seemingly initiated by corrupt officers who were convicted of their corruption? I am asking myself: What are the both sides for this person?!

alasdair_ 4y ago

> soliciting six murders-for-hire in connection with operating the site Ulbricht was never charged with this, never-mind convicted.

ddtaylor 4y ago

> ULBRICHT also demonstrated a willingness to use violence to protect his criminal enterprise and the anonymity of its users Those are allegations that were dropped and likely raised in very sketchy circumstances to begin with. Anyone, including you, could have allegations made against them and then dropped later, FWIW.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

an9n 4y ago

If there's one thing the government will protect more jealously than pretty much anything else, it's their monopoly on violence, and preventing the government dipping its beak comes a close second.