6 ms·

Should the penalty for upsetting a judge be life minus the 10 years you were already looking at? This just tells me the justice system is fucked.

Sebb767 4y ago
> Should the penalty for upsetting a judge be life minus the 10 years you were already looking at? By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? > This just tells me the justice system is fucked. It's not. It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. You can also frame it as them being 'closer' to living a good life and therefore needing less punishment to get them to actually be good, though technically punishments also have the secondary effects of determent and protecting society.
- notch898a 4y ago
  >By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? This makes no sense at all. You can't impose much punishment past life; I was never proposing SUBTRACTING time for offending the judge just not adding it. I'm baffled by your logic. I was comparing the above offered differences of life to 10 years, which the difference of the two is life minus 10. >It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. The law isn't about bad and good though. Growing a pot plant could possibly be "not bad" but still be illegal. Selling a prescription opiate in some circumstances may be "bad" but legal. The law is in essence a description of punishments for behaviors that may or may not have objective connection to good or bad. Also I reject the thesis that 10 years versus something more must make them more "good" and in fact hypothesize it may have the opposite effect. IMO the judge should be objective purveyors of the law. Your 1A opinion to whether your breaking of the law was good or bad should be irrelevent to senencing. If somebody says "fuck the law and I'd be happy to do it again" even regarding events of horrible violence IMO should be first amendment protected speech free from additional punishment. Of course these are mere opinions, and not to suggest yours is wrong.
zirgs 4y ago
By going to trial he increased the mandatory minimum to 20 years. He told bullshit stories to the court that basically insulted everyone's intelligence and refused to admit guilt and tell the truth. He also refused to apologise to his victims. He was basically caught with his pants down - logged into SR mastermind account and his laptop was full of incriminating evidence. And after all that he still said that he was not the DPR and didn't own the SR server. His offence level was off the charts and he treated everyone as if they were idiots. Why would the judge be lenient after all that?
- notch898a 4y ago
  Who were his victims? Were there people forced to buy from the silk road? I'm not even going to address the conspiracy for murder which was literally offered by the government and/or informants and shoe-horned in by playing fuck fuck games about what was the overt act under a conspiracy conviction that never required the murder piece for the conviction. The jury never signaled that the overt act they counted for the conspiracy was the murder allegations, nor was he convicted of anything involving murder. Honestly it's pretty hilarious to note the government was like "look, it's violent because the government arrived and offered violence." Hopefully they locked away the officials and the informants/undercovers offering this violence as well, if indeed it is to be treated as genuine violence.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    Corrupt government agents were involved in only one of those fake murders. And yes - both of them were convicted and jailed. The other 5 were organised by a Canadian scammer who also stole a lot of money from Silk Road customers. The whole case is hilarious. Some dude goes to SR and robs his customers blind. And then he approaches the site admin, pretends to be a Hell's Angels member and offers to kill the scammer for money. And then steals that money too. Oh and if I recall correctly - he then asked Ross for some money up front and promised to sell a large amount of drugs on SR. He stole that money too and disappeared. So even if we consider that one murder to be entrapment. Ross is still guilty of the other 5, because law enforcement wasn't involved in those in any way. Paying for 5 murders to other criminals makes you a violent criminal. Even if those other criminals turn out to be scammers.

Sebb767 4y ago

> Should the penalty for upsetting a judge be life minus the 10 years you were already looking at? By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? > This just tells me the justice system is fucked. It's not. It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. You can also frame it as them being 'closer' to living a good life and therefore needing less punishment to get them to actually be good, though technically punishments also have the secondary effects of determent and protecting society.

notch898a 4y ago
>By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? This makes no sense at all. You can't impose much punishment past life; I was never proposing SUBTRACTING time for offending the judge just not adding it. I'm baffled by your logic. I was comparing the above offered differences of life to 10 years, which the difference of the two is life minus 10. >It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. The law isn't about bad and good though. Growing a pot plant could possibly be "not bad" but still be illegal. Selling a prescription opiate in some circumstances may be "bad" but legal. The law is in essence a description of punishments for behaviors that may or may not have objective connection to good or bad. Also I reject the thesis that 10 years versus something more must make them more "good" and in fact hypothesize it may have the opposite effect. IMO the judge should be objective purveyors of the law. Your 1A opinion to whether your breaking of the law was good or bad should be irrelevent to senencing. If somebody says "fuck the law and I'd be happy to do it again" even regarding events of horrible violence IMO should be first amendment protected speech free from additional punishment. Of course these are mere opinions, and not to suggest yours is wrong.

zirgs 4y ago

By going to trial he increased the mandatory minimum to 20 years. He told bullshit stories to the court that basically insulted everyone's intelligence and refused to admit guilt and tell the truth. He also refused to apologise to his victims. He was basically caught with his pants down - logged into SR mastermind account and his laptop was full of incriminating evidence. And after all that he still said that he was not the DPR and didn't own the SR server. His offence level was off the charts and he treated everyone as if they were idiots. Why would the judge be lenient after all that?

notch898a 4y ago
Who were his victims? Were there people forced to buy from the silk road? I'm not even going to address the conspiracy for murder which was literally offered by the government and/or informants and shoe-horned in by playing fuck fuck games about what was the overt act under a conspiracy conviction that never required the murder piece for the conviction. The jury never signaled that the overt act they counted for the conspiracy was the murder allegations, nor was he convicted of anything involving murder. Honestly it's pretty hilarious to note the government was like "look, it's violent because the government arrived and offered violence." Hopefully they locked away the officials and the informants/undercovers offering this violence as well, if indeed it is to be treated as genuine violence.
- zirgs 4y ago
  Corrupt government agents were involved in only one of those fake murders. And yes - both of them were convicted and jailed. The other 5 were organised by a Canadian scammer who also stole a lot of money from Silk Road customers. The whole case is hilarious. Some dude goes to SR and robs his customers blind. And then he approaches the site admin, pretends to be a Hell's Angels member and offers to kill the scammer for money. And then steals that money too. Oh and if I recall correctly - he then asked Ross for some money up front and promised to sell a large amount of drugs on SR. He stole that money too and disappeared. So even if we consider that one murder to be entrapment. Ross is still guilty of the other 5, because law enforcement wasn't involved in those in any way. Paying for 5 murders to other criminals makes you a violent criminal. Even if those other criminals turn out to be scammers.