4 ms·

But yet not evidence he was convicted of anything but non-violent internet crime.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> not evidence he was convicted of anything but non-violent internet crime I'm not sure where one is supposed to find sympathy for someone convicted of a crime, and looking likely to have attempted violent crimes, having their sentence strengthened on the latter's basis (within the confines of the primary sentence's guidelines). Should Al Capone have been treated like a usual tax dodger? Of course not. He's a high risk to others in his prison as well as to society. We don't require beyond reasonable doubt for sentencing because it doesn't make sense.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Should Al Capone have been treated like a usual tax dodger? Of course. Al Capone being cited so often is precisely why I believe he should have been treated like a usual tax dodger for the tax crimes and treated like a murderer for any murder convictions. I would much rather Al Capone go free than short-circuit justice in this way.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > short-circuit justice in this way I'm failing to see the short circuiting. Tax dodging sentencing guidelines have a range. Capone was sentenced within that range. Same as Ulbricht. We don't re-hear a trial in front of a jury every time someone is sentenced because the jury has already rendered the verdict. Sentencing is a complicated subject which balances not only justice, but also the safety of the prisoner and their fellow prisoners.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Do you truly see nothing wrong with creating a generic conspiracy charge, showing beyond a reasonable doubt that some element of that conspiracy was true, and then saying "sentence him for any element the judge finds true by preponderance of the evidence, no matter if that was the element(s) on which the jury convicted him." I can't say I'm thrilled that the standard is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, unless we find you guilty of some other element, in which case murder-for-hire magically becomes preponderance of evidence. I will say the justice system and society agrees with you, so I acknowledge this is one of those times I just have to sit here with a profound sadness about something over which I have little control.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > the standard is guilty beyond reasonable of a doubt, unless we find you guilty of some other element, in which case murder-for-hire magically becomes preponderance of evidence You're dodging the fact that the sentence was given for the convicted crime within that crime's sentencing guidelines. Juries don't give sentences, judges do. What if not looking at additional factors do you think the judge is supposed to be doing? If the crimes Ulbricht had been convicted of had a 10-year maximum, and the judge sentenced him to more on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, I'd see your point. But that isn't what happened.
        kelnos 4y ago
        But I think the people in this subthread believe that the judge's possible belief that Ulbricht had committed other, violent crimes influenced his sentencing decision. That is, in the absence of suspicion of other crimes, he would have gotten a much less severe sentence. I get that judges have to use all sorts of discretion when doing sentencing, and despite the "points system" around that, still have some leeway. My view is that judges should not be looking at other crimes that they may believe the defendant has committed -- even if they were not charged or not convicted -- and include that information in their sentencing decisions. I can't say for certain, of course, that's what happened here. Maybe in Ulbrict's case, justice actually was served. Maybe he did those other things, and in a perfect world, sufficient evidence would have been found, and he would have been convicted of more serious charges. But we don't live in that perfect world, and for every Ulbricht who gets this "correct" treatment, there are certainly several others who get an overly-harsh sentence (still within guidelines, but harsher than is warranted) because people believe they did other stuff that couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      > Tax dodging sentencing guidelines have a range. Capone was sentenced within that range. Presumably the implication here is that he was sentenced at the high end of that range. Was his sentence appropriate for the severity of his tax dodge, or was it pushed to the higher end of the range because of his other crimes, that he was never convicted of? If the latter, then that's a real problem!
- kelnos 4y ago
  That seems to be a pretty weird view to me. If you're convicted of crime X, you should be sentenced base on crime X, not on what other things everyone believes you actually did, but for which sufficient evidence can't be found to convict. You seem to be advocating for a legal system where it's fine to punish people for things they haven't actually been convicted of doing. Regardless of what we may think of Al Capone, or "know" that he did, I think I would much rather let an Al-Capone-type off with the comparatively light sentence of a tax-dodger, than risk a harsh sentence for someone who didn't do the unproven things that people nevertheless "know" they did. Because of course that will happen.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    The genius of many conspiracy charges is the crime is basically "did bad stuff" where "bad stuff" is anything from drug distribution to murder. So whether ross killed or distributed the drugs, he was guilty of X. The genius of the conspiracy charge is the jury can be convinced of drug distribution but not the murder. And the judge could be convinced it was murder and not distribution. But they both fall under "bad stuff" so the judge isn't even wrong when they sentence him for "bad stuff" as murder is "bad stuff." The fact that the elements of bad stuff for the judge is different than elements of bad stuff for the jury is almost an after thought. And hey, you can't say he didn't do bad stuff. Taken this to the extreme, I wonder if someday they will have a crime that is just called "felony." The jury just has to be convinced you smoked a left handed cigarette, at which point obviously you're guilty of "felony." Then the judge can promptly forget about the cigarette and decide on preponderance of the evidence just what elemenst of "felony" you comitted and sentence that based on what she thinks is more likely than not.

> not evidence he was convicted of anything but non-violent internet crime I'm not sure where one is supposed to find sympathy for someone convicted of a crime, and looking likely to have attempted violent crimes, having their sentence strengthened on the latter's basis (within the confines of the primary sentence's guidelines). Should Al Capone have been treated like a usual tax dodger? Of course not. He's a high risk to others in his prison as well as to society. We don't require beyond reasonable doubt for sentencing because it doesn't make sense.

notch898a 4y ago
Should Al Capone have been treated like a usual tax dodger? Of course. Al Capone being cited so often is precisely why I believe he should have been treated like a usual tax dodger for the tax crimes and treated like a murderer for any murder convictions. I would much rather Al Capone go free than short-circuit justice in this way.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > short-circuit justice in this way I'm failing to see the short circuiting. Tax dodging sentencing guidelines have a range. Capone was sentenced within that range. Same as Ulbricht. We don't re-hear a trial in front of a jury every time someone is sentenced because the jury has already rendered the verdict. Sentencing is a complicated subject which balances not only justice, but also the safety of the prisoner and their fellow prisoners.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Do you truly see nothing wrong with creating a generic conspiracy charge, showing beyond a reasonable doubt that some element of that conspiracy was true, and then saying "sentence him for any element the judge finds true by preponderance of the evidence, no matter if that was the element(s) on which the jury convicted him." I can't say I'm thrilled that the standard is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, unless we find you guilty of some other element, in which case murder-for-hire magically becomes preponderance of evidence. I will say the justice system and society agrees with you, so I acknowledge this is one of those times I just have to sit here with a profound sadness about something over which I have little control.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > the standard is guilty beyond reasonable of a doubt, unless we find you guilty of some other element, in which case murder-for-hire magically becomes preponderance of evidence You're dodging the fact that the sentence was given for the convicted crime within that crime's sentencing guidelines. Juries don't give sentences, judges do. What if not looking at additional factors do you think the judge is supposed to be doing? If the crimes Ulbricht had been convicted of had a 10-year maximum, and the judge sentenced him to more on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, I'd see your point. But that isn't what happened.
      - kelnos 4y ago
        But I think the people in this subthread believe that the judge's possible belief that Ulbricht had committed other, violent crimes influenced his sentencing decision. That is, in the absence of suspicion of other crimes, he would have gotten a much less severe sentence. I get that judges have to use all sorts of discretion when doing sentencing, and despite the "points system" around that, still have some leeway. My view is that judges should not be looking at other crimes that they may believe the defendant has committed -- even if they were not charged or not convicted -- and include that information in their sentencing decisions. I can't say for certain, of course, that's what happened here. Maybe in Ulbrict's case, justice actually was served. Maybe he did those other things, and in a perfect world, sufficient evidence would have been found, and he would have been convicted of more serious charges. But we don't live in that perfect world, and for every Ulbricht who gets this "correct" treatment, there are certainly several others who get an overly-harsh sentence (still within guidelines, but harsher than is warranted) because people believe they did other stuff that couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > Tax dodging sentencing guidelines have a range. Capone was sentenced within that range. Presumably the implication here is that he was sentenced at the high end of that range. Was his sentence appropriate for the severity of his tax dodge, or was it pushed to the higher end of the range because of his other crimes, that he was never convicted of? If the latter, then that's a real problem!
kelnos 4y ago
That seems to be a pretty weird view to me. If you're convicted of crime X, you should be sentenced base on crime X, not on what other things everyone believes you actually did, but for which sufficient evidence can't be found to convict. You seem to be advocating for a legal system where it's fine to punish people for things they haven't actually been convicted of doing. Regardless of what we may think of Al Capone, or "know" that he did, I think I would much rather let an Al-Capone-type off with the comparatively light sentence of a tax-dodger, than risk a harsh sentence for someone who didn't do the unproven things that people nevertheless "know" they did. Because of course that will happen.
- notch898a 4y ago
  The genius of many conspiracy charges is the crime is basically "did bad stuff" where "bad stuff" is anything from drug distribution to murder. So whether ross killed or distributed the drugs, he was guilty of X. The genius of the conspiracy charge is the jury can be convinced of drug distribution but not the murder. And the judge could be convinced it was murder and not distribution. But they both fall under "bad stuff" so the judge isn't even wrong when they sentence him for "bad stuff" as murder is "bad stuff." The fact that the elements of bad stuff for the judge is different than elements of bad stuff for the jury is almost an after thought. And hey, you can't say he didn't do bad stuff. Taken this to the extreme, I wonder if someday they will have a crime that is just called "felony." The jury just has to be convinced you smoked a left handed cigarette, at which point obviously you're guilty of "felony." Then the judge can promptly forget about the cigarette and decide on preponderance of the evidence just what elemenst of "felony" you comitted and sentence that based on what she thinks is more likely than not.