4 ms·

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 t

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.

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.