5 ms·

Keep in mind that he spent 11 years locked up. He's not getting off lightly!

bb88 2y ago
It's still not enough.
mplewis 2y ago
What do you mean "lightly?" He ran an illegal drug market and tried to assassinate a competitor. We gave him the punishment that society has determined one should receive for this. Revoking his punishment is "light."
- TheAmazingRace 2y ago
  Hence why, if DPR was going to get off somehow, a sentence commutation would have been better rather than an unconditional pardon. The latter implies he did absolutely nothing wrong, which hilariously runs counter to Trump's supposed tough on drugs and crime shtick he has.
- timewizard 2y ago
  The judge issued the punishment at their sole discretion. The legislature sets the laws often without any input from the constituency. Meanwhile a sizable campaign has materialized around this case and many people do feel he has done enough time and should be free without any restrictions
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > many people do feel he has done enough time and should be free without any restrictions This could be said for any number of people rightfully detained by the US for crimes of incredible magnitude.
    - timewizard 2y ago
      Which is why "jury nullification" still exists. Just because a law exists does not mean the public good is automatically improved by blithely enforcing it with zero tolerance.
      - WrongAssumption 2y ago
        Jury nullification isn’t granted existence. It’s not an express power, it’s just a natural consequence of the jury system. It’s not possible to make it not exist.
  - cbsmith 2y ago
    That almost sounds like what commutation is for. It's certainly not what pardons are for.
tdb7893 2y ago
I'm just shocked it was a full pardon instead of a commutation or something. I don't think the US is gaining a ton from keeping him locked up but he still did run an organization he knew was used for selling drugs and other illegal things and a full pardon for that seems weird. I feel like I mainly heard people talking about commuting his sentence
- timewizard 2y ago
  Is there some reason he should not be allowed to vote, own a firearm, or receive federal benefits?
  - nateglims 2y ago
    He was convicted and the party of law and order typically views these punitive post release measures to be part of the punishment.
  - sophacles 2y ago
    Yes. He was convicted of several crimes.
  - lokar 2y ago
    Why should he be treated differently then people who committed similar crimes?
  - arp242 2y ago
    No one said anything about voting or benefits? That's an entire different discussion. It's just that, in layman's terms, a pardon means "you did nothing wrong", whereas a commutation means "you did something wrong but were sentenced too harshly". As far as I know that's also what it more or less means legally (with some nuance). I'm absolutely not a fan of "tough on crime" sentencing, but he absolutely did do something wrong, even if we ignore the contended "murder for hire" claims he should have been sent to prison for a number of years (personally, I'd say about 5-10 years). This is also by Ulbricht's own admission by the way.
- liquidify 2y ago

bb88 2y ago

It's still not enough.

What do you mean "lightly?" He ran an illegal drug market and tried to assassinate a competitor. We gave him the punishment that society has determined one should receive for this. Revoking his punishment is "light."

TheAmazingRace 2y ago
Hence why, if DPR was going to get off somehow, a sentence commutation would have been better rather than an unconditional pardon. The latter implies he did absolutely nothing wrong, which hilariously runs counter to Trump's supposed tough on drugs and crime shtick he has.
timewizard 2y ago
The judge issued the punishment at their sole discretion. The legislature sets the laws often without any input from the constituency. Meanwhile a sizable campaign has materialized around this case and many people do feel he has done enough time and should be free without any restrictions
- talldayo 2y ago
  > many people do feel he has done enough time and should be free without any restrictions This could be said for any number of people rightfully detained by the US for crimes of incredible magnitude.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    Which is why "jury nullification" still exists. Just because a law exists does not mean the public good is automatically improved by blithely enforcing it with zero tolerance.
    - WrongAssumption 2y ago
      Jury nullification isn’t granted existence. It’s not an express power, it’s just a natural consequence of the jury system. It’s not possible to make it not exist.
- cbsmith 2y ago
  That almost sounds like what commutation is for. It's certainly not what pardons are for.

tdb7893 2y ago

I'm just shocked it was a full pardon instead of a commutation or something. I don't think the US is gaining a ton from keeping him locked up but he still did run an organization he knew was used for selling drugs and other illegal things and a full pardon for that seems weird. I feel like I mainly heard people talking about commuting his sentence

timewizard 2y ago
Is there some reason he should not be allowed to vote, own a firearm, or receive federal benefits?
- nateglims 2y ago
  He was convicted and the party of law and order typically views these punitive post release measures to be part of the punishment.
- sophacles 2y ago
  Yes. He was convicted of several crimes.
- lokar 2y ago
  Why should he be treated differently then people who committed similar crimes?
- arp242 2y ago
  No one said anything about voting or benefits? That's an entire different discussion. It's just that, in layman's terms, a pardon means "you did nothing wrong", whereas a commutation means "you did something wrong but were sentenced too harshly". As far as I know that's also what it more or less means legally (with some nuance). I'm absolutely not a fan of "tough on crime" sentencing, but he absolutely did do something wrong, even if we ignore the contended "murder for hire" claims he should have been sent to prison for a number of years (personally, I'd say about 5-10 years). This is also by Ulbricht's own admission by the way.
liquidify 2y ago