5 ms·
People have served more time for selling less drugs and attempting to murder fewer people than Ross Ulbricht did. Just because he was decent with computers doe
by LarsDu88 2y ago
People have served more time for selling less drugs and attempting to murder fewer people than Ross Ulbricht did.
Just because he was decent with computers does not mean he should be busted out of jail.
- rappatic 2y agoWhat makes you think I support those people being locked up either? Also, afaik Ulbricht didn't sell drugs himself, he simply provided an unmoderated marketplace.
- arcticbull 2y agoBecause attempted murder is bad. I didn't think that would be contentious.
- Nezghul 2y agoIf the law is unethical then you may be pushed to do "bad" things. For example if you are a Jew living with family in a Nazi Germany and someone know your secret and he feels he need to disclose it to the authorities then you may consider... murdering him. Would you really be a bad guy?
- arcticbull 2y agoThe hypothetical is simply a bob and weave. Hiring a contract killer to execute a business rival is clear and unequivocal.
- tveita 2y ago> afaik Ulbricht didn't sell drugs himself FWIW he kickstarted the marketplace by selling shrooms that he grew himself. Hardly the worst he did. Note a certain Trumps position on the issue though: "We're going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts," https://reason.com/2023/10/24/trump-who-freed-drug-offenders-also-wants-to-kill-them/ https://reason.com/2023/10/24/trump-who-freed-drug-offenders...
- scarab92 2y agoThe attempted murder charge was dropped. Under our system that means he should be considered innocent of it. This conversation is messy mostly because people are refusing to do that, which is akin to vigilantism. A good faith discussion should only involve the charge he was convicted of and pardoned for, which is the narcotics charge.
- muddi900 2y agoThe prosecution dropped the charges. That does not make anyone innocent.
- scarab92 2y agoThe presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges.
- beezle 2y agoIt is also the case that prosecutors need to decide both the probability of conviction, the effort needed to do so and whether likely conviction on other serious charges are sufficient for the people to feel that justice has been done.
- parineum 2y agoAnd if the prosecution doesn't like the probability of conviction, they doubt their ability to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt. There can be whatever reason he wasn't convicted, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't and presumed innocence is the legal default.
- jcranmer 2y ago> The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. That should be "considered innocent by the legal system". People are still free to come to their own conclusions--and act on them--even without a jury rendering a verdict. Rather famously, for example, OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of murdering his wife. But most people these days would agree with the statement that he murdered his wife.
- eviks 2y agoPeople also served no time for selling more drugs and actually murdering more people.