5 ms·

Did you read my comment? I said: > even though the charge of hiring a contract killer to assassinate his business competition may have been dropped Just becau

Did you read my comment? I said: > even though the charge of hiring a contract killer to assassinate his business competition may have been dropped Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it. In fact, reading the chat logs makes his guilt pretty clear. Of course, because the whole operation was a scam, there's little he could have been convicted of. Yet just because the murder was never carried out doesn't mean he didn't intend to have someone assassinated. In my book, paying someone money to kill another person is definitely grounds for imprisonment.

scarab92 2y ago
> Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it That’s exactly what it means under the presumption of innocence. Advocating for the continued imprisonment of someone for something they are legally considered innocent of, is quite literally vigilantism.
bko 2y ago
So you think people should be sentenced based on charges that were not proven in court?
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  So you should apologize for not paying attention to the original comment before stamping in to 'correct' it. A little manners goes a long way.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway81523 2y ago
  That happens all the time, when people confess to a charge ahead of time, instead of proceeding to a trial. Remember that the purpose of the trial is to find out whether they are guilty when there is a factual dispute about that question. Here, I suppose the existence of a factual dispute is itself disputed: does that need to go to a jury, or is it enough that the trial judge and the appeal court looked at the record and decided there wasn't a dispute?
  - ec109685 2y ago
    Confessing under the law is the same as being convicted though.
    - throwaway81523 2y ago
      Certainly not always. Sometimes a person will confess a crime under immunity, and not be charged. Ulbricht didn't confess the murder for hire formally, and he wasn't charged with it. The controversy is that his role in it was used to influence the sentencing decision for a different crime.
- rappatic 2y ago
  No. I'm talking more from an ethical standpoint. I think someone who hires contract killers deserves to go to prison. I also think people shouldn't be convicted for charges that were not proven in court. As I said before, in Ross' case, the charge was dropped.
ekianjo 2y ago
> Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it. If you had a trial and they can't prove that, then yes it means you are innocent of this charge in the eyes of the law
- ktallett 2y ago
  Ah that's not strictly true. I believe Scotland is the only place in the world I am aware of where there is Innocent, unproven, and Guilty verdicts. I believe in reality a not guilty verdict is, we didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this person committed the crime. Finding someone not guilty is a legal term. Considering whether someone is innocent or not is more of a moral/factual term.
  - megapolitics 2y ago
    > I believe in reality a not guilty verdict is, we didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this person committed the crime. That’s a description of the Scottish “not proven” verdict, not a “not guilty” verdict.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      That's also a description of the "not guilty" verdict. Guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and "not guilty" is those circumstances that are not Guilty.
    - ktallett 2y ago
      Not proven in Scotland and not guilty in almost every other country are the equivalent. Innocent is the outlier verdict in Scotland that the rest of the world doesn't have.
tptacek 2y ago
The case for this was dropped because he was sentenced for it in the other case.

scarab92 2y ago

> Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it That’s exactly what it means under the presumption of innocence. Advocating for the continued imprisonment of someone for something they are legally considered innocent of, is quite literally vigilantism.

bko 2y ago

So you think people should be sentenced based on charges that were not proven in court?

anigbrowl 2y ago
So you should apologize for not paying attention to the original comment before stamping in to 'correct' it. A little manners goes a long way.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway81523 2y ago
That happens all the time, when people confess to a charge ahead of time, instead of proceeding to a trial. Remember that the purpose of the trial is to find out whether they are guilty when there is a factual dispute about that question. Here, I suppose the existence of a factual dispute is itself disputed: does that need to go to a jury, or is it enough that the trial judge and the appeal court looked at the record and decided there wasn't a dispute?
- ec109685 2y ago
  Confessing under the law is the same as being convicted though.
  - throwaway81523 2y ago
    Certainly not always. Sometimes a person will confess a crime under immunity, and not be charged. Ulbricht didn't confess the murder for hire formally, and he wasn't charged with it. The controversy is that his role in it was used to influence the sentencing decision for a different crime.
rappatic 2y ago
No. I'm talking more from an ethical standpoint. I think someone who hires contract killers deserves to go to prison. I also think people shouldn't be convicted for charges that were not proven in court. As I said before, in Ross' case, the charge was dropped.

ekianjo 2y ago

> Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it. If you had a trial and they can't prove that, then yes it means you are innocent of this charge in the eyes of the law

ktallett 2y ago
Ah that's not strictly true. I believe Scotland is the only place in the world I am aware of where there is Innocent, unproven, and Guilty verdicts. I believe in reality a not guilty verdict is, we didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this person committed the crime. Finding someone not guilty is a legal term. Considering whether someone is innocent or not is more of a moral/factual term.
- megapolitics 2y ago
  > I believe in reality a not guilty verdict is, we didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this person committed the crime. That’s a description of the Scottish “not proven” verdict, not a “not guilty” verdict.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    That's also a description of the "not guilty" verdict. Guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and "not guilty" is those circumstances that are not Guilty.
  - ktallett 2y ago
    Not proven in Scotland and not guilty in almost every other country are the equivalent. Innocent is the outlier verdict in Scotland that the rest of the world doesn't have.

tptacek 2y ago

The case for this was dropped because he was sentenced for it in the other case.