4 ms·

I don't see how that should change anyone's opinion on whether the sentence was deserved. Whether it was legally/procedurally correct, sure. Whether he didn't g

by lmm 2y ago

I don't see how that should change anyone's opinion on whether the sentence was deserved. Whether it was legally/procedurally correct, sure. Whether he didn't get the day in court he should have had, sure. But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed, what he deserves is a long prison sentence, and whether that's imposed by a court doing things properly, a court doing things improperly, or a vigilante kidnapper isn't really here or there on that point. (The rule of law is important, and we may let off people who deserve harsh sentences for the sake of preserving it, but it doesn't mean they deserve those sentences any less)

mvdtnz 2y ago
You say the rule of law is important, but also we should impose extra-legal long sentences even if the rule of law doesn't allow us to? How do you reconcile this perspective?
- lmm 2y ago
  I say people sometimes deserve sentences longer than that which the law imposes on them. I didn't say anything about what we should do in that case.
lotharcable 2y ago
> The rule of law is important, The rule of law says innocent until proven guilty. The reason they didn't go after him for murder for hire allegations isn't because they felt bad for him or that they didn't want to waste tax payer's money. The reason they didn't go after him for 'murder for hire' was that they knew there was no merit in it. This is self evident.
- tptacek 2y ago
  They did go after him for "murder for hire"; the murders were part of his conspiracy predicates, and evidence for them was introduced. This stuff about him not being taken all the way through a case charged on murder-for-hire, after receiving a life sentence in a case where those murders were part of the case, is just message board jazz hands.
  - trhway 2y ago
    >case where those murders were part of the case, is just message board jazz hands. you're trying to look like you don't understand or aren't aware that jury didn't convict him of murder-for-hire. He chose a trial by jury, not by a judge. Nevertheless the judge herself decided that he is guilty of the murder-for-hire, and additionally the judge used significantly lower standard than required for conviction.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      That's not what happened at all. You can just read the filings on PACER; I'm sure they're all free on Courtlistener by now.
      - trhway 2y ago
        [flagged]
        tptacek 2y ago
        Feel free to use the search bar to see what's been written (including by me) in the zillion discussions we've had on this case in the past. Again: primary source documentation of what happened in that trial is right there for you to read; you're just a Google search away from it.
pcthrowaway 2y ago
> But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed If there was enough evidence to demonstrate that he attempted to murder someone, why wasn't he charged and convicted of it? Also, 2 of the DEA agents involved in his investigation were convicted of fraud in relation to the case. I do believe he probably did attempt to have someone killed, but I'm far from certain of it, and think it should have no bearing on the case if there's not enough evidence to convict him.
- chrisco255 2y ago
  I don't think he did. The guy who he allegedly ordered a hit on doesn't believe it and argued for Ross's release.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ddorian43 2y ago
    Reminds me of some story where a woman petitioned for the killer of her relative to be released, and after release the killer killed that woman.
    - chrisco255 2y ago
      Strange because it reminds me of some story where an innocent man was framed for murder and a compassionate relative of the murder victim argued for their release and the innocent man went on to live a productive and happy life.
      - ddorian43 2y ago
        It was this: https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1id70an/til_i_learned_about_travis_lewis_a_man_who_killed/ https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1id70an/til_... https://people.com/crime/inside-the-bizarre-case-of-a-killer-striking-twice-23-years-apart-murdering-a-mother-and-daughter/ https://people.com/crime/inside-the-bizarre-case-of-a-killer...
jmb99 2y ago
> But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed, It’s my understanding in the US that you are innocent until proven guilty, right? Therefore, he is indeed innocent of those crimes, since he was not proven guilty. Unless I’m missing something on how the US justice system works.
- drdeca 2y ago
  Their comment wasn’t about what was legally right. I thought the part where they said something like “regardless of whether it is by courts doing things properly, by courts doing things improperly, or by some vigilante” made that clear enough? Whether someone morally deserves a punishment for a crime depends on whether they actually did it, not on whether they are considered innocent in the eyes of the law. Of course, I don’t generally support vigilantism , so I don’t think people should try to make other people get what they think the other people deserve as punishment. But, that doesn’t mean that people can’t deserve worse than the law prescribes, just that people shouldn’t like, try to deliver what they think the deserts are.
- victorbjorklund 2y ago
  That is just the "legal" system. Not whether someone is morally guilty or not. Hitler was never convicted of the holocaust in a court of law. Does that make him morally innocent? No. Bin Ladin was never convicted of 9/11 in a court of law. Does that make him morally innocent? No.

by lmm 2y ago

mvdtnz 2y ago

You say the rule of law is important, but also we should impose extra-legal long sentences even if the rule of law doesn't allow us to? How do you reconcile this perspective?

lmm 2y ago
I say people sometimes deserve sentences longer than that which the law imposes on them. I didn't say anything about what we should do in that case.

lotharcable 2y ago

> The rule of law is important, The rule of law says innocent until proven guilty. The reason they didn't go after him for murder for hire allegations isn't because they felt bad for him or that they didn't want to waste tax payer's money. The reason they didn't go after him for 'murder for hire' was that they knew there was no merit in it. This is self evident.

tptacek 2y ago
They did go after him for "murder for hire"; the murders were part of his conspiracy predicates, and evidence for them was introduced. This stuff about him not being taken all the way through a case charged on murder-for-hire, after receiving a life sentence in a case where those murders were part of the case, is just message board jazz hands.
- trhway 2y ago
  >case where those murders were part of the case, is just message board jazz hands. you're trying to look like you don't understand or aren't aware that jury didn't convict him of murder-for-hire. He chose a trial by jury, not by a judge. Nevertheless the judge herself decided that he is guilty of the murder-for-hire, and additionally the judge used significantly lower standard than required for conviction.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    That's not what happened at all. You can just read the filings on PACER; I'm sure they're all free on Courtlistener by now.
    - trhway 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Feel free to use the search bar to see what's been written (including by me) in the zillion discussions we've had on this case in the past. Again: primary source documentation of what happened in that trial is right there for you to read; you're just a Google search away from it.

pcthrowaway 2y ago

> But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed If there was enough evidence to demonstrate that he attempted to murder someone, why wasn't he charged and convicted of it? Also, 2 of the DEA agents involved in his investigation were convicted of fraud in relation to the case. I do believe he probably did attempt to have someone killed, but I'm far from certain of it, and think it should have no bearing on the case if there's not enough evidence to convict him.

chrisco255 2y ago
I don't think he did. The guy who he allegedly ordered a hit on doesn't believe it and argued for Ross's release.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ddorian43 2y ago
  Reminds me of some story where a woman petitioned for the killer of her relative to be released, and after release the killer killed that woman.
  - chrisco255 2y ago
    Strange because it reminds me of some story where an innocent man was framed for murder and a compassionate relative of the murder victim argued for their release and the innocent man went on to live a productive and happy life.
    - ddorian43 2y ago
      It was this: https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1id70an/til_i_learned_about_travis_lewis_a_man_who_killed/ https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1id70an/til_... https://people.com/crime/inside-the-bizarre-case-of-a-killer-striking-twice-23-years-apart-murdering-a-mother-and-daughter/ https://people.com/crime/inside-the-bizarre-case-of-a-killer...

jmb99 2y ago

> But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed, It’s my understanding in the US that you are innocent until proven guilty, right? Therefore, he is indeed innocent of those crimes, since he was not proven guilty. Unless I’m missing something on how the US justice system works.

drdeca 2y ago
Their comment wasn’t about what was legally right. I thought the part where they said something like “regardless of whether it is by courts doing things properly, by courts doing things improperly, or by some vigilante” made that clear enough? Whether someone morally deserves a punishment for a crime depends on whether they actually did it, not on whether they are considered innocent in the eyes of the law. Of course, I don’t generally support vigilantism , so I don’t think people should try to make other people get what they think the other people deserve as punishment. But, that doesn’t mean that people can’t deserve worse than the law prescribes, just that people shouldn’t like, try to deliver what they think the deserts are.
victorbjorklund 2y ago
That is just the "legal" system. Not whether someone is morally guilty or not. Hitler was never convicted of the holocaust in a court of law. Does that make him morally innocent? No. Bin Ladin was never convicted of 9/11 in a court of law. Does that make him morally innocent? No.