5 ms·

His original sentence was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. So you can’t agree with the original sentence and then say he “absolutely deserv

by jyap 2y ago

His original sentence was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. So you can’t agree with the original sentence and then say he “absolutely deserved to be released.” Without the chance of parole, a pardon from the president is one of the few ways he could get out of jail.

rappatic 2y ago
Good point, you are absolutely correct. Then I suppose life “with the possibility of parole” would have been a more appropriate sentence, though I don’t know if that’s typically given. In any case, I feel prisons ought to release prisoners if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has, though of course that’s a difficult line to draw in practice.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  Life imprisonment – with or without parole – for a non-violent crime still seems excessive. If they'd convicted him of conspiracy to murder for hiring the hitman then that's a different matter.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    He only allegedly needed to hire a hitman because the government invented the whole blackmail scenario behind it. You can't make this shit up, Silk Road was extra evil because it lead to the government creating hitmen and reasons to use them. We need gangster hoodlums on the street because lookie here sonny, an online marketplace is dangerous and if it isn't dangerous enough well feds will make it that way.
    - Thorrez 2y ago
      >He only allegedly needed to hire a hitman You don't need to hire a hitman when someone blackmails you.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    The non-violent crime part doesn't work for me. He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes. That's quite clear.
    - naasking 2y ago
      > He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes. I don't like this argument of imputing transitive guilt. If guilt is imputed indirectly, then all of us are guilty of many things, like atrocities that our countries have perpetrated during war.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit. Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime.
        naasking 2y ago
        > Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime Right, because we recognize that indirect, transitive blame is ethically problematic. > He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit. So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison? "Enabling" is exactly the kind of weasel word that I find problematic. It has no strict definition and can be broadened to suit whatever is needed to condemn an action you happen to dislike in any given scenario.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        > So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison? Do you think two wrongs make a right?
  - BargirPezza 2y ago
    He was steering the biggest black market on darknet, that is pretty bad
- Thorrez 2y ago
  >if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has He seems to be denying that he hired hitmen: https://youtu.be/zHMVyr5NjEY?si=GC1RhHhgLxe8gUOL&t=801 https://youtu.be/zHMVyr5NjEY?si=GC1RhHhgLxe8gUOL&t=801
ec109685 2y ago
Commuting is the typical response for “he was totally guilty but sentenced too long”.
ttul 2y ago
As an aside, in Canada, a sentence of life without parole is considered unlawful because it conflicts with Section 12 of the Charter guarantees that individuals have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have ruled that life without the possibility of parole deprives offenders of any hope of rehabilitation or reintegration into society, which could amount to cruel and unusual treatment. A sentence must balance the gravity of the offense with the circumstances of the offender, while still allowing for hope and redemption. A life sentence without parole forecloses this balance. It's always struck me as odd that the United States - a nation that is packed with far more Christians than Canada - doesn't shape its system of incarceration to be more inline with Christian values and the teachings of Jesus. Canada's explicit rejection of life sentences without parole (LWOP) through decisions like R v Bissonnette more closely aligns with Jesus's teachings about redemption and mercy. In Canada, even those convicted of the most serious crimes retain the possibility of parole - not a guarantee of release, but a recognition of the potential for rehabilitation that echoes Jesus's teachings about transformation and second chances. This philosophical difference manifests in several ways: - In Canada, the emphasis on rehabilitation over retribution is reflected in the term "correctional services" rather than "penitentiary system" - Canadian prisons generally offer more rehabilitative programs and education opportunities - The Canadian system places greater emphasis on Indigenous healing lodges and restorative justice practices that align with Jesus's focus on healing broken relationships - Canadian courts have explicitly recognized that denying hope of release violates human dignity, which parallels Jesus's teachings about the inherent worth of every person The contrast becomes particularly stark when considering multiple murders. While many US jurisdictions impose multiple life sentences to be served consecutively (effectively ensuring death in prison), the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled this practice unconstitutional, maintaining that even the worst offenders should retain the possibility - though not guarantee - of earning redemption through genuine rehabilitation. This doesn't mean Canada is soft on crime - serious offenders still serve lengthy sentences, and parole is never guaranteed. But the maintenance of hope for eventual redemption, even in the worst cases, better reflects Jesus's teachings about grace, transformation, and the limitless possibility of spiritual renewal. The irony is particularly pointed given that the US has a much higher proportion of self-identified Christians than Canada, yet has adopted a more retributive approach that seems less aligned with Jesus's teachings about mercy and redemption. But hey, you just have to wait for the right president to be elected and you might get your chance. So I guess that's something.

by jyap 2y ago

rappatic 2y ago

Good point, you are absolutely correct. Then I suppose life “with the possibility of parole” would have been a more appropriate sentence, though I don’t know if that’s typically given. In any case, I feel prisons ought to release prisoners if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has, though of course that’s a difficult line to draw in practice.

ascorbic 2y ago
Life imprisonment – with or without parole – for a non-violent crime still seems excessive. If they'd convicted him of conspiracy to murder for hiring the hitman then that's a different matter.
- ty6853 2y ago
  He only allegedly needed to hire a hitman because the government invented the whole blackmail scenario behind it. You can't make this shit up, Silk Road was extra evil because it lead to the government creating hitmen and reasons to use them. We need gangster hoodlums on the street because lookie here sonny, an online marketplace is dangerous and if it isn't dangerous enough well feds will make it that way.
  - Thorrez 2y ago
    >He only allegedly needed to hire a hitman You don't need to hire a hitman when someone blackmails you.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  The non-violent crime part doesn't work for me. He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes. That's quite clear.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes. I don't like this argument of imputing transitive guilt. If guilt is imputed indirectly, then all of us are guilty of many things, like atrocities that our countries have perpetrated during war.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit. Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime.
      - naasking 2y ago
        > Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime Right, because we recognize that indirect, transitive blame is ethically problematic. > He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit. So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison? "Enabling" is exactly the kind of weasel word that I find problematic. It has no strict definition and can be broadened to suit whatever is needed to condemn an action you happen to dislike in any given scenario.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        > So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison? Do you think two wrongs make a right?
- BargirPezza 2y ago
  He was steering the biggest black market on darknet, that is pretty bad
Thorrez 2y ago
>if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has He seems to be denying that he hired hitmen: https://youtu.be/zHMVyr5NjEY?si=GC1RhHhgLxe8gUOL&t=801 https://youtu.be/zHMVyr5NjEY?si=GC1RhHhgLxe8gUOL&t=801

ec109685 2y ago

Commuting is the typical response for “he was totally guilty but sentenced too long”.

ttul 2y ago

As an aside, in Canada, a sentence of life without parole is considered unlawful because it conflicts with Section 12 of the Charter guarantees that individuals have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have ruled that life without the possibility of parole deprives offenders of any hope of rehabilitation or reintegration into society, which could amount to cruel and unusual treatment. A sentence must balance the gravity of the offense with the circumstances of the offender, while still allowing for hope and redemption. A life sentence without parole forecloses this balance. It's always struck me as odd that the United States - a nation that is packed with far more Christians than Canada - doesn't shape its system of incarceration to be more inline with Christian values and the teachings of Jesus. Canada's explicit rejection of life sentences without parole (LWOP) through decisions like R v Bissonnette more closely aligns with Jesus's teachings about redemption and mercy. In Canada, even those convicted of the most serious crimes retain the possibility of parole - not a guarantee of release, but a recognition of the potential for rehabilitation that echoes Jesus's teachings about transformation and second chances. This philosophical difference manifests in several ways: - In Canada, the emphasis on rehabilitation over retribution is reflected in the term "correctional services" rather than "penitentiary system" - Canadian prisons generally offer more rehabilitative programs and education opportunities - The Canadian system places greater emphasis on Indigenous healing lodges and restorative justice practices that align with Jesus's focus on healing broken relationships - Canadian courts have explicitly recognized that denying hope of release violates human dignity, which parallels Jesus's teachings about the inherent worth of every person The contrast becomes particularly stark when considering multiple murders. While many US jurisdictions impose multiple life sentences to be served consecutively (effectively ensuring death in prison), the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled this practice unconstitutional, maintaining that even the worst offenders should retain the possibility - though not guarantee - of earning redemption through genuine rehabilitation. This doesn't mean Canada is soft on crime - serious offenders still serve lengthy sentences, and parole is never guaranteed. But the maintenance of hope for eventual redemption, even in the worst cases, better reflects Jesus's teachings about grace, transformation, and the limitless possibility of spiritual renewal. The irony is particularly pointed given that the US has a much higher proportion of self-identified Christians than Canada, yet has adopted a more retributive approach that seems less aligned with Jesus's teachings about mercy and redemption. But hey, you just have to wait for the right president to be elected and you might get your chance. So I guess that's something.