4 ms·

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 hitma

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

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