5 ms·

Alleged criminal conspiracies. If the prosecution of an alleged criminal is undermined by his being able to afford competent defense, we've got a bigger public

Alleged criminal conspiracies. If the prosecution of an alleged criminal is undermined by his being able to afford competent defense, we've got a bigger public policy issue.

tptacek 13y ago
I stipulate that a practice of deliberately undermining defenses is problematic, but that doesn't respond to my question. What's the right public policy? Let's shift the frame to someone unsympathetic at the head of a lucrative conspiracy --- a murderous cartel, say, or an arms dealer.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Presumably we should let them spend enough to get competent counsel, though needing so much money for "competent counsel" is itself an issue.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  What's the policy harm in allowing them to submit a request to unfreeze assets to pay for legal counsel, expert witnesses, etc? Do you honestly believe that proposed harm is worse for society than sham trials, where we're getting convictions simply because people can't defend themselves properly?
- mahyarm 13y ago
  It basically catches the new 'little rich' in exchange for bulldozing over the majority of people caught up by the criminal system. The ones who have personal fortunes under $10 million or have little experience with it. Taking 9/11 at face value, it's like how the response to 9/11 cost the USA so much more than the actual effects of 9/11. After you starting dealing with the 'experienced rich' you find they start becoming skilled in hiding such financial resources. It's even harder when it's an entire multi-national organization and you are not an English speaking country or China. It's the story of marrying a wealthy daughter of some incredibly wealthy family, and finding out in the divorce she only has $5000 to her actual name, and your the one who will be paying alimony to her. Going to the root of the problem in the first place, how do these large criminal organizations even exist? It's because government law going against technological reality have created large market opportunities to exploit in the first place. Governments have created the fertile land for these creatures to exist.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  It basically catches the new 'little rich' in exchange for bulldozing over the majority of people caught up by the criminal system. The ones who have personal fortunes under $10 million or have little experience with it. Taking 9/11 at face value, it's like how the response to 9/11 cost the USA so much more than the actual effects of 9/11. After you starting dealing with the 'experienced rich' you find they start becoming skilled in hiding such financial resources. It's even harder when it's an entire multi-national organization and you are not an English speaking country or China. It's the story of marrying a wealthy daughter of some incredibly wealthy family, and finding out in the divorce she only has $5000 to her actual name, and your the one who will be paying alimony to her. Going to the root of the problem in the first place, how do these large criminal organizations even exist? It's because government law going against technological reality have created large market opportunities to exploit in the first place. Governments have created fertile land for these creatures to exist.
dsrguru 13y ago
I agree with the general sense of your post, and its implications about current drug policy, but I think tptacek is right about what our focus should be in this specific trial. To be intellectually honest about this specific case we're discussing, DPR did by definition commit most of the drug charges. Even if you believe the only morally problematic charge is 5.b of count 1 (that the defendant hired a hitman to murder a troublesome user--I do hope you find that charge problematic!), which is certainly only alleged at this point, it is fact that the Silk Road aided and abetted drug trafficking, which is criminal in the U.S. So while I certainly agree that people need to be entitled to a competent defense (and I am glad DPR will have competent attorneys to dispute the murder charge), emphasizing the alleged nature of a criminal conspiracy that we realistically know to be largely true doesn't seem to be the best place to focus on rights of the accused. In reality, the vast majority of people wrongfully convicted are going to be the ones who can't afford competent defense. So to me this case almost raises the opposite question from yours: if the prosecution of guilty defendants is undermined by their being able to afford better attorneys than the government, and if the defense of wrongfully accused defendants is undermined by their inability to afford competent defense, then we've got bigger problems with the nature of criminal trials!
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It is only alleged that this dude is DPR.
  - dsrguru 13y ago
    Ooooh, I missed that part. Wikipedia (at time of writing) speaks of his identity as certain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_William_Ulbricht#Seizure_and_arrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_William_Ulbricht#Seizure_a... Edit: updated the article to reflect that Ulbricht is only allegedly DPR
- rsanders 13y ago
  I agree with your last point, and was making it in a roundabout way. "How do we convict this guy if he can afford a good lawyer?" and "We'll definitely convict this guy because he can't afford a good lawyer." are both troubling thoughts. Why not freeze the assets of everybody charged with a felony and appoint public defenders? The rest of your post I have some difficulty with. It's almost as though you're saying we don't even need a trial here because the facts are so obviously established. I don't believe it's yet been established in a court of law that any crime was committed, much less that this person committed it.

Alleged criminal conspiracies. If the prosecution of an alleged criminal is undermined by his being able to afford competent defense, we've got a bigger public policy issue.

tptacek 13y ago

I stipulate that a practice of deliberately undermining defenses is problematic, but that doesn't respond to my question. What's the right public policy? Let's shift the frame to someone unsympathetic at the head of a lucrative conspiracy --- a murderous cartel, say, or an arms dealer.

dllthomas 13y ago
Presumably we should let them spend enough to get competent counsel, though needing so much money for "competent counsel" is itself an issue.
DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
What's the policy harm in allowing them to submit a request to unfreeze assets to pay for legal counsel, expert witnesses, etc? Do you honestly believe that proposed harm is worse for society than sham trials, where we're getting convictions simply because people can't defend themselves properly?
mahyarm 13y ago
It basically catches the new 'little rich' in exchange for bulldozing over the majority of people caught up by the criminal system. The ones who have personal fortunes under $10 million or have little experience with it. Taking 9/11 at face value, it's like how the response to 9/11 cost the USA so much more than the actual effects of 9/11. After you starting dealing with the 'experienced rich' you find they start becoming skilled in hiding such financial resources. It's even harder when it's an entire multi-national organization and you are not an English speaking country or China. It's the story of marrying a wealthy daughter of some incredibly wealthy family, and finding out in the divorce she only has $5000 to her actual name, and your the one who will be paying alimony to her. Going to the root of the problem in the first place, how do these large criminal organizations even exist? It's because government law going against technological reality have created large market opportunities to exploit in the first place. Governments have created the fertile land for these creatures to exist.
mahyarm 13y ago
It basically catches the new 'little rich' in exchange for bulldozing over the majority of people caught up by the criminal system. The ones who have personal fortunes under $10 million or have little experience with it. Taking 9/11 at face value, it's like how the response to 9/11 cost the USA so much more than the actual effects of 9/11. After you starting dealing with the 'experienced rich' you find they start becoming skilled in hiding such financial resources. It's even harder when it's an entire multi-national organization and you are not an English speaking country or China. It's the story of marrying a wealthy daughter of some incredibly wealthy family, and finding out in the divorce she only has $5000 to her actual name, and your the one who will be paying alimony to her. Going to the root of the problem in the first place, how do these large criminal organizations even exist? It's because government law going against technological reality have created large market opportunities to exploit in the first place. Governments have created fertile land for these creatures to exist.

dsrguru 13y ago

I agree with the general sense of your post, and its implications about current drug policy, but I think tptacek is right about what our focus should be in this specific trial. To be intellectually honest about this specific case we're discussing, DPR did by definition commit most of the drug charges. Even if you believe the only morally problematic charge is 5.b of count 1 (that the defendant hired a hitman to murder a troublesome user--I do hope you find that charge problematic!), which is certainly only alleged at this point, it is fact that the Silk Road aided and abetted drug trafficking, which is criminal in the U.S. So while I certainly agree that people need to be entitled to a competent defense (and I am glad DPR will have competent attorneys to dispute the murder charge), emphasizing the alleged nature of a criminal conspiracy that we realistically know to be largely true doesn't seem to be the best place to focus on rights of the accused. In reality, the vast majority of people wrongfully convicted are going to be the ones who can't afford competent defense. So to me this case almost raises the opposite question from yours: if the prosecution of guilty defendants is undermined by their being able to afford better attorneys than the government, and if the defense of wrongfully accused defendants is undermined by their inability to afford competent defense, then we've got bigger problems with the nature of criminal trials!

dllthomas 13y ago
It is only alleged that this dude is DPR.
- dsrguru 13y ago
  Ooooh, I missed that part. Wikipedia (at time of writing) speaks of his identity as certain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_William_Ulbricht#Seizure_and_arrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_William_Ulbricht#Seizure_a... Edit: updated the article to reflect that Ulbricht is only allegedly DPR
rsanders 13y ago
I agree with your last point, and was making it in a roundabout way. "How do we convict this guy if he can afford a good lawyer?" and "We'll definitely convict this guy because he can't afford a good lawyer." are both troubling thoughts. Why not freeze the assets of everybody charged with a felony and appoint public defenders? The rest of your post I have some difficulty with. It's almost as though you're saying we don't even need a trial here because the facts are so obviously established. I don't believe it's yet been established in a court of law that any crime was committed, much less that this person committed it.