> You modify a car for better speed and handling. Later it gets used to rob a bank. You go to jail. People modify cars for speed all the time. Most of them hoo

> You modify a car for better speed and handling. Later it gets used to rob a bank. You go to jail. People modify cars for speed all the time. Most of them hoon around tracks or country roads, which isn't a crime - or, at least, is nothing more than a traffic ticket. > You download Tor for a friend of a friend. They use it sell drugs online. You go to jail. People use software to protect their anonymity all the time. Some just don't like the government, others don't like to respect copyright. Not a criminal matter either way. > You sell someone a special hunting rifle (out of season). They use it for poaching. You go to jail. People collect guns all the time. Most of them shoot at paper or clay pigeons or hoon around on the firing range, which isn't illegal. These scenarios compare pretty poorly to what we've heard the person in this case did: he, for years, aided drug trafficking. In the first paragraph he admits to knowing this - when someone pays you money to install an ultra-secret compartment in your vehicle, and when you pull out nearly a million dollars in cash while trying to fix it, you damn well know what's up. If I tune your car up, my expectation isn't that you're robbing a bank. On the other hand, if you bring it for repairs and I discover the problem is twenty bags of sequential bills in the trunk throwing off the suspension, my expectation is going to change pretty quickly. The law isn't a magical thing that you can circumvent with the right incantations, nor should it be. It's better to have this flexibility, not worse. ED: This is a controversial comment, which surprises me a bit. Let me add I'm not much of a fan of the war on drugs. But my central thesis is that allowing the legal system to apply a dose of common sense prevents such things as mandatory minimums and blind sentencing, which is a good thing all around.