4 ms·

>the libertarian ideals that justify the existence of Silk Road should have their day in court Real trials don't play out like they do in hollywood. You don't

by phaus 12y ago

>the libertarian ideals that justify the existence of Silk Road should have their day in court Real trials don't play out like they do in hollywood. You don't get to spend your time in court talking about your ideology and lobbying for better laws. The entire trial will be about whether or not he's guilty of breaking the laws that already exist.

dmix 12y ago
The defense can object to letting him explain his libertarian viewpoints if they can convince the judge it is not relevant to the case or charges. Which the prosecutor in this case directly attempted during pretrial last month: > Prosecutors in the case against alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht want the court to prohibit Ulbricht from saying almost anything political at all, according to a motion filed last week by the government. > They’re worried that the jury might end up sympathizing with Ulbricht’s politics. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/silk-road-jury-nullification-political/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/silk-road-jury-nullificatio...
- mindslight 12y ago
  If he were being tried by a jury of his peers, it would not need explaining.
  - cynicalkane 12y ago
    That's not what a "jury of one's peers" is.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    'peer group' != legal 'peers'. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jur...
    - phaus 12y ago
      And this is why I hope I never end up on trial for anything. Some types of people are more easy to dislike than others. For example, I have asperger's. I'm pretty certain that if I ever went on trial for anything, my personality would increase the chances that I get convicted.
      - dmix 12y ago
        Criminal lawyers don't let defendants talk for a reason, that is their job.
- themartorana 12y ago
  I'll never understand this - the ability to petition for the judge to disallow a valid defense, because they're scared it might work. That's the entire point of a defense. To me, this goes against every freedom of speech. To not be allowed to defend yourself in any and every way possible is to not be free. Edit: "in any and every truthful way possible" - obviously perjury is perjury.
  - phaus 12y ago
    He shouldn't be allowed to express political views during the trial. It isn't a valid defense because his political views are completely unrelated to the matters at hand. The only purpose of the trial is to determine whether or not he did the things the government says he did. If he did them, then he broke existing laws.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      If that were true, there would be no such thing as Jury Nullification. As long as the concept both exists and is valid, a defense that argues the law itself is in fact a completely valid defense.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
neotek 12y ago
You're missing my point: I don't want him to stand up in court and lecture on the nature of freedom and personal responsibility like something out of Inherit The Wind, I would just like to see him take the rap for what he (probably) did without this silly "it was the one armed man" defense. It's not about the trial, because the trial is lost no matter what he does (regardless of whether or not he's innocent, he's going to jail, guaranteed), it's about nailing your colours to the wall and showing the rest of the world that you're willing to go to jail to stand up for the freedoms you ostensibly believe in. Ulbricht won't be doing any of that, instead he's going to mount a defense that effectively says that his manifesto, his politics, his core beliefs, are all just something to be discarded when it's convenient.
- therealwill 12y ago
  So you want him to be a martyr? With the murder for hire accusations I doubt it...
- phaus 12y ago
  Ahh OK. It appears I did misunderstand you. Well, if he actually did do the things that the government is claiming, I still wouldn't look at him like he's a champion for libertarian ideals. The person who took the actions of which he is accused is interested in only one thing: money.

by phaus 12y ago

dmix 12y ago

The defense can object to letting him explain his libertarian viewpoints if they can convince the judge it is not relevant to the case or charges. Which the prosecutor in this case directly attempted during pretrial last month: > Prosecutors in the case against alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht want the court to prohibit Ulbricht from saying almost anything political at all, according to a motion filed last week by the government. > They’re worried that the jury might end up sympathizing with Ulbricht’s politics. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/silk-road-jury-nullification-political/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/silk-road-jury-nullificatio...

mindslight 12y ago
If he were being tried by a jury of his peers, it would not need explaining.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  That's not what a "jury of one's peers" is.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  'peer group' != legal 'peers'. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jur...
  - phaus 12y ago
    And this is why I hope I never end up on trial for anything. Some types of people are more easy to dislike than others. For example, I have asperger's. I'm pretty certain that if I ever went on trial for anything, my personality would increase the chances that I get convicted.
    - dmix 12y ago
      Criminal lawyers don't let defendants talk for a reason, that is their job.
themartorana 12y ago
I'll never understand this - the ability to petition for the judge to disallow a valid defense, because they're scared it might work. That's the entire point of a defense. To me, this goes against every freedom of speech. To not be allowed to defend yourself in any and every way possible is to not be free. Edit: "in any and every truthful way possible" - obviously perjury is perjury.
- phaus 12y ago
  He shouldn't be allowed to express political views during the trial. It isn't a valid defense because his political views are completely unrelated to the matters at hand. The only purpose of the trial is to determine whether or not he did the things the government says he did. If he did them, then he broke existing laws.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    If that were true, there would be no such thing as Jury Nullification. As long as the concept both exists and is valid, a defense that argues the law itself is in fact a completely valid defense.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

neotek 12y ago

You're missing my point: I don't want him to stand up in court and lecture on the nature of freedom and personal responsibility like something out of Inherit The Wind, I would just like to see him take the rap for what he (probably) did without this silly "it was the one armed man" defense. It's not about the trial, because the trial is lost no matter what he does (regardless of whether or not he's innocent, he's going to jail, guaranteed), it's about nailing your colours to the wall and showing the rest of the world that you're willing to go to jail to stand up for the freedoms you ostensibly believe in. Ulbricht won't be doing any of that, instead he's going to mount a defense that effectively says that his manifesto, his politics, his core beliefs, are all just something to be discarded when it's convenient.

therealwill 12y ago
So you want him to be a martyr? With the murder for hire accusations I doubt it...
phaus 12y ago
Ahh OK. It appears I did misunderstand you. Well, if he actually did do the things that the government is claiming, I still wouldn't look at him like he's a champion for libertarian ideals. The person who took the actions of which he is accused is interested in only one thing: money.