20 ms·

That seems way too harsh to me. I have strong opinions on the US War on Drugs and it's failure to meaningful deal with drug use/abuse in the USA. And I feel eve

That seems way too harsh to me. I have strong opinions on the US War on Drugs and it's failure to meaningful deal with drug use/abuse in the USA. And I feel even worse about how it's spilling out into the rest of the world as we go "global" with everything. I can't say I know every detail of the case but I don't recall anyone getting killed or even hurt by Mr. Ulbricht so in my mind the punishment does not fit the crime. IMHO the death penalty should be off the table completely (go Nebraska!) and life in prison reserved for only violent offenders. You can argue that he enabled people to harm themselves but I think that's stretching it. If people want to take drugs, even take too much drugs their going to get it somewhere. If drugs were legal and treatment of abuse the focus instead of punishment Silk Road wouldn't have existed in the first place.

TylerE 11y ago
There was lots of sleazy stuff going down on SR totally unrelated to drugs...stolen credit cards, weapons, etc.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- my-bullshit-job 11y ago
  Weapons were never on silk road, iirc.
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    Weapons were on SR in the early days, but were removed with the launch of "The Armory", a weapons-specific site. That site didn't last long, and eventually died for lack of interest.
drcode 11y ago
You have to understand that the "murder for hire" evidence was introduced as part of the trial (at which point Ross' lawyer could have disputed it, but didn't) so it could be used as part of the sentencing decision... and that kind of takes the luster off of the "non-violent crime" argument.
- Cantremeber 11y ago
  Plus, it happened multiple times. Even if no one was actually killed the guy still tried to have multiple people killed.
  - thornofmight 11y ago
    The person Ross hired as a hitman was an undercover agent who had been befriending Ross online for over a year.
    - Retric 11y ago
      This may have qualified as entrapment which could be why he was not brought up on charges for this. Still, IMO it is reasonable to bring that up as a character issue.
      - 542458 11y ago
        How would that be entrapment? The police have to remove your ability to make a choice for it to be entrapment. http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
        Retric 11y ago
        They don't have to remove your choice. They need to significantly change your mind. Basically, if the undercover cop suggests X and you say no. Then come on nobody will know, and you say no. And then they spend the next six weeks convincing you it's a good idea, then that's entrapment. The issue is he was on a sting for over a year and that's plenty of time to cross the line. Of note, asking several times and catching someone at a moment of weakness is not entrapment. So, if you have been clean for 10 years then you’re out of luck.
      - omegaham 11y ago
        I don't think that qualifies as entrapment. In general, entrapment is when the police convince you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. So, if you want to kill your wife, and your friend (FBI agent) happens to say one day, "Hey, I do a little killing on the side, just for gits and shiggles," and you hire him, that's not entrapment. In contrast, if the agent is manipulating you and saying, "Hey, your wife is going to divorce you and take your stuff. Killing her is the only way to prevent ruin" and slowly convincing you to do it, then that's entrapment. Bottom line: Already predisposed to doing the crime and probably would have gone through with it if it hadn't been the police? You're screwed. In contrast, if you're normally completely innocent and the person has to convince you to commit the crime, it's entrapment.
icelancer 11y ago
He allegedly hired someone to kill multiple people, by the way. http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss... I agree with you that drug trafficking is way overprosecuted, but...
- izacus 11y ago
  So alleged hearsay is now enough to raise the sentence to a life in prison in US? O.o
  - BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
    It's just amazing to me how just alleging something by press release then withdrawing the allegation from the trial is enough to sentence somebody in the mind of the public. Just look at how people here are voting.
    - mpyne 11y ago
      It's amazing to me how people can be pointed to literally where in a charging document you can find where the government actually included murder-for-hire as part of the charges against Ulbricht and yet "people here" can still manage to avoid seeing it...
      - diyorgasms 11y ago
        Except presumption of innocence is supposed to be a cornerstone of the american justice system. Until that he hired a killer is proven in a criminal court, we all ought to refrain from making the assumption that such accusations in any way reflect the truth of the matter.
        mpyne 11y ago
        His complicity in murder-for-hire was part of Count One of the indictment. The jury convicted him on all Counts. Ergo, his involvement in murder-for-hire has been proven in a criminal court, and I will feel free to repeat that fact ad nauseum.
Nadya 11y ago
See: Portugal Instead of imprisoning for drug usage - provide treatment and rehab. It's cheaper and has better results. One could argue culture differences in drug usage, but that looks like an attempt to "knock it before you try it". That's without going into how broken the US prison system is! See: privately owned prisons that require a quota to be filled [0]. [0] http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/criminal-how-lockup-quotas-and-low-crime-taxes-guarantee-profits-private-prison-corporations http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/criminal-how-lock...
- fat0wl 11y ago
  There is a huge legal difference between getting caught doing drugs vs facilitating the trafficking of mass quantities of controlled substances. I don't think casual marijuana smokers should get all up in arms like "hey man they are just going after everybody now!", do they offer the same support to heroin cartels? Even if you're against the war on drugs I don't think you should really take it as a personal slight when someone operating on this scale gets arrested. Unless you really 100% believe that distribution of heavy narcotics doesn't damage society.
  - dantheman 11y ago
    I'd say that the war on the distribution of heavy narcotics far outweighs any damage down to society by their distribution.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Can read more on policy and its impact here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal Distribution and intent to sell are still illegal. I was specifically referring to the users of drugs.
    - aaron-lebo 11y ago
      And some people may agree with you but it really has nothing to do with what Ulbricht was doing.
maxlybbert 11y ago
I don't believe the death penalty was ever a possibility, following Kennedy v. Louisiana ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana , "the power of the state to impose the death penalty against an individual for committing a crime that did not result in the death of the victim is now limited to crimes against the state (e.g. espionage, treason).")
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  The full quote was: "Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State." (emphasis added)
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    Thank you. I was not aware of that, and to be honest, had never read the full opinion.
  - copperx 11y ago
    The fact that Snowden would probably get death sentence has never sat quite well with me.
pera 11y ago
Indeed. This is an exemplary jail sentence: in theory it should be possible to create a perfect dark market, and there is nothing that the FBI can do about it, so they have to implant fear to try to reduce the amount of people who are willing to create the next SR...
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  I would say that theory would only stand if you lived in Russia, were politically connected, never left Russian territories, and never allowed any sales to CIS/Russian territories. Note the part about being politically connected because the Russian militsia (or w/e they are called these days) will simply be tipped off by the FBI to your whereabouts and go shake you down for hefty taxes. Even if two countries officially don't have any extradition or other MLAT type treaties doesn't mean there isn't low level negotiation between law enforcement, or straight up bribes by the FBI to have local PD shut you down. Maybe you could move to Crimea or Donetsk Republic and get NAF to be your personal bodyguards. I think it's pretty much impossible to run that kind of a global darkmarket otherwise. Even if you were the world's most experienced sysadmin and could lock down your server(s) (and NSA/FBI httpd/nginx/apache 0day doesn't apply) you still have to worry about Bitcoin laundering and many other issues, you'd have to run around like Jason Bourne everyday and nobody can sustain that discipline without making mistakes. You only have to make one mistake and you're joining Ross at ADX Florence (where he's likely going, nobody convicted of the "Kingpin" charge ends up anywhere else besides supermax prisons)
  - pera 11y ago
    I don't see how your location could be relevant here: you are not selling/shipping products from your home, you are only operating an online marketplace. To make things easier: you aren't even making any profit from it, you are just doing it because you support the idea of a drug market or whatever, so there is no laundering.
    - pakled_engineer 11y ago
      It's still conspiracy to traffic narcotics and nobody in their right mind would do so without taking the money since life in prison is likely. Risk must equal reward, and I wouldn't trust any software to protect you from a nation state set on shutting you down. You need the protection of another nation state.
bdcravens 11y ago
I agree. In all likelihood, he'll be found guilty on the murder for hire, which is yet to be tried: give him 20 on the drug marketplace, since he'll likely get life on the murder for hire.
downandout 11y ago
While I also think this is excessive, within the context of the federal sentencing guidelines, this is a proportionate sentence. Because of the amount of drugs involved, along with enhancements for actual or threatened violence during the commission of the crimes and using a computer based "mass-marketing" model to distribute the drugs, the guidelines recommended a sentence of 30 years to Life. Given that there were only aggravating and no mitigating factors, it's easy to see how the judge arrived at life.
tinkerrr 11y ago
In addition to the murders for hire that the other commentators mentioned, the prosecution presented 6 case studies of people dying because of drug overdoses/other related effects of drugs bought on silk road. The prosecution also had two parents in two of these cases come to court to give a statement, one from Boston and one from Australia.
- jabscam2013 11y ago
  How the fuck is that relevant? How many people died last year from taking too much aspirin they bought at Walmart?
Spooky23 11y ago
He ordered the killings of 6 people. Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.
- jMyles 11y ago
  Not everyone is convinced this happened.
  - MadrugadaEterna 11y ago
    I can't upvote you for some retarded reason. But you're correct as far as I'm concerned.
  - srdev 11y ago
    That is because a lot of people are simply ignoring the evidence available since they have an ideological stake in Ross's non-violence. The balance of probability here is that Ross intended to kill 6 people and fucked it up.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      Still, I prefer for the evidence to be presented in an open forum, under oath and subject to rebuttal, before I will believe it. And yes, I think I have a sort of psychological "stake" as you say in Ross' non-violence.
      - srdev 11y ago
        The evidence in question, Ross's journals and chat logs, were presented in trial and subject to rebuttal. He wasn't being tried for those crimes; those charges are still pending, but they were material to the case and the defense failed to dispute them. At the present moment, it is highly probable that he intended to have 6 people, including the innocent roomates of his targets, murdered.
- Squarel 11y ago
  Well, it helps if you are sentenced for things you are convicted of then. Because, even by the "Hang them by the neck until they are dead" gung-ho standards, you generally have to be convicted of something before being punished for it.
hristov 11y ago
In addition to the murder for hire plots, apparently five people died after using drugs purchased on silk road.
- gwern 11y ago
  The prosecution didn't make a very good case for the 5 deaths; a lot of missing information and they were using other drugs and had other health issues.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    By "other health issues", you are might be referring "Jordan M", who was found cold to the touch with Silk Road open on his computer, a looped belt by his dangling arm, and an open express mail package full of heroin on his desk, who was found at autopsy to have died of intoxication by xanax, heroin, and valium --- all three of which he ordered on SR. The "other health issues" here are the fact that "Jordan M." was, as Ulbricht's lawyer described him in his sentencing memo, an "overweight 27-year old black man". It's interesting to note that even if one of these overdose victims had health problems that predisposed them to overdose mortality --- something that is pretty far from being established --- there is actually a legal rule that contemplates this circumstance directly: google "the eggshell skull rule". The prosecution memo invokes the rule.
    - gwern 11y ago
      No, I was referring to Jordan M's other health problems which went well beyond 'overweight', to how the Australian teen had multiple drugs in his system, the lack of autopsy and other relevant documents, and to several other issues raised in Ulbricht's lawyer's original filing criticizing the health issues. I would pull it up out of PACER but I don't feel like spending $3+ again to go through the docket and find the full filing again. tptacek, if you're going to act like an expert on this case, you should read all the documents, not just the indictment and one or two of the shorter things.
      - tptacek 11y ago
oberstein 11y ago
Charlie Manson never killed anyone either. Nevertheless. I expect Ross to waste away just as Manson has, and that by the time he reaches his "old years" that he requested be left to him, and which have now been denied to him, he'll no longer want to leave anyway. That's if he doesn't commit suicide first. It's an unfortunate sentencing and I hope future leaders will treat their opsec more seriously.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- tptacek 11y ago
  Why not hire or even sell hitmen, you can't get into more problem if they get you A bit of a strange argument to make in this particular case.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > When the court give out harsh punishment, they also de-incentivize the next person from limiting the scope to only drugs. [...] Why not hire or even sell hitmen, you can't get into more problem if they get you. One of the factors in the life sentence was that evidence was presented in the trial that Ulbricht did not limit the scope of his enterprise "to only drugs", and that elements of the enterprise included trying to hire a hitman to eliminate problems. So, I think that this case stands for exactly the opposite proposition than "hiring hitmen won't get you into more trouble than restricting your crime to just drugs".
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
vacri 11y ago
That seems way too harsh to me. I have strong opinions on the US War on Drugs and it's failure to meaningful deal with drug use/abuse in the USA. And I feel even worse about how it's spilling out into the rest of the world as we go "global" with everything. The US War on Drugs is ridiculously harmful and shortsighted, absolutely. But the sentencing is consistent with US policy, however wrong it is. People are getting two-figure sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs themselves. Someone who facilitates the selling of an illegal product on a much wider scale should not get a lighter sentence. The whole concept behind the War on Drugs sucks, but this sentence is consistent. If it were a shorter sentence, then it'd be similar to the legal inconsistency around cocaine: the form wealthy white people tend to use (powder cocaine) is much less penalised than the form poor and minority people tend to use (crack cocaine), because...?
smoyer 11y ago
I agree that's it's simply too harsh. I share a bit of his Libertarian views, although as I've grown older I've realized that there's no way the Libertarian philosophy could ever form the paradise many of its practitioners describe.
7952 11y ago
Surely drug traffickers in the USA are complicit with the US Government? They respond to one injustice (victimisation of users) by inflicting another injustice (drug cartel violence). They exploit the law to further their own interests at the expense of innocent bystanders. Yet you act like this guy is some activist who has never hurt anyone!
vegedor 11y ago
> If people want to take drugs, even take too much drugs their going to get it somewhere It's akin to the tragedy of the commons and it's not true. If I don't murder you, you're going to die eventually anyway. Is that legitimate reason for you to let me kill you? This is a pretty good example because death is indeed inevitable, in contrast to the availability of drugs, and also, death is the ultimate problem concerning drug abuse. BTW: It's they're, not their.
sillygoose 11y ago
Of course it's way too harsh. They're making an example out of him. The message here is: "don't even dream of circumventing the monetary system we control". This is just a part of the American police state's burgeoning. People will take drugs regardless of whether there's a Silk Road or not. Well, at least as long as we're still mercifully allowed to use cash, which is not for long if the masses can be successfully conditioned to accept banning it. What's the difference between banning cannabis and banning cash? Both are just orders not to use something, backed by the threat of punishment for disobeying.

TylerE 11y ago

There was lots of sleazy stuff going down on SR totally unrelated to drugs...stolen credit cards, weapons, etc.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
my-bullshit-job 11y ago
Weapons were never on silk road, iirc.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  Weapons were on SR in the early days, but were removed with the launch of "The Armory", a weapons-specific site. That site didn't last long, and eventually died for lack of interest.

drcode 11y ago

You have to understand that the "murder for hire" evidence was introduced as part of the trial (at which point Ross' lawyer could have disputed it, but didn't) so it could be used as part of the sentencing decision... and that kind of takes the luster off of the "non-violent crime" argument.

Cantremeber 11y ago
Plus, it happened multiple times. Even if no one was actually killed the guy still tried to have multiple people killed.
- thornofmight 11y ago
  The person Ross hired as a hitman was an undercover agent who had been befriending Ross online for over a year.
  - Retric 11y ago
    This may have qualified as entrapment which could be why he was not brought up on charges for this. Still, IMO it is reasonable to bring that up as a character issue.
    - 542458 11y ago
      How would that be entrapment? The police have to remove your ability to make a choice for it to be entrapment. http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
      - Retric 11y ago
        They don't have to remove your choice. They need to significantly change your mind. Basically, if the undercover cop suggests X and you say no. Then come on nobody will know, and you say no. And then they spend the next six weeks convincing you it's a good idea, then that's entrapment. The issue is he was on a sting for over a year and that's plenty of time to cross the line. Of note, asking several times and catching someone at a moment of weakness is not entrapment. So, if you have been clean for 10 years then you’re out of luck.
    - omegaham 11y ago
      I don't think that qualifies as entrapment. In general, entrapment is when the police convince you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. So, if you want to kill your wife, and your friend (FBI agent) happens to say one day, "Hey, I do a little killing on the side, just for gits and shiggles," and you hire him, that's not entrapment. In contrast, if the agent is manipulating you and saying, "Hey, your wife is going to divorce you and take your stuff. Killing her is the only way to prevent ruin" and slowly convincing you to do it, then that's entrapment. Bottom line: Already predisposed to doing the crime and probably would have gone through with it if it hadn't been the police? You're screwed. In contrast, if you're normally completely innocent and the person has to convince you to commit the crime, it's entrapment.

icelancer 11y ago

He allegedly hired someone to kill multiple people, by the way. http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss... I agree with you that drug trafficking is way overprosecuted, but...

izacus 11y ago
So alleged hearsay is now enough to raise the sentence to a life in prison in US? O.o
- BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
  It's just amazing to me how just alleging something by press release then withdrawing the allegation from the trial is enough to sentence somebody in the mind of the public. Just look at how people here are voting.
  - mpyne 11y ago
    It's amazing to me how people can be pointed to literally where in a charging document you can find where the government actually included murder-for-hire as part of the charges against Ulbricht and yet "people here" can still manage to avoid seeing it...
    - diyorgasms 11y ago
      Except presumption of innocence is supposed to be a cornerstone of the american justice system. Until that he hired a killer is proven in a criminal court, we all ought to refrain from making the assumption that such accusations in any way reflect the truth of the matter.
      - mpyne 11y ago
        His complicity in murder-for-hire was part of Count One of the indictment. The jury convicted him on all Counts. Ergo, his involvement in murder-for-hire has been proven in a criminal court, and I will feel free to repeat that fact ad nauseum.

Nadya 11y ago

See: Portugal Instead of imprisoning for drug usage - provide treatment and rehab. It's cheaper and has better results. One could argue culture differences in drug usage, but that looks like an attempt to "knock it before you try it". That's without going into how broken the US prison system is! See: privately owned prisons that require a quota to be filled [0]. [0] http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/criminal-how-lockup-quotas-and-low-crime-taxes-guarantee-profits-private-prison-corporations http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/criminal-how-lock...

fat0wl 11y ago
There is a huge legal difference between getting caught doing drugs vs facilitating the trafficking of mass quantities of controlled substances. I don't think casual marijuana smokers should get all up in arms like "hey man they are just going after everybody now!", do they offer the same support to heroin cartels? Even if you're against the war on drugs I don't think you should really take it as a personal slight when someone operating on this scale gets arrested. Unless you really 100% believe that distribution of heavy narcotics doesn't damage society.
- dantheman 11y ago
  I'd say that the war on the distribution of heavy narcotics far outweighs any damage down to society by their distribution.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Can read more on policy and its impact here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal Distribution and intent to sell are still illegal. I was specifically referring to the users of drugs.
  - aaron-lebo 11y ago
    And some people may agree with you but it really has nothing to do with what Ulbricht was doing.

maxlybbert 11y ago

I don't believe the death penalty was ever a possibility, following Kennedy v. Louisiana ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana , "the power of the state to impose the death penalty against an individual for committing a crime that did not result in the death of the victim is now limited to crimes against the state (e.g. espionage, treason).")

bradleyjg 11y ago
The full quote was: "Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State." (emphasis added)
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  Thank you. I was not aware of that, and to be honest, had never read the full opinion.
- copperx 11y ago
  The fact that Snowden would probably get death sentence has never sat quite well with me.

pera 11y ago

Indeed. This is an exemplary jail sentence: in theory it should be possible to create a perfect dark market, and there is nothing that the FBI can do about it, so they have to implant fear to try to reduce the amount of people who are willing to create the next SR...

pakled_engineer 11y ago
I would say that theory would only stand if you lived in Russia, were politically connected, never left Russian territories, and never allowed any sales to CIS/Russian territories. Note the part about being politically connected because the Russian militsia (or w/e they are called these days) will simply be tipped off by the FBI to your whereabouts and go shake you down for hefty taxes. Even if two countries officially don't have any extradition or other MLAT type treaties doesn't mean there isn't low level negotiation between law enforcement, or straight up bribes by the FBI to have local PD shut you down. Maybe you could move to Crimea or Donetsk Republic and get NAF to be your personal bodyguards. I think it's pretty much impossible to run that kind of a global darkmarket otherwise. Even if you were the world's most experienced sysadmin and could lock down your server(s) (and NSA/FBI httpd/nginx/apache 0day doesn't apply) you still have to worry about Bitcoin laundering and many other issues, you'd have to run around like Jason Bourne everyday and nobody can sustain that discipline without making mistakes. You only have to make one mistake and you're joining Ross at ADX Florence (where he's likely going, nobody convicted of the "Kingpin" charge ends up anywhere else besides supermax prisons)
- pera 11y ago
  I don't see how your location could be relevant here: you are not selling/shipping products from your home, you are only operating an online marketplace. To make things easier: you aren't even making any profit from it, you are just doing it because you support the idea of a drug market or whatever, so there is no laundering.
  - pakled_engineer 11y ago
    It's still conspiracy to traffic narcotics and nobody in their right mind would do so without taking the money since life in prison is likely. Risk must equal reward, and I wouldn't trust any software to protect you from a nation state set on shutting you down. You need the protection of another nation state.

bdcravens 11y ago

I agree. In all likelihood, he'll be found guilty on the murder for hire, which is yet to be tried: give him 20 on the drug marketplace, since he'll likely get life on the murder for hire.

downandout 11y ago

While I also think this is excessive, within the context of the federal sentencing guidelines, this is a proportionate sentence. Because of the amount of drugs involved, along with enhancements for actual or threatened violence during the commission of the crimes and using a computer based "mass-marketing" model to distribute the drugs, the guidelines recommended a sentence of 30 years to Life. Given that there were only aggravating and no mitigating factors, it's easy to see how the judge arrived at life.

tinkerrr 11y ago

In addition to the murders for hire that the other commentators mentioned, the prosecution presented 6 case studies of people dying because of drug overdoses/other related effects of drugs bought on silk road. The prosecution also had two parents in two of these cases come to court to give a statement, one from Boston and one from Australia.

jabscam2013 11y ago
How the fuck is that relevant? How many people died last year from taking too much aspirin they bought at Walmart?

Spooky23 11y ago

He ordered the killings of 6 people. Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.

jMyles 11y ago
Not everyone is convinced this happened.
- MadrugadaEterna 11y ago
  I can't upvote you for some retarded reason. But you're correct as far as I'm concerned.
- srdev 11y ago
  That is because a lot of people are simply ignoring the evidence available since they have an ideological stake in Ross's non-violence. The balance of probability here is that Ross intended to kill 6 people and fucked it up.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    Still, I prefer for the evidence to be presented in an open forum, under oath and subject to rebuttal, before I will believe it. And yes, I think I have a sort of psychological "stake" as you say in Ross' non-violence.
    - srdev 11y ago
      The evidence in question, Ross's journals and chat logs, were presented in trial and subject to rebuttal. He wasn't being tried for those crimes; those charges are still pending, but they were material to the case and the defense failed to dispute them. At the present moment, it is highly probable that he intended to have 6 people, including the innocent roomates of his targets, murdered.
Squarel 11y ago
Well, it helps if you are sentenced for things you are convicted of then. Because, even by the "Hang them by the neck until they are dead" gung-ho standards, you generally have to be convicted of something before being punished for it.

hristov 11y ago

In addition to the murder for hire plots, apparently five people died after using drugs purchased on silk road.

gwern 11y ago
The prosecution didn't make a very good case for the 5 deaths; a lot of missing information and they were using other drugs and had other health issues.
- tptacek 11y ago
  By "other health issues", you are might be referring "Jordan M", who was found cold to the touch with Silk Road open on his computer, a looped belt by his dangling arm, and an open express mail package full of heroin on his desk, who was found at autopsy to have died of intoxication by xanax, heroin, and valium --- all three of which he ordered on SR. The "other health issues" here are the fact that "Jordan M." was, as Ulbricht's lawyer described him in his sentencing memo, an "overweight 27-year old black man". It's interesting to note that even if one of these overdose victims had health problems that predisposed them to overdose mortality --- something that is pretty far from being established --- there is actually a legal rule that contemplates this circumstance directly: google "the eggshell skull rule". The prosecution memo invokes the rule.
  - gwern 11y ago
    No, I was referring to Jordan M's other health problems which went well beyond 'overweight', to how the Australian teen had multiple drugs in his system, the lack of autopsy and other relevant documents, and to several other issues raised in Ulbricht's lawyer's original filing criticizing the health issues. I would pull it up out of PACER but I don't feel like spending $3+ again to go through the docket and find the full filing again. tptacek, if you're going to act like an expert on this case, you should read all the documents, not just the indictment and one or two of the shorter things.
    - tptacek 11y ago

oberstein 11y ago

Charlie Manson never killed anyone either. Nevertheless. I expect Ross to waste away just as Manson has, and that by the time he reaches his "old years" that he requested be left to him, and which have now been denied to him, he'll no longer want to leave anyway. That's if he doesn't commit suicide first. It's an unfortunate sentencing and I hope future leaders will treat their opsec more seriously.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 11y ago
Why not hire or even sell hitmen, you can't get into more problem if they get you A bit of a strange argument to make in this particular case.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> When the court give out harsh punishment, they also de-incentivize the next person from limiting the scope to only drugs. [...] Why not hire or even sell hitmen, you can't get into more problem if they get you. One of the factors in the life sentence was that evidence was presented in the trial that Ulbricht did not limit the scope of his enterprise "to only drugs", and that elements of the enterprise included trying to hire a hitman to eliminate problems. So, I think that this case stands for exactly the opposite proposition than "hiring hitmen won't get you into more trouble than restricting your crime to just drugs".
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

vacri 11y ago

That seems way too harsh to me. I have strong opinions on the US War on Drugs and it's failure to meaningful deal with drug use/abuse in the USA. And I feel even worse about how it's spilling out into the rest of the world as we go "global" with everything. The US War on Drugs is ridiculously harmful and shortsighted, absolutely. But the sentencing is consistent with US policy, however wrong it is. People are getting two-figure sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs themselves. Someone who facilitates the selling of an illegal product on a much wider scale should not get a lighter sentence. The whole concept behind the War on Drugs sucks, but this sentence is consistent. If it were a shorter sentence, then it'd be similar to the legal inconsistency around cocaine: the form wealthy white people tend to use (powder cocaine) is much less penalised than the form poor and minority people tend to use (crack cocaine), because...?

smoyer 11y ago

I agree that's it's simply too harsh. I share a bit of his Libertarian views, although as I've grown older I've realized that there's no way the Libertarian philosophy could ever form the paradise many of its practitioners describe.

7952 11y ago

Surely drug traffickers in the USA are complicit with the US Government? They respond to one injustice (victimisation of users) by inflicting another injustice (drug cartel violence). They exploit the law to further their own interests at the expense of innocent bystanders. Yet you act like this guy is some activist who has never hurt anyone!

vegedor 11y ago

> If people want to take drugs, even take too much drugs their going to get it somewhere It's akin to the tragedy of the commons and it's not true. If I don't murder you, you're going to die eventually anyway. Is that legitimate reason for you to let me kill you? This is a pretty good example because death is indeed inevitable, in contrast to the availability of drugs, and also, death is the ultimate problem concerning drug abuse. BTW: It's they're, not their.

sillygoose 11y ago

Of course it's way too harsh. They're making an example out of him. The message here is: "don't even dream of circumventing the monetary system we control". This is just a part of the American police state's burgeoning. People will take drugs regardless of whether there's a Silk Road or not. Well, at least as long as we're still mercifully allowed to use cash, which is not for long if the masses can be successfully conditioned to accept banning it. What's the difference between banning cannabis and banning cash? Both are just orders not to use something, backed by the threat of punishment for disobeying.