zlacker

[return to "Ross Ulbricht granted a full pardon"]
1. rappat+0c[view] [source] 2025-01-22 01:38:25
>>Ozarki+(OP)
I think his original sentence was absolutely deserved—even though the charge of hiring a contract killer to assassinate his business competition may have been dropped, I think it's clear he did many things in the same vein. Even if you support his original pursuit of a free and open online marketplace, I think most people would agree he took it a bridge too far in the end.

That said, I do think he absolutely deserved to be released, not because he didn't deserve to be locked up in the first place, but because he's clearly been rehabilitated and has done great work during his time in prison. All that considered, ten years seems like a not unreasonable prison sentence for what he did. I hope he'll continue to do good when he's released.

◧◩
2. bko+Yf[view] [source] 2025-01-22 02:03:57
>>rappat+0c
Ross Ulbricht was not sentenced for murder-for-hire charges.

Those allegations were used to deny him bail and influenced public perception, they were not part of his formal conviction or sentencing.

He was convicted on non-violent charges related to operating the Silk Road website, including drug distribution, computer hacking, and money laundering.

Does this change your opinion of sentencing being well-deserved?

◧◩◪
3. rappat+Ui[view] [source] 2025-01-22 02:24:17
>>bko+Yf
Did you read my comment? I said:

> even though the charge of hiring a contract killer to assassinate his business competition may have been dropped

Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean he's innocent of it. In fact, reading the chat logs makes his guilt pretty clear. Of course, because the whole operation was a scam, there's little he could have been convicted of. Yet just because the murder was never carried out doesn't mean he didn't intend to have someone assassinated. In my book, paying someone money to kill another person is definitely grounds for imprisonment.

◧◩◪◨
4. bko+sj[view] [source] 2025-01-22 02:28:18
>>rappat+Ui
So you think people should be sentenced based on charges that were not proven in court?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. throwa+Gl[view] [source] 2025-01-22 02:44:28
>>bko+sj
That happens all the time, when people confess to a charge ahead of time, instead of proceeding to a trial. Remember that the purpose of the trial is to find out whether they are guilty when there is a factual dispute about that question. Here, I suppose the existence of a factual dispute is itself disputed: does that need to go to a jury, or is it enough that the trial judge and the appeal court looked at the record and decided there wasn't a dispute?
[go to top]