zlacker

>>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.

>>rappat+0c
His original sentence was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

So you can’t agree with the original sentence and then say he “absolutely deserved to be released.”

Without the chance of parole, a pardon from the president is one of the few ways he could get out of jail.

>>jyap+3t
Good point, you are absolutely correct. Then I suppose life “with the possibility of parole” would have been a more appropriate sentence, though I don’t know if that’s typically given. In any case, I feel prisons ought to release prisoners if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has, though of course that’s a difficult line to draw in practice.

>>rappat+Lw
Life imprisonment – with or without parole – for a non-violent crime still seems excessive. If they'd convicted him of conspiracy to murder for hiring the hitman then that's a different matter.

>>ascorb+XM
The non-violent crime part doesn't work for me. He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes. That's quite clear.

>>rbanff+mo1
> He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes.

I don't like this argument of imputing transitive guilt. If guilt is imputed indirectly, then all of us are guilty of many things, like atrocities that our countries have perpetrated during war.

>>naaski+Ns1
He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit.

Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime.

>>rbanff+Vy1
> Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime

Right, because we recognize that indirect, transitive blame is ethically problematic.

> He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit.

So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison?

"Enabling" is exactly the kind of weasel word that I find problematic. It has no strict definition and can be broadened to suit whatever is needed to condemn an action you happen to dislike in any given scenario.

>>naaski+OO1
> So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison?

Do you think two wrongs make a right?