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. cmdli+Sh[view] [source] 2025-01-22 02:16:51
>>bko+Yf
He was found during sentencing to be guilty of hiring a hit on a competitor using a preponderance of evidence (lower then presumption of innocence). While this is a lower standard than a conviction, it is still a higher standard than most apply in public discourse.
◧◩◪◨
4. hammoc+6o[view] [source] 2025-01-22 03:03:10
>>cmdli+Sh
> a higher standard than most apply in public discourse

Is it? Preponderance of the evidence is basically “more likely than not”

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. torste+lH[view] [source] 2025-01-22 06:18:18
>>hammoc+6o
That's one way of phrasing it, and unfortunately some jurisdictions have adopted that phrase, but it is not correct.

A preponderance of the evidence is the greater weight of the evidence after all evidence is considered. Heuristics along the lines of "yeah that fits my priors"—which is what is actually meant by "more likely than not"—are explicitly disallowed.

If Joe Smith in Smalltown, Ohio was hit by a blue bus, and hammock owns 51 of the 100 blue buses in Smalltown whereas torstenvl owns 49 of the 100 blue buses, that is insufficient evidence by itself to prevail by a preponderance standard against hammock in a civil suit.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. hammoc+au2[view] [source] 2025-01-22 19:26:13
>>torste+lH
Thank you for correcting me, and great example
[go to top]