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
People have served more time for selling less drugs and attempting to murder fewer people than Ross Ulbricht did.

Just because he was decent with computers does not mean he should be busted out of jail.

>>LarsDu+zd
The attempted murder charge was dropped.

Under our system that means he should be considered innocent of it.

This conversation is messy mostly because people are refusing to do that, which is akin to vigilantism.

A good faith discussion should only involve the charge he was convicted of and pardoned for, which is the narcotics charge.

>>scarab+of
The prosecution dropped the charges. That does not make anyone innocent.

>>muddi9+bg
It does. Innocent until proven guilty.

>>recurs+bi
Presumed innocent.

You don't become guilty or innocent based on legal proceedings. The point of a case is to establish guilt for the purpose of punishment.

But an innocent person doesn't become "guilty" even when the evidence shows that in the court. A guilty person remains guilty whether a court can prove it or not.