zlacker

>>uptown+(OP)
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.

>>smhend+v1
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.