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
You have to understand that the "murder for hire" evidence was introduced as part of the trial (at which point Ross' lawyer could have disputed it, but didn't) so it could be used as part of the sentencing decision... and that kind of takes the luster off of the "non-violent crime" argument.

>>drcode+o2
There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.

>>Boards+f3
This is simply not true. Not only was the evidence introduced at trial, but it was tied to a specific charge, and considered at length by the court.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...

>>tptace+t3
So which of the charges is it (from your link): " charging Ulbricht with seven crimes: Narcotics Trafficking (Count One), Distribution of Narcotics by Means of the Internet (Count Two), Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy (Count Three), Continuing Criminal Enterprise (Count Four), Conspiracy to Commit and Aid and Abet Computer Hacking (Count Five), Conspiracy to Traffic in Fraudulent Identification Documents (Count Six), and Money Laundering Conspiracy (Count Seven). (ECF No. 52.) "

>>Boards+u4
The murder for hire scheme was the second overt act charged in Count One (an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is an element of conspiracy.) [0]

[0] see p. 5 of the indictment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...

>>dragon+95
So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence? Just search for the phrase murder in the document you linked. How many hits? Zero

>>Boards+X5
> So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence?

No. Soliciting a killing for pay ("murder for hire" in informal terms) as an act to advance a conspiracy is included (hardly "hidden") as one of the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, at least one of which must have been found by a juror to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to vote to convict on the conspiracy charge.

>>dragon+E6
Oh I see. unfortunately there is no "killing for pay" in the document you linked either. Just stop making shit up.

>>Boards+c7
> unfortunately there is no "killing for pay" in the document you linked either.

Actually the document uses the phrase "murder-for-hire".

Your word search probably failed because its an image scan and has no searchable text.

You actually need to read it. Which should be helped by the fact that where I linked it, I told you where in the document the murder-for-hire scheme was addressed.

>>dragon+28
Ok thanks. Where is the text where he is actually sentenced for it?