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 It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn.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
It's right there on page 3 ("II. Background A. The Murder-For-Hire Evidence") and continues for quite some length. I'm not a lawyer and haven't been following the case, but if he was convicted of what the government alleges in this section it pretty much eliminates the "non-violent" argument.

>>bkeroa+f8
No no no. You (or the one you replied to) said he was sentenced for murder. And I think we agree now that he wasn't, right?

>>Boards+5b
Here is exactly what you said, kicking off this long and unproductive subthread:

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.

By "no such thing", you were referring to the words <<the "murder for hire" evidence>> in the preceding comment.

Let's pick it apart:

1. There was no such thing introduced for the trial. Not only was it introduced for the trial, it was an explicit part of what Ulbricht was indicted for.

2. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. It was never withdrawn; he was indicted based on (among other things) the explicitly asserted "overt act" of commissioning a murder. The murder-for-hire scheme wasn't innuendo, but a rebuttable fact introduced not just as evidence but as one of the legs of the case.

3. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. It may have been either of those things, but if so, it was also actually one of the predicates of the conspiracy charge he was convicted of.

4. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations. Yes, he did; his legal team mounted multiple arguments against the allegation, and did not prevail at trial. Ulbricht's team had not only the opportunity to defend him against the allegation, but the obligation to. Conclusively refuting that allegation would have significantly harmed the prosecution's case, knocking out one of the predicates for the conspiracy charge.

From what I can tell, you made a fairly complicated series of assertions, none of which turned out to be true.