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
He ordered the killings of 6 people.

Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.

>>Spooky+R8
Not everyone is convinced this happened.

>>jMyles+3b
That is because a lot of people are simply ignoring the evidence available since they have an ideological stake in Ross's non-violence. The balance of probability here is that Ross intended to kill 6 people and fucked it up.

>>srdev+kj
Still, I prefer for the evidence to be presented in an open forum, under oath and subject to rebuttal, before I will believe it.

And yes, I think I have a sort of psychological "stake" as you say in Ross' non-violence.

>>jMyles+Dj
The evidence in question, Ross's journals and chat logs, were presented in trial and subject to rebuttal. He wasn't being tried for those crimes; those charges are still pending, but they were material to the case and the defense failed to dispute them. At the present moment, it is highly probable that he intended to have 6 people, including the innocent roomates of his targets, murdered.