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 It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn.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
You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.

>>ad_hom+o4
It's right there in the indictment. Count 1: Trafficking Conspiracy, Overt Acts, (b).

>>tptace+V4
An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.

>>gwern+Zh
The indictment is the whole premise of the trial.

Please remember: the argument isn't "did the government conclusively prove that Ulbricht attempted to commission a murder".

It is: "There was no such thing [here: <<evidence of a murder for hire scheme>>] introduced for the trial" (exact words taken from the comment rooting this subthread and the parent comment that provoked it).

That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. Not only did Ulbricht's team have the opportunity to rebut it, but they were obligated to do so in the course of competently representing him.

Edited a bit for clarity.

>>tptace+oi
> The indictment is the whole premise of the trial.

No, the indictment is simply the initial document filed years ago which started the case and the specific charges can be, and were (right up to before Ulbricht's sentencing, even, where I believe some charges were combined or something) amended and strategies changed. You seem to think that indictments are immutable and all you have to do is quote a line from it, but you are not a lawyer.

> That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it.

The prosecution did not introduce the murder for hire and during the trial, as I already quoted, explicitly disclaimed that it was trying to do so and that they were only talking about other things like control of Bitcoins.

>>gwern+e51
The indictment to which we are referring was filed on February 4, 2014. It does not appear to have been superseded, and is the indictment the prosecution makes direct references to.

Is there a newer indictment you can point us to? One in which the murder-for-hire scheme is not ventured as part of the case?