zlacker

That's "two wrongs make a right" logic. Because the justice system fucked up in the past, even once, that should prevent anyone else from receiving a proper sentence?

Secondly, Ulbricht was an accessory to thousands of drug deals. You think that none of those consumers of those drugs died as a result? He could easily be responsible for multiple, dozens, hundreds of deaths - far more than most anyone locked up for life.

>>listen+(OP)
> You think that none of those consumers of those drugs died as a result?

All kinds of products kill consumers every day, and we don't consider the person who sold them responsible. And the suppliers of those products heavily encourage and even manipulate people into buying them; do we know whether Ulbricht even advertised his services?

>>oneeye+zo
You could debate it forever - some people obviously think drugs are relatively harmless and pose no societal threat, others think drugs are poison and anyone involved in selling or distributing them is a potential murderer.

The OP made a dumb comment about the length of the prison sentence in comparison to a murderer, I pointed out a) that while the OP thought it was too long, the same exact logic could be used to say it was too short and b) his original premise about the relative degrees of the "badness" of crimes was not an absolute.

You're welcome to disagree, however the comment above is unconvincing. Ulbricht dealt in drugs which he knew from day 1 were unquestionably illegal in this country.