Oddbean

He's not in jail for the silk road, he literally hired hitmen and tired to murder people, among drug trafficking. He created a good marketplace, that's about it. He's not in jail for enterprise, let's be real. nostr:nevent1qqsqe9mfnshwmxl6gkphj3m9977ach9q8mc4adthr4p2k4lm8n7ht0gprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7q3qgz7uczyg3kvdf8grlwfmllguc3kehrcc05yvnlypkjklptgql5kqxpqqqqqqz9hzgad

They were the basis for the judge's decision to give him life. They're not BS. Ample evidence of those actions were presented at trial even though the prosecution decided not to formally pursue those charges. They were true, and the evidence was sufficient to compel the judge to give him life. And they were a deciding factor in the appeals court rejecting his appeal. You can't just pick and choose based on what you wish was true.

You can post a clown emoji all you want. These are objective facts that are on the record. What you're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" in the face of inconvenient facts that conflict with your subjective beliefs and desires.

First of all, I believe the life sentence was overly harsh, and he shouldn't spend the rest of his life in prison. But I'm just stating facts. You can't just reject facts that conflict with your beliefs. That's intellectual bankruptcy. Second of all... "Ulbricht was not charged in his trial in New York federal court with murder for hire but evidence was introduced at trial supporting the allegations. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulbricht did commission the murders. The evidence that Ulbricht had commissioned murders was considered by the judge in sentencing Ulbricht to life and was a factor in the Second Circuit's decision to uphold the sentence." (citations linked in the entry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht

They didn't pursue those charges, but the evidence supporting those actions was presented at trial as well as at his appeals hearing. And that evidence was a major factor in the trial judge's decision to give him life, and it was a strong factor in the appeals court rejecting his appeal.

"Ulbricht was not charged in his trial in New York federal court with murder for hire but evidence was introduced at trial supporting the allegations. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulbricht did commission the murders. The evidence that Ulbricht had commissioned murders was considered by the judge in sentencing Ulbricht to life and was a factor in the Second Circuit's decision to uphold the sentence." (citations contained in link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht

Where's your objectivity? Where's your intellectual integrity? You're engaging in biased reasoning, rejecting information out of hand that conflicts with your preexisting beliefs, and discrediting sources that don't provide information that support your position. What about the trial summary sourced from the federal court? Will you reject that too because it doesn't confirm your beliefs? Read from page 19 of the linked PDF... https://web.archive.org/web/20221207223347/https://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/ULBRICHT-ca2-20170531.pdf

Look people are not guilty of things that they have not been found guilty of. The courts had incentive to prosecute him and being skeptical of the judges opinions is not a stretch That IS objectivity Uncritically accepting their ideas is not. "We've decided sentence him as if he was guilty of murder for hire even though he wasn't actually found guilty of it in a court of law" Do you hear yourself?

You're misrepresenting my position. I didn't claim he was found guilty in a court of law. I stated that the court determined he engaged in the hiring of contact killers relating to 5 targets, and used that conclusion in his sentencing, as well as in his appeal. I'm not arguing it was a good decision, or that he should have received the sentence that was passed. I'm just stating that the court determined that he did it, and used that determination when deciding on a sentence. And then the appeals court also referenced the trial court's determination in deciding to reject his appeal. That's it. All this other stuff you're attributing to me is simply not accurate.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp7v96vy3jlyqtct3n3e3sk6hflp7usra0sdkz477axwx4n39nxamqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcqyppw2e8xfwj7x9mva4pxhd3m5a0vdl0sy7z9hgkq0wun944g7zqf276df9e

I don't know why you're quoting that note. It's a restatement of what I just said. I presented the facts of the case based as supported by the trial summary. Once again, I'm not taking a position on it, or claiming what's true or not true. You seem to be arguing the substance of the trial and questioning the decisions of the court, which is totally valid. But I'm not a surrogate for the judge, and I'm not asserting that he's guilty of hiring a hit man. I'm just stating the facts of the case.

A court can't determine that he did it without a trial. They can argue that they think he did it when they turn down his appeal - but they can't find him guilty without a trial. Using evidence of one crime - that has not gone to trial - to contribute to the sentencing of another is awful.

The court can't adjudicate him guilty if charges aren't filed. But the court can make a probable determination based on the evidence presented, and use that when determining an appropriate sentence for related adjudicated charges that the defendant has been found guilty of. And the appeals court questioned the severity of the sentence, but upheld the conviction and sentence, and didn't find fault with the lower court for considering the evidence related to the contract killing attempts. It sucks, and as I've said, I think the sentence was overly harsh and he shouldn't spend rest of his life in prison for the convictions, but the judge's reasoning and decisions were reviewed by the 3-judge appeals court and found to be proper and within the bounds of the law.

And you think that's just? "He committed a crime that he isn't being charged with, and is not being found guilty of, and so we are going to sentence him for that crime instead of the ones we are claiming he committed." Do you want to live in that kind of a society?

You did not, anywhere in the thread, state what you think about what they did. Your entire position is "they considered something he wasn't convicted of in sentencing", which is fine, it's true, and what the people calling it an injustice have been saying all these years. I'm just curious if you also think it was an injustice.

So you're saying that a judge took into account some evidence that had nothing to do with the case in which he was convicted? That really sucks and sounds immoral if not illegal. Trials are not always fair and of course innocent people are sometimes found guilty - but at least they offer the opportunity to weigh the evidence, with the defense given the chance to address it.

Yes, I understand. And what you're saying really sucks for Ross. It's like if you're on trial for shoplifting and feel that you didn't get a fair trial so you appeal it, and the DA says no - and by the way we also think this person broke into someone's home. They never actually arrest you for the break-in but you get 5 years for shoplifting because the judge is influenced by the break-in accusations (that you never get to counter in court).

Well, in this case, Ross' lawyers were able to confront the allegations, and the evidence presented by the prosecution, but the judge agreed with the prosecution and determined that there was sufficient evidence to make a probable determination that the alleged conduct did take place.

I understand he had his appeal chance and the Supreme Court denied hearing it, letting the appeal stand. I have not read the appeal judgements, but a judge sentencing that includes “facts” that were not established by the jury of his peers, is the problem. You are found guilty of X, you were not found guilty of Y, your sentence is what it is because you did Y, So says the prosecution who did not charge it or did not meet the evidentiary threshold to persuade a jury. None the less the judge includes that as a fact established. But he didn’t wave his right to a jury trial did he? So who established that fact? Juries are supposed to establish the facts of a case. Justice served? Seems like no to me so far.

Don't believe in everything you hear from prosecutors without evidence. They are part of the propaganda machine. DPR was not only creating a market place but wrote philosophical texts against state extortion. And if they don't like one thing it is people with reach talking philosophical sense into people. The word is the sharpest sword.