It's terrible that we are doing this to someone who probably would have learned their lesson with only 5-10 years of prison and been able to return to society. He had the potential to return as a productive member of society and now instead he will be a lifelong debt all for assisting in the sale of drugs that people willingly purchased knowing the risk of death from those drugs. He's no saint but this punishment is unreasonable and it seems like the Judge was just out to get him.
>"No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court. It is a privileged argument, it is an argument from one of privilege. You are no better a person than any other drug dealer and your education does not give you a special place of privilege in our criminal justice system. It makes it less explicable why you did what you did."
You can argue that our drug laws are wrong or the punishments are too extreme, but singling out Ulbrich for the specifics ways in which he clearly and repeatedly violated those laws is showing favoritism. If his crimes didn't involve the Internet, there would be nothing newsworthy about his arrest and sentencing.
I'd consider the sentence excessive were it not for the multiple attempted murder-for-hires. If someone is intellectually and morally capable of directing a criminal enterprise that funds murder as a calculated business decision, and they try to do that, they've earned themselves a life sentence in my view.
He would've came out and just tried again. Pretty much every single case of white-collar crime or crimes like this have a repeat offense. Not to mention his site also gave a venue to hire hitmen. Also, the FBI is probably going to end up using him as a asset tbh.
Okay, so I'm not going to criticize Ulbricht's sentencing, because (a) it's hard to make a case to go easy on him, and (b) I don't really care enough about Ulbricht in particular.
But from a drug policy perspective, this language jumps out at me:
> Ulbricht’s defense had argued the site reduced harm because it kept drug deals off the streets and allowed users to share information about drug safety. The transcript from the final day of court proceedings shows how Forrest categorically rejected that claim, outlining the social costs of drug use from an individual level to mass scale. “The social costs of drugs are manifest,” she said. “The user is only one part of the equation, that is where much of this harm reduction argument comes from and it is focused on the user. The user is one part of a massive, massive worldwide scheme of drug trafficking and if you sat where I sat you would see that the user is not the end… So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point.”
First, let's make the assumption that all those users would have obtained the drugs some other way without the Silk Road. In that case, all that trafficking cost that happens before the seller lists the drug on the marketstill would have occurred. Silk Road was just as responsible for that cost as the end user[0].
Now, let's make the assumption that all those users would not have obtained the drugs some other way. That's basically saying that trafficking - which is an avoidable cost - is what makes the Silk Road so egregious. In that case, the right action is to address the drug trafficking trade itself. Again, Silk Road had only a small role in that. If we fixed the issues with drug trafficking, perhaps we would have a very different kind of marketplace than what Silk Road was (with a very different kind of person running it).
In case it's not obvious by this point, I think the drug war is pretty backwards. I don't really have any sympathy for Ulbricht or the Silk Road, but I'm also not impressed by the judge's arguments in this sentencing.
[0] this is not counting, of course, Ulbricht's own actions (e.g. attempting to hire an assassin).
Judge: "So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point."
I think the judge is missing the point here, the point being an understanding of harm reduction and apparently, surprisingly the effects of drugs on society. No wonder she gave him life. She doesn't even understand what "harm reduction" is. The rest was just nonsense.
"Forrest said because the case was so widely publicized, a more severe sentence could deter similar crimes in the future."
As others have noted, I doubt the judge spent 100 hours making this decision (that's two and a half person-weeks full-time). I don't condone what Ulbricht did but I don't think his sentencing was rational.
Interesting how the judge is outraged by the recommendation of 'Doctor X' to the person to discontinue their antidepressants before taking MDMA. Surely she must know the highly elevated risk of mixing anti-depressants and a drug like MDMA can cause Serotonin Syndrome and lead to death....
I think the judges point was that someone responsible would not recommend MDMA in these circumstances, rather than tell the other party to try and juggle their prescription medication and drug usage.
Dr. X doesn't think it's an issue: "Another asked about combining MDMA with an SSRI and Dr. X advises that there is a theoretical risk but, in his opinion, it is overestimated."
I was wondering if the judge was considering increased risk of suicide due to withdrawal from the antidepressant. But in my quick layman's research that particular anti-depressant doesn't seem to have that issue.
This quote of the judge as he delivering his verdict is so crazy (he is reading from Ulbricht's journal):
Two days later on April 8 you write: "Sent payments to angel for hit on Tony76 and his three associates. Began setting up hecho as standby" -- I have no idea what that is -- "refactored main and category pages to be more efficient."
Forrest was horribly biased against the defense. The prosecution's case was extremely problematic - resting on a chain of flimsy evidentiary and legal assumptions that would never have survived proper judicial scrutiny. The appeal will expose serious irregularities and hopefully overturn the decision.
Forrest spent a year at the Department of Justice before being confirmed as a federal judge in 2011. Her handling of the case was pay back to her sponsors at the DOJ.
From the transcript: "No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court".
Her comments smack of racism and classism. She reveals her implicit belief that since illicit drugs are associated in the media with oppressed minorities or less affluent communities, Ulbricht isn't entitled to such an "uppity" defense. She clearly can't fathom any possible reason why anyone might be opposed to prohibition and mass incarceration.
The transcript: "What Silk Road really was was a social market expander of a socially harmful drug that we have deemed in our democratic process to be unacceptable"
Except polls show that most Americans are opposed to US drug policies, even for "hard" substances like heroin [1]. Any discussion about drug laws that doesn't acknowledge its racist roots or the commercial interests involved is missing the point.
Ultimately, judges are God when you are in the court room, or treated as if they were. In reality judges are human beings with human problems. We should replaces judges with AI. AI is much better at acting like God than fallible human beings with their biases and their legal systems which are basically like religions.
Ultimately though the guy was guilty and should have spent 5-10 years in prison.
The prosecution was outstandingly successful in demonstrating that Ross Ulbricht is a violent, dangerous criminal. It is not surprising he was sentenced as such.
This is what it looks like when the system works. Society is safer with Ross behind bars.
[+] [-] stormcrowsx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|10 years ago|reply
>"No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court. It is a privileged argument, it is an argument from one of privilege. You are no better a person than any other drug dealer and your education does not give you a special place of privilege in our criminal justice system. It makes it less explicable why you did what you did."
You can argue that our drug laws are wrong or the punishments are too extreme, but singling out Ulbrich for the specifics ways in which he clearly and repeatedly violated those laws is showing favoritism. If his crimes didn't involve the Internet, there would be nothing newsworthy about his arrest and sentencing.
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorpush|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omni_wisdumb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|10 years ago|reply
But from a drug policy perspective, this language jumps out at me:
> Ulbricht’s defense had argued the site reduced harm because it kept drug deals off the streets and allowed users to share information about drug safety. The transcript from the final day of court proceedings shows how Forrest categorically rejected that claim, outlining the social costs of drug use from an individual level to mass scale. “The social costs of drugs are manifest,” she said. “The user is only one part of the equation, that is where much of this harm reduction argument comes from and it is focused on the user. The user is one part of a massive, massive worldwide scheme of drug trafficking and if you sat where I sat you would see that the user is not the end… So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point.”
First, let's make the assumption that all those users would have obtained the drugs some other way without the Silk Road. In that case, all that trafficking cost that happens before the seller lists the drug on the marketstill would have occurred. Silk Road was just as responsible for that cost as the end user[0].
Now, let's make the assumption that all those users would not have obtained the drugs some other way. That's basically saying that trafficking - which is an avoidable cost - is what makes the Silk Road so egregious. In that case, the right action is to address the drug trafficking trade itself. Again, Silk Road had only a small role in that. If we fixed the issues with drug trafficking, perhaps we would have a very different kind of marketplace than what Silk Road was (with a very different kind of person running it).
In case it's not obvious by this point, I think the drug war is pretty backwards. I don't really have any sympathy for Ulbricht or the Silk Road, but I'm also not impressed by the judge's arguments in this sentencing.
[0] this is not counting, of course, Ulbricht's own actions (e.g. attempting to hire an assassin).
[+] [-] joesmo|10 years ago|reply
I think the judge is missing the point here, the point being an understanding of harm reduction and apparently, surprisingly the effects of drugs on society. No wonder she gave him life. She doesn't even understand what "harm reduction" is. The rest was just nonsense.
[+] [-] smoyer|10 years ago|reply
As others have noted, I doubt the judge spent 100 hours making this decision (that's two and a half person-weeks full-time). I don't condone what Ulbricht did but I don't think his sentencing was rational.
[+] [-] qq66|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stahlkopf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevecalifornia|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nness|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scintill76|10 years ago|reply
I was wondering if the judge was considering increased risk of suicide due to withdrawal from the antidepressant. But in my quick layman's research that particular anti-depressant doesn't seem to have that issue.
[+] [-] superplussed|10 years ago|reply
Two days later on April 8 you write: "Sent payments to angel for hit on Tony76 and his three associates. Began setting up hecho as standby" -- I have no idea what that is -- "refactored main and category pages to be more efficient."
[+] [-] xirdstl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nness|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
Ouch, terrible strawman; freedom doesn't mean freedom from all laws. It does entail freedom from some unreasonable laws.
[+] [-] xirdstl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sleaker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenesom1|10 years ago|reply
Forrest spent a year at the Department of Justice before being confirmed as a federal judge in 2011. Her handling of the case was pay back to her sponsors at the DOJ.
From the transcript: "No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court".
Her comments smack of racism and classism. She reveals her implicit belief that since illicit drugs are associated in the media with oppressed minorities or less affluent communities, Ulbricht isn't entitled to such an "uppity" defense. She clearly can't fathom any possible reason why anyone might be opposed to prohibition and mass incarceration.
The transcript: "What Silk Road really was was a social market expander of a socially harmful drug that we have deemed in our democratic process to be unacceptable"
Except polls show that most Americans are opposed to US drug policies, even for "hard" substances like heroin [1]. Any discussion about drug laws that doesn't acknowledge its racist roots or the commercial interests involved is missing the point.
[1] http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/new-pew-poll-confirms...
[+] [-] x5n1|10 years ago|reply
Ultimately though the guy was guilty and should have spent 5-10 years in prison.
[+] [-] hapless|10 years ago|reply
This is what it looks like when the system works. Society is safer with Ross behind bars.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kw71|10 years ago|reply