Unsealed Transcript Shows How a Judge Justified Ross Ulbricht's Life Sentence

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).

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.

>But the Ulbricht trial gets past a lot of these issues. The judge notes:

>* Ulbricht paid to have someone killed. He was told that person had a wife and child. Ulbricht paid anyways. The money was taken. There is no evidence he was role-playing.

>* Later, Ulbricht paid to have someone else killed. The would-be assassins informed him that the target lived with 3 other people. Ulbricht paid extra to have those people killed too. The money was taken. There is no evidence he was role-playing.

if remember all these were based only on the testimonies of those couple of corrupt agents, and all these charges were quietly dropped. The charges were never tried before any court, including the court where drug related charges and conviction happened. The charges were only conveniently mentioned by the prosecution and judge took them account. Thus a cyberpunk became blood thirsty low-life drug dealer. Pretty dirty, though standard, trick one can say. It makes a joke out of "not guilty until proven".

"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.

yes, like in the previously available court documents (like the Maryland indictment which was basis for the prosecutors to mention the charges) pretty much everything about the murders comes from those agents (actually mainly from the one of them). The transcript doesn't contain anything to add to the previously available documents, it just basically summarizes and mentions what has been already stated elsewhere.