Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 641 posts

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#281

Post by Squarel »

Spooky23 wrote: post #201
smhenderson wrote: post #13

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 cr…

He ordered the killings of 6 people. Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.

Well, it helps if you are sentenced for things you are convicted of then.

Because, even by the "Hang them by the neck until they are dead" gung-ho standards, you generally have to be convicted of something before being punished for it.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#282

Post by MadrugadaEterna »

tptacek wrote: post #62
BoardsOfCanada wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn.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.

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...

Actually it is true. No charge for murder. ArsTechnicha and wired agree.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#283

Post by harryh »

civilian wrote: post #255
harryh wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he is. But I think the idea of natural rights is dumb. They're made up by humans. They're enforced by humans. Their exact nature is disagreed upon and debated by humans. The idea that there is some set of core natural rights that comes from somewhere other than humans is a tactic used to avoid debate on which rights we should and should not have by people unwilling to actually support their ideas with facts…

Of course I am :) but natural rights have formed the basis of most modern (english revolution and forward-- american, french, russian) revolutions. Those citizens didn't care for what was _legal_ or _illegal_, they cared for their welfare and rights, even though it was essentially illegal. Webcomic for the choir: http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469 If humans followed the law above all else, then we would not…

Sure, humans renegotiate the law all the time. Sometimes peacefully sometimes at the point of the sword. But those are still rights as defined by humans not handed down by God/Nature.

There wasn't revolution because the people were aesthetically displeased at the fact that their natural rights were being violated. There was revolution because the people wanted something and they were willing to fight for it.

If income inequality keeps going the way it's going, one day we'll see the people revolt against the rich demanding a natural right to housing, medical care, education and who knows what else. You'll, of course, note that particular definition of natural rights far exceeds the Jeffersonian one. It'll be just as an illogical concept then as it is now. It's a nice rhetorical flourish though, and rhetoric goes a long way when you're asking people to risk their lives.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#284

Post by Squarel »

vvpan wrote: post #85
steego wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's his fault for getting into the wrong business. If he only laundered drug cartel money like HSBC, he would have just paid a fine.

HSBC? You mean Wachovia? Or HSBC is at it too?

HSBC were deep into it

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/companies/hsbc-money-la...

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#285

Post by tzs »

zanny wrote: post #168
deweller wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

allegedly tried to have multiple people killed. The prosecution brought this up at trial but he was not charged or convicted of this in the criminal trial.

This is the key point. He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, pretty much, for running a website. Not for hurting anyone, not for even threatening to kill anyone - those charges weren't a part of his conviction - but simply by enabling the exchange of drugs he apparently should be locked away forever. Go Team 'Murica....

Are you implying drugs don't hurt anyone?

Even the most ardent proponent of full legalization usually acknowledges that many drugs are very harmful--they just believe the people should be free to do things even if they are harmful to themselves.

I generally support decriminalization or even legalization, but I would be reluctant to allow internet sales. I'd require sales to be through licensed dealers and in person, so that an addict cannot completely cut themselves off from human contact. Internet sales make drugs too easy.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#286

Post by Natsu »

themeek wrote: post #232
redthrowaway wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still be charged with soliticing a minor if you happen to be a star on To Catch a Predator. Just because the minor in question never existed doesn't mean it's not a crime.

Is it not known as entrapment to present a false situation in order to get a conviction or indictment, even if it's to confirm on behalf of the target a tendency or willingness to participate in the activity were to be real - and illegal because of its implications for abuse and its lack of real damage?

You can find a nice guide as to what is and is not entrapment here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633

There are a lot of misconceptions about what is or is not entrapment. A lot of things like lying about not being a cop when under cover, putting out a bait car, or just watching you commit a crime without warning you it was a crime are not entrapment and the reason why is explained in the guide.

It's only entrapment when they do something to overcome some resistance you put up to committing the crime. So unless you can show that they somehow changed your mind, the entrapment defense won't work.

Sure, the thief wouldn't have stolen the bait car if they knew it was a bait car, but the question is whether they would have stolen any car.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#287

Post by ne0n »

michaelby wrote: post #93
smhenderson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've been seeing the other comments about that. As I said I'm not 100% up to speed on the details. I'd like to see more evidence that he actually was being convicted of that though and not just that it was a factor in determining sentencing. I don't doubt it's possible he was trying to contract a hit but the stories about the FBI stinging him, etc. make me a bit suspicious.

He wasn't being convicted of ordering hits on people since there isn't evidence that he was successful in killing anyone; however, I think the justice system operates here on the idea that he could have eventually been successful at ordering a hit, given all the effort he was putting into it.

Just because someone didn't die doesn't mean that ordering a hit is okay. From the chat logs I've read, DPR ordered a hit on one of the SR employees (Green, I believe) who had gotten arrested. When DPR found out, he thought Green would talk, so he asked another SR employee, Force (who was an FBI member and was actually participating in Green's arrest), to kill Green. Force agreed and pretended to kill him and faked photos with Green. DPR thought he had killed someone. Does that make it not a crime because Green didn't actually die?

Anyway, that's not even what this case was really about.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#289

Post by tshaddox »

earlyresort wrote: post #214

Hard drugs are one of those things that have different consequences for different types of people. An intelligent, wealthy, employable person can dabble with them, have a good time, and usually get away with it. Should they get addicted and screw up their lives, they can usually get help and bounce back without permanent consequences. People who're a little less well-off intellectually and economically aren't so resi…

This isn't just about the effects of addictive drugs. I think most people agree they can be devastating to people and families. The trouble is that you seem to be suggesting that US drug policy in any way helps people and families affected by addictive drugs. I can't look at the war on drugs and see any remotely feasible interpretation where it's helping people affected by addictive drugs.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#290

Post by tedunangst »

javert wrote: post #249
civilian wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're discussing rights given to us by the Laws of Nature, as understood by our founding fathers, not the meager rights dolled out by the federal government.

Speaking as someone who's on your side in this debate... Rights are what you get if a bunch of rational, self-interested people get together and say, "What ought we be allowed to do without interference?" There is a single, correct, rational answer to that: you ought to be allowed to do anything that doesn't initiate force against someone else. All rights are a function of that single fundamental observation. Every r…

Well, no shit. All the rational people agree with you, and everyone who disagrees is irrational. Didn't see that coming.
Post reply on HN