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

401–410 of 641 posts

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#401

Post by tzs »

fleitz wrote: post #308
tzs wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

No more than water does. Even as a proponent of full legalization I know that as little as a few minutes spent in water can kill someone, and often does. Why people are allowed to casually dive into this toxic substance is beyond me. No licenses, no regulations, practically any body of water you can find you're allowed to jump into totally unsupervised. Most places don't even have signs warning people of the danger,…

> No more than water does

The poster above me implied that Ulbricht's actions did not hurt anyone. Hence, harm from drugs is relevant, because Ulbricht was selling drugs.

Ulbricht was not selling water, so whether or not water is harmful is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Ulbricht is not going to jail for "running a website".

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#402

Post by vacri »

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…

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.

The US War on Drugs is ridiculously harmful and shortsighted, absolutely. But the sentencing is consistent with US policy, however wrong it is. People are getting two-figure sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs themselves. Someone who facilitates the selling of an illegal product on a much wider scale should not get a lighter sentence.

The whole concept behind the War on Drugs sucks, but this sentence is consistent. If it were a shorter sentence, then it'd be similar to the legal inconsistency around cocaine: the form wealthy white people tend to use (powder cocaine) is much less penalised than the form poor and minority people tend to use (crack cocaine), because...?

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#403

Post by gyardley »

baddox wrote: post #330
earlyresort wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption. Shutting down The Silk Road isn't quite the same thing as arresting the corner dealer. Aside from that - let's posit that Ross Ulbricht's arrest and punishment and the shutdown of The Silk R…

> it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption. It seems quite likely that Silk Road was one of the safest ways to acquire these drugs. It seems likely to me that shutting down Silk Road would have two effects: reducing consumption by casual (n…

> This is just another way to rephrase the claim that Silk Road did net harm to others, which we were just debating.

It is not. Enriching yourself off of harm to others is a distinct issue from the net harm you're causing in the world.

To use the prosecutor's analogy, a drug dealer who sells an unadulterated product with clean needles does not get a free pass on being a drug dealer.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#404

Post by Nadya »

serve_yay wrote: post #163
Nadya wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mistaking some delusional world of zero crime doesn't do any good for people living in reality. That 'moral dealer' who hands out clean needles would be doing good. I guess the moral high-ground is ignoring the number of users who die or contract diseases from dirty needles? That's a pretty fucked perspective. I see an issue with treating drug users (esp. recreational drug users) as somehow "less than human" because…

Yes exactly, the reasoning proceeds from this silly world of "shoulds" which does not actually exist. In the actually-existing world, people buy drugs, and so there is value in addressing that demand as safely as possible. Instead we have cynical people like these, talking about how the real right thing is to just not sell drugs at all. (And that's not even getting into the issue of whether we should be allowed to ha…

I originally read the parent quote in a non-sarcastic tone and thought you were supportive of their line of reasoning.

(Libertarians say hi.)

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#405

Post by yarou »

As I stated much earlier (I believe it was during pre-trial), Ulbricht was convicted in the court of public opinion, even before he went to trial.

Some may hail this sentence as a victory for justice or some similar nonsense, but there is a deeper problem here. Civil liberties continue to be eroded at an extremely alarming rate in this country that the concept of "justice" applies in a very political context. It's pretty much a joke.

The message here is that if you attempt to live outside of this current system, you will be punished.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#406

Post by dragonwriter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #131
haberman wrote: post #38

I don't know enough about this story to have an overall opinion, but this particular exchange made me angry: > His lawyer, Joshua L. Dratel, in submissions to the judge, argued that the website’s “harm reduction” ethos made it safer than traditional drug dealing on the street. > But prosecutors, in their memo, argued that praising Silk Road for “harm reduction measures” was “akin to applauding a heroin dealer for han…

Bear in mind that prosecutors have a professional duty to zealously argue the government's case just as the defense lawyers have a duty to zealously argue for innocence or lenity of their clients. Unfortunately judges no longer have that much discretion to weigh the competing arguments because of the mandatory sentencing guidelines Congress came up with. It has since been established by the Supreme Court that the gui…

> Unfortunately judges no longer have that much discretion to weigh the competing arguments because of the mandatory sentencing guidelines Congress came up with.

You mean the ones whose provision making them mandatory was struck down as a violation of the right to trial by jury in 2005, and which have since been advisory only? [0]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencin...

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#407

Post by drfuchs »

psykovsky wrote: post #302
drfuchs wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curtis Green is a real person, who really worked for Ross, who really was afraid Ross would have him killed, and who in fact Ross did try to have killed. See the very beginning of Joshuah Bearman's "The Rise and Fall of Silk Road" in Wired.

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of USD$350,000.00 in Bitcoin commited by the dirty undercover DEA agent who he then hired to murder Curtis Green.

Your "because" is wrong. DPR's own words about killing Curtis: "ok, so can you change the order to execute rather than torture? ... he [Curtis] was on the inside for a while, and now that he’s been arrested, I’m afraid he’ll give up info." So, Ross himself says that the reason he wants Curtis killed is simply because Curtis might help the authorities (which Curtis did).

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#408

Post by tzs »

homulilly wrote: post #346
tzs wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Cars and guns also hurt people but pretty much anyone can sell those. I agree that drug sales should be regulated but that doesn't in any way make sentencing someone to life in prison for running a website any less fucked up.

> Cars and guns also hurt people but pretty much anyone can sell those

When car or gun buying addiction becomes more then a negligible problem, you'll have a terrific point.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#409

Post by paulpauper »

If there is any justice, maybe he'll get a pardon in 20-30 years for good behavior.

The government said they identified six individuals who overdosed and died of drugs they purchased on Silk Road. The parents of two of those individuals—25-year-old Bryan B. from Boston and 16-year-old Preston B. from Perth, Australia—spoke at Friday’s sentencing, pleading emotionally to the judge to give Mr. Ulbricht a harsh sentence.

More people die of prescription and OTC drugs.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#410

Post by tzs »

timsally wrote: post #370
tzs wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Do you apply this logic to alcohol as well? It's a drug and there are many addicts, so similar to other drugs I don't think it should be sold online. Where do you come down on that? I only ask because many people implicitly omit alcohol when discussing drugs, even though it is one.

I'd be reluctant to allow it, just like with other drugs. As with other drugs, if it can be shown that a particular drug is not overly addicting, then I'd be fine with that drug being sold online (but only from licensed and regulated dealers, with enforced quality standards).

So, online beer would probably turn out to be OK, as would online marijuana.

Cigarettes are an interesting case. Nicotine is pretty high up on the addicting list, but experimentally even heavy smokers don't seem to consumer so much that they ruin their lives the way, say, a heroin addict might. Probably because cigarettes don't really impair your functionality. So probably they should be allowed online.

Post reply on HN