This. While I do think his sentence was excessive that man was in no way innocent.

Whats validating about that?

I don't think sentencing should be using information that wasn’t part of the charges or the conviction. I’ve seen prosecutors chose to be extremely strict about that, judges chose to be extremely about that, jurors say “we couldn't convict because we had to follow the prosecutor’s instructions”, and yet here the jury was swayed by actions unrelated to the charges in order to convict, and the judge applied sentencing standards based on those same actions, and the government completely dropped the other case that would have been based on those actions

If they want to add time, they could totally charge him while he was already in prison! Nobody is worried about “taxpayer resources” the government got way more money out of the seizures than nearly any of their criminal cases, in which they do redundant tacked on convictions all the time!

this is such an aberration

> I don't think sentencing should be using information that wasn’t part of the charges or the conviction. I’ve seen prosecutors chose to be extremely strict about that, judges chose to be extremely about that

The judge addressed this:

> The record was more than sufficient to support the district court's reliance on those attempted murders in sentencing Ulbricht to life in prison. The attempted murders for hire separate this case from that of an ordinary drug dealer, regardless of the quantity of drugs involved in the offense, and lend further support to the district court's finding that Ulbricht's conduct and character were exceptionally destructive. That he was able to distance himself from the actual violence he paid for by using a computer to order the killings is not mitigating. Indeed, the cruelty that he displayed in his casual and confident negotiations for the hits is unnerving. We thus cannot say that a life sentence was outside the “range of permissible decisions” under the circumstances. Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189.

TLDR: this guys raised hairs on the judge's back

There were other “permissible decisions”

Thats the point? The ruling is resilient in that it survived appeals, we disagree on whether it should have gone down this path at all. Railroaded is the term.

What do you mean by 'validating'? It's just the reality of the situation. Is his sentence overreaching and excessive given the circumstances? Yes. Definitively yes. Did Ross commit a crapton of crimes? Also yes. Look I fully agree that his sentence should be reduced and he be given a second chance but again the man is in no way innocent either.

Seriously if everyone concerned really wants to help this man then everyone needs to drop this misleading mythology built up around him and deal directly with the reality of what happened. For example, this statement from the site:

Ross Ulbricht is condemned to die in prison for creating an anonymous e-commerce website called Silk Road. An entrepreneur passionate about free markets and privacy, he was 26 when he made the site.

I'm sorry that is a gross misrepresentation of what he did and is in no way helping him. If people really want to help him get his sentenced reduced then they need to start by fully acknowledging the crimes Ross actually committed. Then a clear argument can be made that excessiveness of his sentence far outweighs those criminal acts. It's not a case of innocence vs. guilt and shouldn't be framed as such. It's a case of Ross being unduly punished for the crimes that he legitimately committed. Anything else is just muddying the waters and again is in no way helping him.

I don't quote the website, and I was very clear about him being convicted of the things he went to trial for. Furthermore, my whole post was about adding time.

Regardless of if it is or is not excessive, I think it is fascinating that the things a man did entirely online while he assumed he was anonymous are enough that society deems two life sentences in prison. He did that much damage to society with a keyboard and mouse.

Courts determine guilt, and the courts did not find Ross guilty of attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt. So, objectively, Ross is innocent of attempted murder.

If the prosecutors thought they had a good case, why wouldn't they pursue this?

You can't have it both ways, is court the authority on guilt or not? If not, how can you trust his guilty verdict for the other crimes?

I get the "Free Ross" campaigners are trying to persuade us, and I think his parents are largely behind it which I sympathize with, but the manner in which they gloss over FIVE ATTEMPTED MURDERS goes beyond mere bias.

Keep Ross In

If his parents are largely behind it they may not be able to even accept that he was capable of such a thing. A sad thought.

"He's a real self-starter and quite entrepreneurial as well."

He was never charged or convicted of murder, and 2 of the agents on his case were corrupt and dishonest. This is enough to at the very least sow reasonable doubt.

I'm all for him being imprisoned if guilty of attempted murder, but he absolutely should not still be in prison for the charges that he was found guilty of.

The charges he was found guilty of carry a 20 year minimum sentence.

He was not charged with murder because the attempt was intercepted by the police and did not occur.

The messages he wrote soliciting the contract murder were submitted as evidence as facts in the case against him and weighed heavily in his sentencing.

I don't understand why people want this guy free besides early-crypto-nostalgia.

Attempting murder is still illegal and carries a heavy sentence.

I don't want him free personally, I just want him freed on the drug charges and tried separately for the murder charges

All discord in his empire was fabricated by corrupt government agents who both served time for this, information that was kept from Ross and his defense and the jury during trial

The corrupt agents staged hits in a makeshift studio, just to extort money from Ross, use the money for personal gain such as landing a movie deal with Fox

Cases have been completely dropped for less

The prosecutor and judge found a strategy that is resilient, that doesn't make it correct

I don't get this. The prosecutors decided not to press the hitman charges, so would the defense have even tried to gather evidence that it was false? Wouldn't that automatically make the preponderance of the evidence suggest his guilt, as only the evidence suggesting his guilt would have been presented?

"Preponderance of evidence" here refers to a legal standard (i.e. was it more likely than not) rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "most of the evidence."

The prosecutors didn't charge him with hiring hitmen because they were uncertain that they could prove it beyond a resonable doubt, but the evidence they were able to present suggests he probably did it.

If only one side is presenting evidence, isn't it likely that the preponderance of evidence will support their claim? I only browsed the linked judgment, but I didn't see the defense address the hitman claims.

Agreed - from a purely personal morality argument, I’m convinced this guy did indeed pay for contracted killings for 5 people. Yeah, some of the cops setting up the sting were corrupt, I can certainly see why it was sketchy in court and prosecutors decided to drop this angle (they had him on massive drug dealing anyways), but from my personal moral POV, dude paid for murders. I’m not shedding any tears about Ross being in jail.

Is that enough to convince you 100% that it happened?

So the courts didn't determine he did it by the only standard that actually matters, guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It is not a contradiction to say he could've been guilty by preponderance of evidence and innocent because of reasonable doubt.

You either trust the high standards of criminal culpability, or you don't -- in which case why do you believe his other guilty verdict can be trusted?