SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, aka the "Dread Pirate Roberts," has been sentenced to life in prison on multiple charges by a federal judge in Manhattan. The charges he faced carried a minimum sentence of 20 years, but he received the maximum sentence of life in prison for "engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise" (The Kingpin Statute):
Ross Ulbricht, the man behind illegal online drug emporium Silk Road, was sentenced to life in prison on Friday by Judge Katherine Forrest of Manhattan's US district court for the southern district of New York. Before the sentencing the parents of the victims of drug overdoses addressed the court. Ulbricht broke down in tears. "I never wanted that to happen," he said. "I wish I could go back and convince myself to take a different path." Ulbrict was handed five sentences one of 20 year, one of 15 years, one of five and two of life. All are to be served concurrently.
Ulbrict, 31, begged the judge to "leave a light at the end of the tunnel" ahead of his sentence. "I know you must take away my middle years, but please leave me my old age," he wrote to Forrest this week. Prosecutors wrote Forrest a 16-page letter requesting the opposite: "[A] lengthy sentence, one substantially above the mandatory minimum is appropriate in this case."
Forrest rejected arguments that Silk Road had reduced harm among drug users by taking illegal activities off the street. "No drug dealer from the Bronx has ever made this argument to the court. It's a privileged argument and it's an argument made by one of the privileged," she said.
Also at Ars Technica, Wired, and The Verge. Ulbricht faces additional charges in Maryland over an alleged murder-for-hire plot.
[Original Submission - Ed.]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:44PM
Forrest rejected arguments that Silk Road had reduced harm among drug users by taking illegal activities off the street. "No drug dealer from the Bronx has ever made this argument to the court. It's a privileged argument and it's an argument made by one of the privileged,"
Of course no drug dealer from the Bronx ever made that argument to the court, by definition they were on the street.
“The stated purpose [of Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the dread Pirate Roberts. You made your own laws,” Forrest told Ulbricht as she read the sentence.
That's an example of my biggest problem with the american legal system. Too many of the people ensconced in it think of themselves as priests tending to the temple. The laws are a tool to improve society, not holy commandments from God. Disrespect of the law shouldn't be a factor in sentencing, any more than disrespect of a cop should be a factor in arresting. Sentencing should be based on harm done, not your disrespect for the institution sentencing you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:46PM
And the ODs? No harm no foul?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday May 29 2015, @11:13PM
Totally right. We should punish him the same manner as anyone who sells products known to be potentially harmful to humans if they take too much of them.
Quick, someone look up what we did to the heads of the tobacco, alcohol, and fast food/soda industries.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:57AM
Too bad guns don't harm people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @11:50AM
Oh, of course! Guns don't cause any harm at all! Guns should be given away for free to anyone who wants them! They should be sold as childrens' toys since they're the most harmless thing in the world. Those pesky bullets fired from them, on the other hand, those do all the harm, so instead of gun manufacturers we must hold bullet manufacturers responsible for their clients' and targets' deaths.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:23PM
>> Sentencing should be based on harm done,
>
> And the ODs? No harm no foul?
What part of that is unclear?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @11:46AM
Shouldn't every conservative in the US be clamoring about "personal responsibility" here? He's not responsible for his customers' irresponsibility. There's plenty of reliable information [erowid.org] on drugs throughout the internet, not to mention countless harm reduction forums. Every drug user knows they're taking risks by using illegal substances, if they fail to properly prepare for those risks, its their own fault, not the supplier of the substances they demanded.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:02AM
There's a particularly brutal way to interpret the social contract theory: if you don't accept society's laws, society has no reason to hold back in dealing with you.
No matter how you arrange society that brutality bears down on someone at some time in some form. Living with human beings gets ugly.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:12AM
> There's a particularly brutal way to interpret the social contract theory
Except our legal system is not based on that interpretation. It is based on the concept of proportionality.