Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
This is wonderful. I've never argued that Ross shouldn't have served time but it's always been clear his prosecution and sentencing were excessive and unjust. The prosecutors asked for a 20 year sentence, which seemed disproportionate given the sentencing guidelines for a first-time offender and the non-violent charges he was convicted of. But the judge sentenced Ross to TWO life sentences plus 40 years - without the possibility of parole. There's no doubt Ross made a series of unwise and reckless decisions but serving over ten years of hard time in a FedMax prison is more than enough given the charges and his history.

It's just unfortunate that Trump, and now, excessive pardons are politically polarized, which could cloud the fact that justice was done today. I don't credit Trump in any way for doing "the right thing" or even having a principled position regarding Ross' case. Clearly, others with influence on Trump convinced him to sign it. It doesn't matter how the pardon happened. Biden should have already pardoned Ross because that crazy sentence shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Madoff got 150 years for non-violent charges (and he didn't even try to have anyone killed). Died in prison.
loading story #42788900
loading story #42790043
loading story #42788853
loading story #42796052
The numbers of pardons granted per president is interesting: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics
loading story #42796923
loading story #42792240
Most Pardons: Clinton & Reagan (4/month). Fewest Pardons: Bush senior / Biden (1.5/month)

Since Reagan.

Your math is wrong at least for Biden, I didn't recheck the others. Biden has 1736 pardons commuted or granted in 46.5 months or 37 pardons per month. I suspect all your other ones are wrong since Biden was so off. The recent trend is Biden and Obama being "off the charts" compared to the republican presidents. From my understanding this is due to weed related charges where they did mass pardonings. It's besides the point ones feelings about it, just commenting on the math.
> non-violent charges

Although the murder-for-hire charges were dropped, transcripts published by Wired in 2015[0] show Ross Ulbricht openly discussing contract killings: he haggles over price, suggests interrogation, and even provides personal details about a target’s family (“Wife + 3 kids”). These charges were dismissed partly because he had already been sentenced to life in New York, making further prosecution moot—but the transcripts themselves factored into his sentencing. No killings occurred (he was likely scammed), yet the conversations challenge the notion that his crimes were purely non-violent. He was willing to have someone killed to protect his idea.

[0]: https://archive.is/pRG3U.

> These charges were dismissed partly because he had already been sentenced to life in New York

It was further complicated because a couple of the law enforcement officers involved with setting up one of the six murder-for-hire scams* stole the Bitcoin Ulbricht paid and it was also felt that trying to prosecute based solely on the other chat logs would have been difficult. The FBI agent who arrested Ulbricht was interviewed about it recently[1].

* The other five are said to not have been law enforcement, which makes it curious the number of times Ulbricht was scammed in this manner.

[1] https://risky.biz/RB770/

The charges, sure. The ethical and moral implications, no.
The murder for hire was done with the admin account which was called "Dread Pirate Roberts" from the novel "The Princess Bride". The thing about the name is that is passed on over and over. The admin has claimed multiple times that he is not the original nor first administrator (Ross) of the silk road.

In addition you have the guy that was supposed to be murdered also claiming that it could not have been Ross.

The murder for hire case was very weak and then in addition you had the two federal agents working the murder for hire case charged for stealing bitcoins.

This is silly whataboutism. They have plenty of evidence, including PST/PDT timestamps and proof he logged out of other personal accounts when he logged into that account, that suggested it was him. Despite his claims, they watched him extensively and found no indication that anyone else was posing as DPR.
Not to mention that he was caught in part because the first public advertisements for Silk Road were traced back to his personal accounts, and there's strong evidence that he personally grew the first batch of shrooms that launched the market. It was all him from the beginning.
> sentencing guidelines for a first-time offender

First time offender?!?!? Applying that term to a guy who spent years traveling around the world under multiple fake IDs while using state-level security on his hardware and racking up law violations every single day seems like an absurd stretch.

I mean, come on. By that logic, Al Capone was a first time offender when the feds finally nailed him for the first time. Pablo Escobar was a first time offender when he finally got nabbed. Good lord.

"First time offense" applies to your _first offense_. Not relevant when you've committed thousands of offenses over years while living on the run.

> I don't credit Trump in any way for doing "the right thing" or even having a principled position regarding Ross' case.

This is probably the most ridiculous comment in this thread. Trump even spoke at the Libertarian convention and specifically mentioned how unjust the sentence was and that he would pardon Ross as one of his campaign promises and he delivered. Trump saw parallels between the attack on Ross and the politically motivated law fare the democrats attacked him with. I think the real issue you have with this pardon is that Trump did it and not some democrat.

loading story #42791374
loading story #42797321
> TWO life sentences plus 40 years - without the possibility of parole

IMHO convicting somebody of such a thing is a crime in itself. Simply not excusable. Especially when the crime is essentially a form of white collar crime at best. Bank robbers, drug dealers, and some actual murderers often get more lenient sentences than that.

I think this was a case of the justice system being abused to make a political point. Casually destroying somebody's life to make a political point should be criminal in itself (with appropriate sentences and public disgrace). I don't agree with Trump's politics. But this seems like he's righting a clear and obvious wrong; so good for him. Regardless of his motivations.

> Biden should have already pardoned Ross because that crazy sentence shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Biden did commute the sentence of several other non-violent cases just last week or thereabouts, and Trump has been talking about Ulbricht for quite some time so it's not a complete surprise.

I guess the whole "murder for hire" thing excluded him from the "non-violent" category. But how that got tacked on seems very odd; the judge basically said "we didn't really handle it in the court case and it wasn't a charge, but it was mentioned a few times and it seemed basically true, so I included it in the sentencing". Like, ehh, okay?

To be honest, I don't really understand much of the logic ("logic") of the US justice system....

loading story #42788917
loading story #42804993
But he’s only served a tiny fraction of what you say was an unjust sentence. So the jury’s still out as to whether he’s served enough time. Other hard drug dealers get way more time than Ross has served.

Its astonishing that granting pardons to drug dealers and attempted murderers is something Trump sees as one of the more urgent matters affecting the most powerful nation on Earth.

I wish this weren’t true.

loading story #42792419
loading story #42794177
loading story #42795618
loading story #42817078