Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
lmm | on: Ross Ulbricht granted a full pardon
I don't see how that should change anyone's opinion on whether the sentence was deserved. Whether it was legally/procedurally correct, sure. Whether he didn't get the day in court he should have had, sure. But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed, what he deserves is a long prison sentence, and whether that's imposed by a court doing things properly, a court doing things improperly, or a vigilante kidnapper isn't really here or there on that point.

(The rule of law is important, and we may let off people who deserve harsh sentences for the sake of preserving it, but it doesn't mean they deserve those sentences any less)

pcthrowaway | parent | next
> But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed

If there was enough evidence to demonstrate that he attempted to murder someone, why wasn't he charged and convicted of it?

Also, 2 of the DEA agents involved in his investigation were convicted of fraud in relation to the case.

I do believe he probably did attempt to have someone killed, but I'm far from certain of it, and think it should have no bearing on the case if there's not enough evidence to convict him.

fogof | root | parent | next
> If there was enough evidence to demonstrate that he attempted to murder someone, why wasn't he charged and convicted of it?

Wikipedia suggests this was because he was already sentenced to double life imprisonment. Clearly prosecutors should not waste time pursuing charges that won't really impact a criminal's status, do you disagree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Trial

loading story #42789873
chrisco255 | root | parent
I don't think he did. The guy who he allegedly ordered a hit on doesn't believe it and argued for Ross's release.
loading story #42792210
loading story #42789639
loading story #42790193
jmb99 | parent | next
> But given that no-one seems to seriously dispute that he did try to pay to have the guy killed,

It’s my understanding in the US that you are innocent until proven guilty, right? Therefore, he is indeed innocent of those crimes, since he was not proven guilty. Unless I’m missing something on how the US justice system works.

drdeca | root | parent | next
Their comment wasn’t about what was legally right. I thought the part where they said something like “regardless of whether it is by courts doing things properly, by courts doing things improperly, or by some vigilante” made that clear enough?

Whether someone morally deserves a punishment for a crime depends on whether they actually did it, not on whether they are considered innocent in the eyes of the law.

Of course, I don’t generally support vigilantism , so I don’t think people should try to make other people get what they think the other people deserve as punishment. But, that doesn’t mean that people can’t deserve worse than the law prescribes, just that people shouldn’t like, try to deliver what they think the deserts are.

victorbjorklund | root | parent
That is just the "legal" system. Not whether someone is morally guilty or not.

Hitler was never convicted of the holocaust in a court of law. Does that make him morally innocent? No.

Bin Ladin was never convicted of 9/11 in a court of law. Does that make him morally innocent? No.

mvdtnz | parent | next
You say the rule of law is important, but also we should impose extra-legal long sentences even if the rule of law doesn't allow us to? How do you reconcile this perspective?
lmm | root | parent
I say people sometimes deserve sentences longer than that which the law imposes on them. I didn't say anything about what we should do in that case.
lotharcable | parent
> The rule of law is important,

The rule of law says innocent until proven guilty.

The reason they didn't go after him for murder for hire allegations isn't because they felt bad for him or that they didn't want to waste tax payer's money.

The reason they didn't go after him for 'murder for hire' was that they knew there was no merit in it.

This is self evident.

tptacek | root | parent
They did go after him for "murder for hire"; the murders were part of his conspiracy predicates, and evidence for them was introduced. This stuff about him not being taken all the way through a case charged on murder-for-hire, after receiving a life sentence in a case where those murders were part of the case, is just message board jazz hands.
loading story #42788749