[sdhgaiojfsa]

Well . . . the charges themselves were all for non-violent offenses. But part of the reason why the sentencing was so harsh was that whole thing where he paid to have five people killed.

> "I find there is ample and unambiguous evidence that [Ulbricht] commissioned five murders to protect his commercial enterprise," Forrest [the judge in the case] said, leaving out one alleged attempted murder for which Ulbricht was charged in a different case.

-- https://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbrich...

[ekianjo]

Maybe you conveniently forget that there was no such proof and that is why the "procuring murder" charge was dropped by the prosecution.

> Of the six murder indictments trumpeted by the U.S. government in the days following Ulbricht’s Oct. 2013 arrest, five have fallen off the table and the sixth sits untouched in a separate indictment (legalese for an unproven allegation) that was purposefully left out of the upcoming trial.

> Prosecutor Serrin Turner used the murder-for-hire allegations to get the judge to deny bail. Now, Turner isn’t even going to charge Ulbricht with the murders.

> Why have six of the most important accusations been left as yet uncharged?

> “Maybe you don’t have that proof,” criminal defense attorney Jay Leiderman told the Daily Dot. “Maybe the proof isn’t as good as you thought it was.”

> There are a couple of other possibilities that deserve mention. First, there may be informants out there that the prosecution doesn’t want to expose, that they want to use for other cases, so they’re willing to leave half a dozen murders uncharged in order to protect him. Second, they may have determined that a relevant informant is unreliable and can’t be used in trial.

> Either way, the murder accusations are buried and uncharged.

from: https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross...

[rhombocombus]

Apparently in spite of that they still used that evidence in determining his sentencing. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it it would be the difference between getting pulled over with a lot of drugs vs getting pulled over with a lot of drugs and a lot of guns that you legally own: Even if you only get charged and convicted of the drug possession the case with the trunk full of guns will in all likelihood experience harsher sentencing.

[ekianjo]

> Even if you only get charged and convicted of the drug possession the case with the trunk full of guns will in all likelihood experience harsher sentencing.

That's not how the Rule of Law works.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

It actually is how the law works, though, since (for better or worse) there is judicial discretion in sentencing.

[s73v3r_]

Yes it is? Are you honestly trying to say that one cannot take the context of things into account when sentencing?

[sdhgaiojfsa]

I quoted someone who was intimately involved in the trial saying there was ample and unambiguous evidence. Your theory on why those charges were not included is one of a number of possible explanations. Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses.

[DINKDINK]

>Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses.

Your argument is equivalent to: "As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed" . It's the equivalent of arguing for a system that is ok with police breaking into a house without a warrant as long as they find something illegal.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

> As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed

What? I don't believe I said anything about "feeling good" anywhere in my comment, so I struggle to fathom how my argument can be equivalent to an argument that includes that term.

[paulgb]

Where was due process violated here?

[colordrops]

Charges were dropped and he will not be convicted on those, and you have no evidence yourself. Rumors are not a bar to presume guilt.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

? I quoted the judge in the case, who does have the evidence . . .. She didn't presume guilt. She factored evidence of guilt into her sentencing decision.

[dpark]

> She didn't presume guilt. She factored evidence of guilt into her sentencing decision.

What does that mean? How do you factor in "evidence of guilt" without assuming guilt? That is absurd.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

Here's how it works. If those were the only charges, then your standard of proof would be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. 97-99% likely). They aren't. Since the other charges were already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is already going to be incarcerated for the statutory thirty years to life. Now the judge has to decide how much time to give. If the defendant is a saint who made a mistake, maybe they get thirty years. If the defendant is the devil, they might get life. I don't know what standard of evidence the judge is required to use to make this decision, but I'm under the impression that it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is probably more like, "preponderance of evidence," (>50% likelihood). So if the judge believes the most likely scenario is that the defendant is a super bad guy, they might give a harsher sentence.

As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.

[nostromo]

> didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses

Oh, come now. What prosecutor is going to drop murder charges in favor of money laundering and computer hacking charges when they have unambiguous evidence?

[sdhgaiojfsa]

I don't know. I don't know too many prosecutors, and whenever I read about them, it's normally related to sensational news stories or even more sensational fictional TV shows. Perhaps you have more direct experience with these elusive creatures and have a better understanding of their mentalities.

[paulgb]

He is serving life without parole. Why would they prove anything beyond what was necessary to get that?

[ChrisLomont]

Also don't forget he still has a trial pending for the procuring murder charge in Maryland.

[nostromo]

It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for.

He wasn't even tried for those charges, which should give us pause.

I'm surprised a judge is even allowed to site "unambiguous evidence" for charges that weren't even brought before the court.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

> It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for.

I feel like judicial discretion in sentencing is pretty well understood, but I guess it could seem strange if you haven't spent much time reading about or experiencing the legal system.

[dpark]

I feel like this is a handwavy answer that doesn't say anything meaningful. In no way does belittling the parent commenter's experience answer why unproven allegations are acceptable to consider in sentencing.

[wang_li]

>It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for.

Sentencing is a range. Based on the facts presented to the judge during trial and through third parties in the sentencing phase (victim statements, letters from your pastor, parents, friends, and teachers, etc.) judges can choose the low end of the range or the high end of the range. It's no more strange to give someone the high end due to unproven statements of assholerly, than sentencing being more lenient for good qualities that have never been proven.

[s73v3r_]

Defendants are allowed to call "character witnesses" during sentencing hearings to tout what a good person they are, and judges can take that into account. I fail to see why the other way should not be allowed either.