[senoroink]

Regardless if it's convincing or not, he's not guilty of the crime.

Imagine this: you steal a bag of Oreos from a 7-11. You are sent to trial. Then the prosecution says you also killed some dude. When all is said and done, you are convicted of shoplifting and receive an insane amount of time in prison but were never actually charged with murder, wouldn't you think that the jury was manipulated?

[s73v3r_]

No, I wouldn't. Because the jury has nothing to do with the sentencing. The prosecution also wouldn't just make up the story of killing some dude; there would be some evidence to link me to that action.

Stop pretending that Ulbricht is some kind of saint, and that there is no evidence of him doing this.

[senoroink]

I don't disagree that there may be some kind of evidence to link to that action. But I do believe that evidence can be tampered with to create the illusion. Seriously, a chat transcript is what people cite as evidence? We as a society should doubt accusations until they've been proven to be factual.

There's been numerous cases of people being exonerated of a crime [1] after spending years of their life inside prison.

I'm not trying to pretend that Ulbricht is a saint. He deserves to be in prison for running an illegal market. But if that's all he was ever convicted of, then I believe that the punishment of a double life sentence doesn't fit the crime.

* [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_i...