[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...