[jyap]

His original sentence was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

So you can’t agree with the original sentence and then say he “absolutely deserved to be released.”

Without the chance of parole, a pardon from the president is one of the few ways he could get out of jail.

[rappatic]

Good point, you are absolutely correct. Then I suppose life “with the possibility of parole” would have been a more appropriate sentence, though I don’t know if that’s typically given. In any case, I feel prisons ought to release prisoners if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has, though of course that’s a difficult line to draw in practice.

[Thorrez]

>if they demonstrate exceptional rehabilitation and remorse, as Ross has

He seems to be denying that he hired hitmen:

https://youtu.be/zHMVyr5NjEY?si=GC1RhHhgLxe8gUOL&t=801

[ascorbic]

Life imprisonment – with or without parole – for a non-violent crime still seems excessive. If they'd convicted him of conspiracy to murder for hiring the hitman then that's a different matter.

[BargirPezza]

He was steering the biggest black market on darknet, that is pretty bad

[rbanffy]

The non-violent crime part doesn't work for me. He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes. That's quite clear.

[naasking]

> He acted as an enabler to countless violent crimes.

I don't like this argument of imputing transitive guilt. If guilt is imputed indirectly, then all of us are guilty of many things, like atrocities that our countries have perpetrated during war.

[rbanffy]

He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit.

Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime.

[naasking]

> Also punishing a people for actions of their government is a war crime

Right, because we recognize that indirect, transitive blame is ethically problematic.

> He actively and deliberately enabled those activities for self benefit.

So did the Sacklers with the opioid epidemic, arguably even more directly than Ulbricht. Which of them is in prison?

"Enabling" is exactly the kind of weasel word that I find problematic. It has no strict definition and can be broadened to suit whatever is needed to condemn an action you happen to dislike in any given scenario.

[ty6853]

He only allegedly needed to hire a hitman because the government invented the whole blackmail scenario behind it. You can't make this shit up, Silk Road was extra evil because it lead to the government creating hitmen and reasons to use them.

We need gangster hoodlums on the street because lookie here sonny, an online marketplace is dangerous and if it isn't dangerous enough well feds will make it that way.

[Thorrez]

>He only allegedly needed to hire a hitman

You don't need to hire a hitman when someone blackmails you.

[ec109685]

Commuting is the typical response for “he was totally guilty but sentenced too long”.

[ttul]

As an aside, in Canada, a sentence of life without parole is considered unlawful because it conflicts with Section 12 of the Charter guarantees that individuals have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have ruled that life without the possibility of parole deprives offenders of any hope of rehabilitation or reintegration into society, which could amount to cruel and unusual treatment.

A sentence must balance the gravity of the offense with the circumstances of the offender, while still allowing for hope and redemption. A life sentence without parole forecloses this balance.

It's always struck me as odd that the United States - a nation that is packed with far more Christians than Canada - doesn't shape its system of incarceration to be more inline with Christian values and the teachings of Jesus.

Canada's explicit rejection of life sentences without parole (LWOP) through decisions like R v Bissonnette more closely aligns with Jesus's teachings about redemption and mercy. In Canada, even those convicted of the most serious crimes retain the possibility of parole - not a guarantee of release, but a recognition of the potential for rehabilitation that echoes Jesus's teachings about transformation and second chances.

This philosophical difference manifests in several ways:

- In Canada, the emphasis on rehabilitation over retribution is reflected in the term "correctional services" rather than "penitentiary system"

- Canadian prisons generally offer more rehabilitative programs and education opportunities

- The Canadian system places greater emphasis on Indigenous healing lodges and restorative justice practices that align with Jesus's focus on healing broken relationships

- Canadian courts have explicitly recognized that denying hope of release violates human dignity, which parallels Jesus's teachings about the inherent worth of every person

The contrast becomes particularly stark when considering multiple murders. While many US jurisdictions impose multiple life sentences to be served consecutively (effectively ensuring death in prison), the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled this practice unconstitutional, maintaining that even the worst offenders should retain the possibility - though not guarantee - of earning redemption through genuine rehabilitation.

This doesn't mean Canada is soft on crime - serious offenders still serve lengthy sentences, and parole is never guaranteed. But the maintenance of hope for eventual redemption, even in the worst cases, better reflects Jesus's teachings about grace, transformation, and the limitless possibility of spiritual renewal.

The irony is particularly pointed given that the US has a much higher proportion of self-identified Christians than Canada, yet has adopted a more retributive approach that seems less aligned with Jesus's teachings about mercy and redemption.

But hey, you just have to wait for the right president to be elected and you might get your chance. So I guess that's something.

[AnthonyMouse]

> It's always struck me as odd that the United States - a nation that is packed with far more Christians than Canada - doesn't shape its system of incarceration to be more inline with Christian values and the teachings of Jesus.

Canada didn't have Prohibition to the extent that the US did, which in turn led to the rise and financing of organized crime. All the rest of it fell out of that: Organized crime was violent and ruthless, so people started demanding oppressive laws and harsh penalties to deal with it.

One of the major problems with this is that the cycle is reinforced by law enforcement. You sensibly get rid of prohibition, but then the mob is still around and starts looking for a new source of funding, so you get more extortion rackets etc. Then a law enforcement bureaucracy is created to deal with it, but long-term the mob was going to die out without prohibition anyway and the law enforcement efforts just speed it up a bit. Except now you have a law enforcement bureaucracy with nothing to do, so they lobby to recreate Prohibition in the form of the Controlled Substances Act, which reconstitutes the mob in the form of the drug cartels.

But now instead of saying "prohibition failed, let's repeal it" they say "we need more resources" -- institutions try to preserve the problem to which they are they solution. So the Feds fight any attempts to legalize drugs because it would put them out of a job, but as long as there is prohibition there is organized crime, and organized crime is violent and terrible and a ratchet to ever-harsher penalties.

[jmb99]

> Canada didn't have Prohibition to the extent that the US did, which in turn led to the rise and financing of organized crime. All the rest of it fell out of that: Organized crime was violent and ruthless, so people started demanding oppressive laws and harsh penalties to deal with it.

Canada definitely had (has?) organized crime in that era, although maybe not to the extent the US did. Check out the Papalias[1] (my great great uncle was a quasi-crooked cop on their payroll), as well as the Musitanos and Luppinos, for a couple southern-Ontario examples. There’s still a (relatively) small but fairly influential Italian mafia presence in a lot of smaller southern Ontario cities, and at least a few of the Papalias are still living off of family money (my family’s cottage, ironically not the side with the crooked great great uncle, is next door to one of the Papalia’s cottages).

Hamilton is the way it is today in large part due to the mob activity from the 40s-90s.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papalia_crime_family

[AnthonyMouse]

The article describes a crime family whose roots started in Canada's shorter and less comprehensive experiment with prohibition, after which they got involved with smuggling heroin into the US.

If something happens to a lesser extent and what does happen has a lot of the consequences spill over into the US, it's not that surprising that the backlash is more severe in the US.

[miracle2k]

> As an aside, in Canada, a sentence of life without parole is considered unlawful because it conflicts with Section 12 of the Charter guarantees that individuals have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have ruled that life without the possibility of parole deprives offenders of any hope of rehabilitation or reintegration into society, which could amount to cruel and unusual treatment.

Germany's highest court has held the same thing.

This is right and proper. We need to defend these principles, now more than ever.

[ipaddr]

On the surface but then they label you a dangerous offender and they keep you in jail. Paul Bernardino is a good example.

The differences in the system probably have more to do with electing vs appointing. Electing is more likely to send someone tougher on crime vs well balance.If officials were elected in Canada you would see the same outcome.

Not to mention private vs public prisons and when you make it a business you have to find new customers vs a cost center you want to limit.

[andypi_swfc]

It's very rare to see someone commenting on a HN from a orthodox (small o) Christian perspective. Thank you - some good points. But I'm very suspect that Trump made his decision on Ulbricht based on Jesus teachings, and even more suspect that the people who vote for him based their decision on Jesus teachings, despite any religious affiliation they may have. I think Paul Graham's recent article on the original of wokeness is very instructive here - there's always someone or some group to look down on, to make ourselves feel better, whatever side of the fence we are on. Cancel culture of the far left or progressive Christians, look them up and throw away the key, lack of grace by conservative Christians, it amounts to the same thing. (I'm a British Christian)

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”