[GIFtheory]

This argument is problematic because it implies that a person from a different background who committed the same crimes (e.g., a poor, black, uneducated person without any fancy philosophical ideals) /should/ be locked up and the key thrown away. It doesn’t work that way. The law applies the same to all, and that’s the way I like it.

[pmarreck]

The problem is that if the law is arguably unethical or arbitrary, you're going to catch more "good" people in it. My comment was not so much a defense of Ross as it was an accusation against unjust drug law.

Imagine a hypothetical law which arrests anyone who trades in red shirts. Someone comes along and doesn't see what the big deal is and decides to trade in these shirts on the black market. Lives are saved because it is impossible to get shot at while paying for red shirts over the Internet instead of in person. Then the dude who ran the red shirt marketplace and seems like an opportunistic idealist gets locked up with the key thrown away.

Anyway, it is arguable that the Silk Road saved lives, given that black markets are persistent regardless of legality.

https://cybercrimejournal.com/pdf/Lacson%26Jonesvol10issue1I...

https://gwern.net/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/1/2013-vanhou...

[Aeolun]

I don’t think this is true? Motivation is a large part of sentencing. It’s also very important to determine the chances of recurrence.

[BoiledCabbage]

Seriously, that was pretty blatant "he was one of the good guys like me and so the law shouldn't really punish him, not like one of those other people with different value that should be punished to the full extent."

[pmarreck]

Not at all. My point was actually:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42792552

[miningape]

I mean there's a legal concept of motivation. A murder is sentenced very differently if it's premeditated, or not.

The idea of looking at someone's motivations to determine their sentencing is critical to our legal system - otherwise important defences like the "Battered Wife Defence" wouldn't work.

I think most of us can also see a difference between a poor person stealing some gloves to stay warm in the winter and a rich person stealing those same gloves for the thrill. The only difference here is you don't like the fact that Ulbricht's motivations were more high minded than your average crack pusher (cough CIA cough) - the judge didn't either - in fact he sentenced him harder for it to make an example of him.

[tylergetsay]

That legal concept isn't a broad idea but rather a specific carve out for very specific crimes.