[sillysaurus3]

Apparently we're not going to have a rational debate about this topic, which is unfortunate. For example, my comment had nothing to do with whether Ulbrict was convicted. It was strictly about asset forfeiture, which is a completely separate concept from having a trial. But of course a sarcastic one-liner is the most upvoted rebuttal.

Ulbrict is being given due process. He is also being given a fair trial. My observation is simply that there's no logical way he could have earned 50,000 BTC except by being an early miner or by running Silkroad, and apparently he wasn't an early miner.

Why is that important? Because if you're trying to change asset forfeiture, choosing which case to fight and who to defend is extraordinarily important. Let's say that the supreme court decides to reevaluate asset forfeiture, and let's say you've chosen Ulbrict as the case for them to reevaluate. Why give them more reasons to say "Our finding is that asset forfeiture is a legal and valid practice, and should not change"? By choosing Ulbrict, you aren't helping your cause.

A verdict like that will settle the debate of asset forfeiture for decades to come, so why risk such a crucial outcome so whimsically?

[gambiting]

Because acting on observations such as yours is directly against the spirit of due process and lawful justice. Even if it's "obvious" he could not have obtained those bitcoins legally, that does not change the fact that the law enforcement should not touch it until the verdict.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, either you understand that having a lawful society requires following the law to the letter even if something is painfully obvious, or you don't.