
Unsealed Transcript Shows How a Judge Justified Ross Ulbricht's Life Sentence - oneJob
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/unsealed-transcript-shows-how-a-judge-justified-ross-ulbrichts-life-sentence?trk_source=popular
======
stormcrowsx
It's terrible that we are doing this to someone who probably would have
learned their lesson with only 5-10 years of prison and been able to return to
society. He had the potential to return as a productive member of society and
now instead he will be a lifelong debt all for assisting in the sale of drugs
that people willingly purchased knowing the risk of death from those drugs.
He's no saint but this punishment is unreasonable and it seems like the Judge
was just out to get him.

~~~
tptacek
Well, that and attempting to have multiple people killed.

~~~
anonbanker
for the record, this is what ulbricht was convicted of:

narcotics trafficking; distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet;
narcotics trafficking conspiracy; continuing criminal enterprise; conspiracy
to aid and abet computer hacking; conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identity
documents; and money laundering conspiracy.

notice that "attempting to have multiple people killed" is not something he
was convicted of.

~~~
tptacek
Notice indictment, first count, overt act B.

~~~
clamprecht
For the benefit of others, here is the indictment:
[http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-
sdny/legacy/...](http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-
sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/US%20v.%20Ross%20Ulbricht%20Indictment.pdf)

The murder for hire thing is on page 5.

------
chimeracoder
Okay, so I'm not going to criticize Ulbricht's sentencing, because (a) it's
hard to make a case to go easy on him, and (b) I don't really care enough
about Ulbricht in particular.

But from a drug policy perspective, this language jumps out at me:

> Ulbricht’s defense had argued the site reduced harm because it kept drug
> deals off the streets and allowed users to share information about drug
> safety. The transcript from the final day of court proceedings shows how
> Forrest categorically rejected that claim, outlining the social costs of
> drug use from an individual level to mass scale. “The social costs of drugs
> are manifest,” she said. “The user is only one part of the equation, that is
> where much of this harm reduction argument comes from and it is focused on
> the user. The user is one part of a massive, massive worldwide scheme of
> drug trafficking and if you sat where I sat you would see that the user is
> not the end… So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point.”

First, let's make the assumption that all those users would have obtained the
drugs some other way without the Silk Road. In that case, all that trafficking
cost that happens before the seller lists the drug on the market _still_ would
have occurred. Silk Road was just as responsible for that cost as the end
user[0].

Now, let's make the assumption that all those users would _not_ have obtained
the drugs some other way. That's basically saying that trafficking - which is
an avoidable cost - is what makes the Silk Road so egregious. In that case,
the right action is to address the drug trafficking trade itself. Again, Silk
Road had only a small role in that. If we fixed the issues with drug
trafficking, perhaps we would have a very different kind of marketplace than
what Silk Road was (with a very different kind of person running it).

In case it's not obvious by this point, I think the drug war is pretty
backwards. I don't really have any sympathy for Ulbricht or the Silk Road, but
I'm also not impressed by the judge's arguments in this sentencing.

[0] this is not counting, of course, Ulbricht's own actions (e.g. attempting
to hire an assassin).

------
joesmo
Judge: "So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point."

I think the judge is missing the point here, the point being an understanding
of harm reduction and apparently, surprisingly the effects of drugs on
society. No wonder she gave him life. She doesn't even understand what "harm
reduction" is. The rest was just nonsense.

------
smoyer
"Forrest said because the case was so widely publicized, a more severe
sentence could deter similar crimes in the future."

As others have noted, I doubt the judge spent 100 hours making this decision
(that's two and a half person-weeks full-time). I don't condone what Ulbricht
did but I don't think his sentencing was rational.

~~~
qq66
If you want examples of irrational sentences they are sadly not hard to find:
[http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/107830/](http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/107830/)

------
stahlkopf
Interesting how the judge is outraged by the recommendation of 'Doctor X' to
the person to discontinue their antidepressants before taking MDMA. Surely she
must know the highly elevated risk of mixing anti-depressants and a drug like
MDMA can cause Serotonin Syndrome and lead to death....

~~~
stevecalifornia
An actual doctor would say: "Dont do MDMA. Don't get off your anti-
depressants."

~~~
stahlkopf
This is akin to abstinence-only sex education. It just doesn't work.

~~~
task_queue
I'd agree if there weren't safe ways to have sex.

Breaking a treatment regimen to use a drug that wreaks havoc on the specific
neurotransmitter the antidepressant acts on doesn't work.

There is no way to reliably control the outcome of stopping treatment and
taking street drugs.

------
superplussed
This quote of the judge as he delivering his verdict is so crazy (he is
reading from Ulbricht's journal):

Two days later on April 8 you write: "Sent payments to angel for hit on Tony76
and his three associates. Began setting up hecho as standby" \-- I have no
idea what that is -- "refactored main and category pages to be more
efficient."

~~~
nness
Not to nitpick, but the judge was female :)

~~~
discodave
How is that comment relevant?

------
kazinator
Judge> _It was a world of laws that you created, they were your laws. It is
fictional to think of Silk Road as some place of freedom._

Ouch, terrible strawman; freedom doesn't mean freedom from all laws. It does
entail freedom from some unreasonable laws.

~~~
xirdstl
Who defines 'unreasonable'?

~~~
kazinator
Hopefully not who, but what. Such as, for starters, the "doesn't affect anyone
else" principle.

~~~
chrischen
Killing people affects people.

~~~
kazinator
I don't think that's what the judge is talking about in the remark about Silk
Road having laws. I can't imagine that it is related to the topic of murder
for hire.

------
Sleaker
I wonder how Germany would have sentenced him? Anybody else read that article
about the german prison system and rehabilitation?

------
kenesom1
Forrest was horribly biased against the defense. The prosecution's case was
extremely problematic - resting on a chain of flimsy evidentiary and legal
assumptions that would never have survived proper judicial scrutiny. The
appeal will expose serious irregularities and hopefully overturn the decision.

Forrest spent a year at the Department of Justice before being confirmed as a
federal judge in 2011. Her handling of the case was pay back to her sponsors
at the DOJ.

From the transcript: "No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or
crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court".

Her comments smack of racism and classism. She reveals her implicit belief
that since illicit drugs are associated in the media with oppressed minorities
or less affluent communities, Ulbricht isn't entitled to such an "uppity"
defense. She clearly can't fathom any possible reason why anyone might be
opposed to prohibition and mass incarceration.

The transcript: "What Silk Road really was was a social market expander of a
socially harmful drug that we have deemed in our democratic process to be
unacceptable"

Except polls show that most Americans are opposed to US drug policies, even
for "hard" substances like heroin [1]. Any discussion about drug laws that
doesn't acknowledge its racist roots or the commercial interests involved is
missing the point.

[1] [http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/new-pew-poll-
confirms...](http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/new-pew-poll-confirms-
americans-ready-end-war-drugs)

~~~
x5n1
Ultimately, judges are God when you are in the court room, or treated as if
they were. In reality judges are human beings with human problems. We should
replaces judges with AI. AI is much better at acting like God than fallible
human beings with their biases and their legal systems which are basically
like religions.

Ultimately though the guy was guilty and should have spent 5-10 years in
prison.

------
hapless
The prosecution was outstandingly successful in demonstrating that Ross
Ulbricht is a violent, dangerous criminal. It is not surprising he was
sentenced as such.

This is what it looks like when the system works. Society is safer with Ross
behind bars.

------
kw71
Wow. She is on a mission. I wonder what her medical qualifications are, and
also what happened behind the scenes to persuade her.

