Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

guy behind the silk road shouldn't die in prison

76 replies

pettywitchinlondon · 30/05/2015 22:19

When tobacco and alcohol is far far far far far more damaging and kills far more people but the people running these companies are very wealthy and most peoples pensions invest in these companies.

OP posts:
SaucyJack · 31/05/2015 08:48

I do agree that certain drugs should be decriminalised.

Stuff like MDMA or mephedrone can be made in a UK chemistry lab with absolutely no need for human trafficking or the international criminal drugs trade.

And they're at least as safe as alcohol when taken respectfully.

But in the current world that we live in, no one can say that no one is harmed by the use of cocaine or heroin.

suzannecanthecan · 31/05/2015 08:48

?
The war on drugs is what makes drug dealing such a lucrative trade, legalisation is probably the last thing that the drug barons want.
no doubt his successors will be able to see where he went wrong and not make the same mistakes.
?

NoArmaniNoPunani · 31/05/2015 08:51

A lot will change in the years this man is in prison. When Howard Marks first went to prison the majority agreed with his sentence. Now he's a celebrity with film and book deals.

TeapotDictator · 31/05/2015 08:53

He is an incredibly intelligent man who decided to use his smarts to sell drugs.

Hmm Hmm well, not that clever since one of the main leads the FBI got was by the fact that he marketed Silk Road and inadvertently asked people to email him at [email protected] Grin

I think it's a draconian sentence but they're making an example of him for deterrence purposes. There was evidence he had paid $150k to a hitman to take out a Silk Road user he wanted rid of; this wasn't just about basic drug dealing.

suzannecanthecan · 31/05/2015 08:57

Howard Marks, yes and cannabis is now legal in some parts of the USA.
On the other hand hasnt uncle Dave just made all intoxicating substances illegal so there are no more legal highs, it all feels very dystopian?Hmm

CaptainHolt · 31/05/2015 09:00

Stuff like MDMA or mephedrone can be made in a UK chemistry lab with absolutely no need for human trafficking or the international criminal drugs trade

Cannabis can be grown on a windowsill in the UK with no need for human trafficking but the reality is thousands of people (children) are trafficked to work on cannabis 'farms' i.e. dark, unventilated, unbearably hot houses filled with toxic chemicals. The trafficking networks are the same as those bringing in women and children for prostitution, and in some cases the trafficked people are the same.

There was no need to use trafficked people to grow sugar and cotton in plantations but it still happened. It's probably an argument for decriminalisation and regulation but the status quo of turning a blind eye to users as if there are no real consequences is probably more damaging than either trying to stamp out drug use completely or allowing it but properly regulating the industry.

blue42 · 31/05/2015 09:02

The hitman was an undercover agent who effectively befriended Ulbright and pffered his services. Whilst I absolutely don't condone it, the initial request was for the victim to be beaten up, which the undercover agent happily staged and recorded (the victim conveniently happened to already be in custody of the agent concerned, and agreed to play along for his own benefit - questionable, much?).

It was then Ulbright's choice to up the request to assassination, but I'd argue that that there was some seriously dodgy law enforcement activity going on here which helped to encourage him.

Incidentally, I believe that the undercover agent involved in this is one of two who have now been charged with stealing huge sums of bitcoin from the site for their own purposes. They had already been arrested (not sure whether charged at that point) during the trial of Ulbright, but this was not permitted as evidence by the defence that the investigation was somewhat flawed.

Staywithme · 31/05/2015 09:03

What about the children that were raped and abused in order to provide the child pornography that was traded on Silk Road? He also attempted to have six people killed, paying hundreds of thousands of pounds. He's not a young boy who had no choice. If he was selling drugs on your street corner or at the gates of the local college, I'm sure you would have a different opinion.

blue42 · 31/05/2015 09:09

Staywithme, that's not correct, in either case.

meglet · 31/05/2015 09:20

he wasn't that young when he created the silk Road, he must have been early 20's? he created a platform that enabled thousands of others to break the law. I'm afraid that as harsh as it is I agree with the judge.

However, personally I think drugs need to be legalised somehow. as it stands, they're fairly easy to get hold of despite being illegal and the criminals make all the money. It's a bloody mess.

securitylecturer · 31/05/2015 09:21

The drugs sales are only part of Silk Road. There was a lot of sales of firearms, too, and when a colleague looked at it as part of a research project into Bitcoin it appeared that there was a fair amount of child pornography being offered too.

Because moving controlled drugs over a state line is a clearcut federal offence it's easier to prosecute him for that. It avoids getting into the complex issue of what is and isn't an illegal firearms sale in the US, or proving that stuff claimed to be child pornography actually is child pornography; offering child porn for sale isn't an offence if you rip the buyer off and don't deliver. They had solid proof federally controlled narcotics were being shipped, and that's all they needed to make the case.

The second indictment is both funny and frightening, especially the bit where he orders the murder of a rival and gets ripped off by another criminal who claim to have carried out the killing, but hadn't. Count Two in this. It's an interesting question as to whether paying forty grand to have someone tortured and killed should be an offence if they are not, in fact, tortured or killed.

The whole thing reads like a sociopathic little boy with limited empathy and intellect who over-estimated his cleverness and arrogantly assumed law enforcement didn't have his skills. He was a bit (oh, OK, a lot) of an idiot, especially the bit where he had twenty fake drivers' licenses in various names all with his photograph on shipped to his own address, and even more so the bit where he started posting on stack overflow (a technology forum) to get people to fix his code. Life seems harsh: he appears mostly to have been guilty of being a complete and utter tosser with no regard for anything other than his own bank balance. But the Americans are tough on those sort of crimes, and the claims of miscarriage don't look plausible. I suspect it'll get reduced to thirty to life on appeal.

suzannecanthecan · 31/05/2015 09:31

he created a platform that enabled thousands of others to break the law?
Well, the template was already there ie ebay, obviously the state has to sanction someone in his position but it was bound to happen and the cat won't go back in the bag?

namechange0dq8 · 31/05/2015 09:37

However, personally I think drugs need to be legalised somehow.

I often argue for straightforward legalisation with the state selling the full spectrum of drugs cheaply. The whole illegal drug trade goes out of business, a lot of collateral damage (crime, infection, overdose) goes with it. However, you will get a lot of already damaged people (a common reason for starting to use illegal drugs is self-medicating undiagnosed MH issues) becoming addicts, which will have a substantial social cost.

It's true to say criminalisation doesn't stop those that want to get drugs badly enough, but it would be surprising to see it claimed that there is noone who has ever been dissuaded from using heroin by either the risk of contamination or the illegality. Unfortunately, we're not getting a rational debate, because "drugs is bad, OK?" is about the level, and any politician who tried to argue otherwise would be crucified.

suzannecanthecan · 31/05/2015 09:50

in a generation or so public feeling about drugs may well have changed radically, it is just a matter of waiting until the old fashioned attitudes die with the people who hold them
?
There is no doubt that drugs / intoxicants are highly problematic as are many things where humans are prone to compulsive behavior, sex food, gambling.
Making them illegal doesn't appear to be the best solution, I suppose we might look at what drives people to self medicate with food or drugs, tackle the underlying causes of human unhappiness.
Bit of a tall order and philosophers over the millennia haven't made much progress ?

MonstrousRatbag · 31/05/2015 16:04

blue42 I mentioned images of child abuse (I do wish people wouldn't say 'child porn') only in the context of being able to receive or launder the proceeds using Bitcoin and Silk Road, not that the site directly allowed it to be sold. Let's face it, if you facilitate money laundering you probably won't be picky about who your customers are.

pettywitchinlondon · 31/05/2015 16:30

That's like saying anyone dealing in cash is causing child abuse.

Let's hope so Suzzie, all reasearch into it says the war on drugs isn't working.

OP posts:
MonstrousRatbag · 01/06/2015 14:31

That's like saying anyone dealing in cash is causing child abuse.

No it isn't. That seriously is bollocks.

00100001 · 01/06/2015 14:42

“I’ve changed. I’m not the man I was when I created Silk Road. I’m a little wiser. A little more mature and much more humble,” Ulbricht pled in court."

of course he's gonan say he's changed.

Of course he's wiser.

I should hope he is more mature and humble now.

but he did what he did, and should be punished.

"Oh, I'm sorry I murdered my Mum five years ago. But I've changed and am now more mature and humble now!"
"oh, ok, off you go then!"

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 01/06/2015 14:46

I don't believe in whole life tariffs except in extreme circumstances (Fred West type cases).

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 01/06/2015 14:47

Gah! Meant to add...

I'm undecided whether what he did puts him on a par with those cases, but clearly the judge thought it did

blue42 · 01/06/2015 15:33

MonstrousRatbag, that is a fair point. But in that case, any business or individual that facilitates money laundering should be subject to the same penalties.

They are not. I did an admittedly quick google to see what sort of sentences Mafia money launderers get. The first hit was from 2013, a lawyer who laundered (himself, not just facilitating it) $1.3m of drug and extortion money.

He got just 7 years.

MonstrousRatbag · 01/06/2015 16:40

Ulbricht faced 7 charges.

  1. Distribution and aiding/abetting the distribution of narcotics;
2.Distribution and aiding/abetting the distribution of narcotics by Internet;
  1. Conspiracy to distribute narcotics;
  2. [Running a] Continuing criminal enterprise;
  3. Cons[iracy to commit or aid and abet the commission of computer hacking;
  4. Conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identification documents;
  5. Conspiracy to commit money laundering.

I don't quite understand how the charges fit together and what the underlying facts are. Charges 1 to 3 seem duplicative.

MonstrousRatbag · 01/06/2015 16:42

I found an intersting account of the sentencing hearing which quoted the judge as follows:

After Ulbricht spoke, the proceedings took a short recess.

"I have spent well over one hundred hours considering this sentence," said Judge Forrest upon her return. "I've run over and over it in my mind from every angle. What is a just sentence? What does that mean?"

The guidelines for Ulbricht's crimes pointed to life, but she wasn't bound by those, she noted.

"You don't fit a typical criminal profile," she began. "It's not TV or the movies in here. You're educated. You've got two degrees, an intact family, and 98 people willing to write letters on your behalf. And yet, we have you. And you are a criminal."

"I know that word even today may sound harsh to you, even today," said Forrest.

Ulbricht had been betrayed by his own words, and over the next several minutes, Forrest proceeded to read the most damning passages from his own logs and journals. ("It's still not clear to me why you kept a journal," she noted, an aside that apparently produced laughter in the overflow room.)

"This democracy we set up, it did not exist on the Silk Road," she said. "You were captain of the ship. It wasn't a world of 'freedom'—it was a place with a lot of rules. It was a world of your laws."

Ulbricht decided what was bought and sold on Silk Road. When a staffer pointed out cyanide was being sold, Ulbricht as DPR pointed out it was a potent substance that could be used for murder or suicide—and then allowed the sale.

"Within six minutes you made that decision," Forrest noted.

She didn't believe that it was a "naive young man" who created Silk Road.

"It was a carefully planned life's work," she said, pointing to a 2010 journal entry saying he'd already been thinking about the site for a year. "It was your opus. You wanted it to be your legacy—and it is."

Ulbricht's ideological messages on Silk Road boards "reveal a kind of arrogance," she said. "Silk Road's creation shows that you thought you were better than the laws."

As for the "harm reduction" arguments, the judge could not have been more cutting. She read every academic study suggested by the defense, and then some, and was not impressed.

"No drug dealer from Harlem or the Bronx would have made these arguments," said Forrest. "It's an argument of privilege."

Ulbricht was focused on harm that could come the user. But most drug violence didn't come from buys on the street, but from "upstream" violence that grows as demand grows, she asserted. Believing that the user is the only person affected by drug violence is "fantasy, it's magical thinking," she said.

"Poppies for heroin come from Mexico or Afghanistan," said Forrest. "When Silk Road expands the market, it is expanding the demand." Silk Road brought drugs to communities that didn't have access to them, in "staggering quantities," she added.

As for Fernando Caudevilla, or "Doctor X," the Spanish doctor hired by Ulbricht to give advice to users, the judge read his messages, and found them "breathtakingly irresponsible."

Caudevilla told a diabetic that using MDMA would be OK, as long as he remembered to check his glucose levels by setting an alarm. In another message, he advised an 18-year-old first time drug user to "be careful and I think you'll be fine," and to "stick to psychedelics."

Silk Road had done "great harm to the social fabric," the judge concluded. "Your case is without precedent. You are first. For those considering stepping into your shoes, they need to understand, there will be very severe consequences. There must be no doubt that lawlessness will not be tolerated."

For drug crimes, Ulbricht was sentenced to two life sentences, to be served concurrently. In the US federal justice system, there is no parole available from a life sentence. For aiding and abetting the distribution of computer hacking tools, fake IDs, and for money laundering, he was sentenced to five years, 15 years, and 20 years, respectively.

pettywitchinlondon · 01/06/2015 16:44

No it isn't. That seriously is bollocks.

The point is people are linking him to kiddie porn just because you could trade bitcoins there. Treating anyone that trades in bitcoin as helping child porn is silly.

OP posts:
MonstrousRatbag · 01/06/2015 16:45

Basically count 4 is the charge developed to throw at drug kingpins/cartel leaders and carries a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence, so the judge started at 20 years and added years from there. The penultimate paragraph above suggests that deterrence was a big factor.

I still think it is too much. But I don't think it was irrationally harsh.