Topic: Will Silk Road's Ulbricht Win Appeal? (Read 1829 times)
Just yesterday i download it the Documentary Deep web and damn it was pretty cool, most of the information is actually out there but is nice to have people that don't know the complete history of the case and ross watch it.
Uh ... that's not true.
General and specific deterrence are very well studied in criminal law and sociology, and they do have an effect on behavior. Perhaps not as pronounced as some of its proponents would like, but it's there.
General and specific deterrence are very well studied in criminal law and sociology, and they do have an effect on behavior. Perhaps not as pronounced as some of its proponents would like, but it's there.
Umm... sources? In my country I think 50% of inmates who leave prison end back in there. Doesn't seem like much of a deterrent, then there's plenty of evidence to suggest death penalty does nothing at all:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
http://nccadp.org/issues/deterrence/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
Well, all those cases are death penalty cases, which I think is a special type of case. But it's widely acknowledged that there's some general and specific deterrence applied to other types of crimes.
***
Criminologists widely believe that the likelihood of punishment deters crime. We call this "general deterrence," when applied to everyone, and "specific deterrence" when applied to a specific person.
For instance, if Defendant A commits crime X, and is convicted and punished, deterrence theory would posit that Defendant A has had a degree of "specific deterrence" applied. Defendant A is less likely to commit crime X again, than if Defendant A had not been punished.
Generally deterrence functions thusly: because we punish crime X, people are less likely to commit X. Thus, the theory goes, if we punish the crime more harshly, or if we increase the likelihood that the punishment is meted out, the effect of the general deterrence is stronger.
A recent publicly available study of the effectiveness of deterrence (in regards to add-on gun laws) can be found at Abrams, David, Estimating the Deterrent Effect of Incarceration Using Sentencing Enhancements (January 2011). U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 11-13 .
Uh ... that's not true.
General and specific deterrence are very well studied in criminal law and sociology, and they do have an effect on behavior. Perhaps not as pronounced as some of its proponents would like, but it's there.
General and specific deterrence are very well studied in criminal law and sociology, and they do have an effect on behavior. Perhaps not as pronounced as some of its proponents would like, but it's there.
Umm... sources? In my country I think 50% of inmates who leave prison end back in there. Doesn't seem like much of a deterrent, then there's plenty of evidence to suggest death penalty does nothing at all:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
http://nccadp.org/issues/deterrence/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
Well, all those cases are death penalty cases, which I think is a special type of case. But it's widely acknowledged that there's some general and specific deterrence applied to other types of crimes.
***
Criminologists widely believe that the likelihood of punishment deters crime. We call this "general deterrence," when applied to everyone, and "specific deterrence" when applied to a specific person.
For instance, if Defendant A commits crime X, and is convicted and punished, deterrence theory would posit that Defendant A has had a degree of "specific deterrence" applied. Defendant A is less likely to commit crime X again, than if Defendant A had not been punished.
Generally deterrence functions thusly: because we punish crime X, people are less likely to commit X. Thus, the theory goes, if we punish the crime more harshly, or if we increase the likelihood that the punishment is meted out, the effect of the general deterrence is stronger.
A recent publicly available study of the effectiveness of deterrence (in regards to add-on gun laws) can be found at Abrams, David, Estimating the Deterrent Effect of Incarceration Using Sentencing Enhancements (January 2011). U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 11-13 .
There is not even a 0.0000001% chance that his sentence will be reduced. The FBI want to make an example out of him. They want to scare other possible future dark market admins using his example. Accept it. Ross Ullbricht will remain imprisoned for the rest of his life, unless he manages to escape from the prison.
Came here exactly to say this. From the view point of the government, his actions are nothing in comparison to the value of him being locked behind bars. It doesn't matter how little or how much Ross did, as long as Ross's imprisonment puts out a message to the public, he will remain behind bars.
Prison or the threat of it does little to deter criminals, just like the death penalty does nothing to deter murderers. Do you really think darknet drug kingpins are going to think twice or abandon their activities just because Ross got fucked for life? Doubt it. All it really tells them is they better step up their game and protect themselves better.
Uh ... that's not true.
General and specific deterrence are very well studied in criminal law and sociology, and they do have an effect on behavior. Perhaps not as pronounced as some of its proponents would like, but it's there.
Umm... sources? In my country I think 50% of inmates who leave prison end back in there. Doesn't seem like much of a deterrent, then there's plenty of evidence to suggest death penalty does nothing at all:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
http://nccadp.org/issues/deterrence/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
There is not even a 0.0000001% chance that his sentence will be reduced. The FBI want to make an example out of him. They want to scare other possible future dark market admins using his example. Accept it. Ross Ullbricht will remain imprisoned for the rest of his life, unless he manages to escape from the prison.
Came here exactly to say this. From the view point of the government, his actions are nothing in comparison to the value of him being locked behind bars. It doesn't matter how little or how much Ross did, as long as Ross's imprisonment puts out a message to the public, he will remain behind bars.
Prison or the threat of it does little to deter criminals, just like the death penalty does nothing to deter murderers. Do you really think darknet drug kingpins are going to think twice or abandon their activities just because Ross got fucked for life? Doubt it. All it really tells them is they better step up their game and protect themselves better.
Uh ... that's not true.
General and specific deterrence are very well studied in criminal law and sociology, and they do have an effect on behavior. Perhaps not as pronounced as some of its proponents would like, but it's there.
There is not even a 0.0000001% chance that his sentence will be reduced. The FBI want to make an example out of him. They want to scare other possible future dark market admins using his example. Accept it. Ross Ullbricht will remain imprisoned for the rest of his life, unless he manages to escape from the prison.
Came here exactly to say this. From the view point of the government, his actions are nothing in comparison to the value of him being locked behind bars. It doesn't matter how little or how much Ross did, as long as Ross's imprisonment puts out a message to the public, he will remain behind bars.
Prison or the threat of it does little to deter criminals, just like the death penalty does nothing to deter murderers. Do you really think darknet drug kingpins are going to think twice or abandon their activities just because Ross got fucked for life? Doubt it. All it really tells them is they better step up their game and protect themselves better.
There is not even a 0.0000001% chance that his sentence will be reduced. The FBI want to make an example out of him. They want to scare other possible future dark market admins using his example. Accept it. Ross Ullbricht will remain imprisoned for the rest of his life, unless he manages to escape from the prison.
Came here exactly to say this. From the view point of the government, his actions are nothing in comparison to the value of him being locked behind bars. It doesn't matter how little or how much Ross did, as long as Ross's imprisonment puts out a message to the public, he will remain behind bars.
The fact that they didn't charge the investigators who stole the Bitcoins until after sentencing makes the trial illegitimate. Unfortunately the people in charge of deciding whether there should be a re-trial are the ones who facilitated the use of tainted evidence in the first place.
There is a lot of political pressure behind the trail so no wonder so much evidence in his favor was not allowed during the trail, just imagine hes lawyer talking about corrupt agents taking drug money for them self.
If they allowed any mention of the corrupt cops the case would have probably been dismissed.
That's why there was no mention of them as well as many other facts in Ross' favor that were not accepted.
Credibility is an important part in a trial. Especially this trial is based a lot on the assumption, that the state officials told the truth.
Credibility of this trial is near zero, when the situation is like this:
No, he doesn't have a chance against the State in a State Courtroom of Injustice. The judge is an employee of Ulbricht's opponent.
The judge (Katherine Bolan Forrest) seems to be biased and even seems to be harbouring some secret grudge against Ross Ullbricht.
http://freekeene.com/2015/01/14/power-hungry-judge-threatens-courtroom-and-jury-in-ross-ulbricht-trial-over-jury-outreach-activism/
The fact that they didn't charge the investigators who stole the Bitcoins until after sentencing makes the trial illegitimate.
Not according to the laws written in the books. Perhaps it is according to some weird made up laws which exist in your head. But the courts aren't using those laws.
The fact that they didn't charge the investigators who stole the Bitcoins until after sentencing makes the trial illegitimate.
Not according to the laws written in the books. Perhaps it is according to some weird made up laws which exist in your head. But the courts aren't using those laws. 
The fact that they didn't charge the investigators who stole the Bitcoins until after sentencing makes the trial illegitimate. Unfortunately the people in charge of deciding whether there should be a re-trial are the ones who facilitated the use of tainted evidence in the first place.
There is a lot of political pressure behind the trail so no wonder so much evidence in his favor was not allowed during the trail, just imagine hes lawyer talking about corrupt agents taking drug money for them self.
As I've said in many other threads about this, I do not believe he has a viable appeal.
It is unclear to me what would be the basis of his appeal.
It is unclear to me what would be the basis of his appeal.
The relevant point, as you well know, is whether or not the actions have a negative effect on others.
Nope. Moron. That is not the relevant point. In law, they don't consider that at all. They never perform any analysis whatever as to 'negative effect on others'. They just ask whether or not he is guilty of selling drugs. Done. Even where there is zero harm on others, - death penalty.
The relevant point, as you well know, is - you don't know shit about law.
We get it. YOu went on some rant about "murder for hire" with ZERO proof of him doing it. (Moron)
We also get you think selling drugs is worse than rape.
Would it be the same if I forced people to do my drugs than if they called me up wanting the drugs?
Would it be the same if I forced myself on a woman for sex than if she called me up looking for it?
Get well soon.
is hes lawyer is good enough this case could go to the supreme court and we know that takes times at lease there is always hope for an over ruling of this kind of sentences.
I was not a big follower of the details of this case but according to the documentary Deep Web, by Alex winter, his defence was that he was never an admin for silk road, he merely built the website and sold it to someone else. You know how it goes with these things, you can never be sure on what to believe. The documentary leaves a lot of room for doubt in the prosecutions case though.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3312868/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3312868/
thanks for the link. looking forward to watching.
and no his appeal will go nowhere. maybe 15-20 years from now one of the future dictators of america will pardon him once drugs are more accepted but i wouldn't hold my breath.
a Long road ahead for Ross, most of the public is out rage about hes sentence
Really? Outrage? The general public don't seem to care. The only people who do are his mother and a few libertarians but a lot of angry anarchists arn't going to get him freed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
No, he doesn't have a chance against the State in a State Courtroom of Injustice. The judge is an employee of Ulbricht's opponent.
Damn straight! then again, it seems he tried to hire some hitmen to do some nasty jobs, in this case I don't really care what happens to him.
This could just be an allegation.
The relevant point, as you well know, is whether or not the actions have a negative effect on others.
Nope. Moron. That is not the relevant point. In law, they don't consider that at all. They never perform any analysis whatever as to 'negative effect on others'. They just ask whether or not he is guilty of selling drugs. Done. Even where there is zero harm on others, - death penalty.
The relevant point, as you well know, is - you don't know shit about law.
Jump to: