If that actually happened, why didn't they prosecute him for it?
This happens all the time. It is not unique to Ulbricht, and does not really imply anything about whether the contract killing request did or didn't happen.
The fact is the way "prosecution actually works" is you accuse someone of a generic conspiracy, show some element of the conspiracy was beyond a reasonable doubt true (like drug distribution), and then go to sentencing considering any element by preponderance of the evidence. It's a chilling short-circuiting of justice. Ross wasn't convicted of violent acts beyond a reasonable doubt, he was convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise where a judge thought it was more likely than not involved murder-for-hire.
That is literally the only point the ancestor poster was making: that if you have the means to run, it might not be so cushy a plan to turn yourself in for a non-violent crime, if you're assuming you'll get a sentence of less than 10 years at a reasonably safe low-security prison.
And in this particular case, the interesting point is: even if the prosecution didn't believe they could get a conviction for possible murder-for-hire charges, they somehow still got the desired final outcome: a sentence seemingly harsher than what would fit the crime he actually was convicted of.
(Then again, if your "only" crimes are non-violent/white-collar, maybe it is safe to assume you'll get a cushy prison sentence.)
The better question is: "Why are people so insistant on whitewashing him?" Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal? Do they regularly pretend to hire them? Are they just closing ranks around him because they think he's part of their in-tribe?
If you are convicted of certain crimes, your sentence -- even within the range appropriate for those crimes -- should not take into account other crimes that the person was suspected of committing, but it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's the entire point of evidentiary standards: in the first place, it's to avoid putting people in jail at all if we can't prove they did it to a particular level of confidence. But we should also not be inflating sentences (again, even if the end result is still within the guided range for the convicted crimes) just because we think they did other, worse things too.
Maybe Ulbrict did deserve a much longer sentence. But the prosecution apparently could not prove the more serious crimes. His sentence should not be influenced by things the prosecution could not prove. I'm sure there are other defendants who were convicted of crimes, but suspected of worse crimes that they didn't actually commit in reality. Maybe Ulbricht got what he deserved, but these other people got worse than they deserved.
> Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal?
To sum up: what people think about this is entirely irrelevant. He was not convicted for hiring a contract killer, so that should have zero bearing on his sentence. Even if his sentence was in the range appropriate for what he was convicted for, it's a range, and if his sentence was pushed higher in that range because of other things the judge believed he did, that's not justice.
There does seem to be very little point in winning a conviction on that front.
I'm not sure where one is supposed to find sympathy for someone convicted of a crime, and looking likely to have attempted violent crimes, having their sentence strengthened on the latter's basis (within the confines of the primary sentence's guidelines).
Should Al Capone have been treated like a usual tax dodger? Of course not. He's a high risk to others in his prison as well as to society. We don't require beyond reasonable doubt for sentencing because it doesn't make sense.
Of course. Al Capone being cited so often is precisely why I believe he should have been treated like a usual tax dodger for the tax crimes and treated like a murderer for any murder convictions. I would much rather Al Capone go free than short-circuit justice in this way.
I'm failing to see the short circuiting. Tax dodging sentencing guidelines have a range. Capone was sentenced within that range. Same as Ulbricht. We don't re-hear a trial in front of a jury every time someone is sentenced because the jury has already rendered the verdict.
Sentencing is a complicated subject which balances not only justice, but also the safety of the prisoner and their fellow prisoners.
I can't say I'm thrilled that the standard is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, unless we find you guilty of some other element, in which case murder-for-hire magically becomes preponderance of evidence. I will say the justice system and society agrees with you, so I acknowledge this is one of those times I just have to sit here with a profound sadness about something over which I have little control.
You're dodging the fact that the sentence was given for the convicted crime within that crime's sentencing guidelines. Juries don't give sentences, judges do. What if not looking at additional factors do you think the judge is supposed to be doing?
If the crimes Ulbricht had been convicted of had a 10-year maximum, and the judge sentenced him to more on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, I'd see your point. But that isn't what happened.
That is, in the absence of suspicion of other crimes, he would have gotten a much less severe sentence.
I get that judges have to use all sorts of discretion when doing sentencing, and despite the "points system" around that, still have some leeway. My view is that judges should not be looking at other crimes that they may believe the defendant has committed -- even if they were not charged or not convicted -- and include that information in their sentencing decisions. I can't say for certain, of course, that's what happened here.
Maybe in Ulbrict's case, justice actually was served. Maybe he did those other things, and in a perfect world, sufficient evidence would have been found, and he would have been convicted of more serious charges. But we don't live in that perfect world, and for every Ulbricht who gets this "correct" treatment, there are certainly several others who get an overly-harsh sentence (still within guidelines, but harsher than is warranted) because people believe they did other stuff that couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Presumably the implication here is that he was sentenced at the high end of that range. Was his sentence appropriate for the severity of his tax dodge, or was it pushed to the higher end of the range because of his other crimes, that he was never convicted of?
If the latter, then that's a real problem!
If you're convicted of crime X, you should be sentenced base on crime X, not on what other things everyone believes you actually did, but for which sufficient evidence can't be found to convict.
You seem to be advocating for a legal system where it's fine to punish people for things they haven't actually been convicted of doing. Regardless of what we may think of Al Capone, or "know" that he did, I think I would much rather let an Al-Capone-type off with the comparatively light sentence of a tax-dodger, than risk a harsh sentence for someone who didn't do the unproven things that people nevertheless "know" they did. Because of course that will happen.
So whether ross killed or distributed the drugs, he was guilty of X.
The genius of the conspiracy charge is the jury can be convinced of drug distribution but not the murder. And the judge could be convinced it was murder and not distribution. But they both fall under "bad stuff" so the judge isn't even wrong when they sentence him for "bad stuff" as murder is "bad stuff."
The fact that the elements of bad stuff for the judge is different than elements of bad stuff for the jury is almost an after thought. And hey, you can't say he didn't do bad stuff.
Taken this to the extreme, I wonder if someday they will have a crime that is just called "felony." The jury just has to be convinced you smoked a left handed cigarette, at which point obviously you're guilty of "felony." Then the judge can promptly forget about the cigarette and decide on preponderance of the evidence just what elemenst of "felony" you comitted and sentence that based on what she thinks is more likely than not.
They already got a life in prison and forfeiting $183,961,921 [0]. They don't need more, and there are other criminals to prosecute.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread...