Ross intended Silk Road to be like an underground version of eBay, that respected anonymity. Unfortunately, his empire soon became a haven for drug dealers. Yet, he believed he had a right to his network, even if some users were abusing it. Yes, he should have been more willing to report abuse to authorities. His unwillingness to do so has cost him, especially since deaths have been associated.
Yet, he was charged with murder by prosecutors, in spite no evidence that anyone on his site ever carried out any murders. I personally would have given him a sentence of 5-15 years. Long enough to send a message that you should care about your site being abused for crime, but not so long as to completely rob a man of his entire life for the actions of others.
The real mesage being sent here, methinks, is not that he's being punished for the drug overdose cases. They're hitting him so hard because how dare he not operate out in the open, where he is vulnerable to the state's bully pulpit and his business can be politically sauted.
Yet, I can understand the desire to go underground. Look what happens when you try to operate a cake business, for example! Operating in public now means you can be placed on the Diet of Worms at any given moment - for your private beliefs! One jeweler in Canada learned that the hard way. For certain special interest groups, it's not enough to make their rings or bake their cake. Your private views have to align with theirs too, or it's war.
The alternative? Go underground. Evade the public nonsense, elude the Liberal Inquisition, etc. And be treated like a serial killer by the government for that. That's the message being sent by giving Ross two consecutive life sentences, if you ask me. It's no longer about the drugs. It's his former anonymity that is now being treated as the real crime.
- Hanging's too good for him.Vote A
- He got what he deserved.Vote B
- Acquit!Vote C
- Life? A tad bit excessive.Vote D
Most Helpful Girl
Look at the sentences the head honchos from Purdue Pharm got for knowingly marketing OxyContin as harmless/non addictive despite evidence to the contrary. Fines, that's all.1