« Light blogging until Monday because I am Going Back, Going Back... | Main | Fascinating fight over fate of offenders on Nebraska's death row after capital repeal »

May 31, 2015

Sentencing message sent: blazing a Silk Road for drugs gets you LWOP

Images (10)A high-profile prosecution of a high-tech drug dealer culminated on Friday with the sentencing of Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht.  This Wired story provides an effective account of the sentencing, and includes these excerpts:

On Friday Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for his role in creating and running Silk Road’s billion-dollar, anonymous black market for drugs. Judge Katherine Forrest gave Ulbricht the most severe sentence possible, beyond what even the prosecution had explicitly requested. The minimum Ulbricht could have served was 20 years.

“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence, referring to his pseudonym as the Silk Road’s leader. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”

In addition to his prison sentence, Ulbricht was also ordered to pay a massive restitution of more than $183 million, what the prosecution had estimated to be the total sales of illegal drugs and counterfeit IDs through the Silk Road—at a certain bitcoin exchange rate—over the course of its time online. Any revenue from the government sale of the bitcoins seized from the Silk Road server and Ulbricht’s laptop will be applied to that debt.

Ulbricht had stood before the court just minutes earlier in navy blue prison clothes, pleading for a lenient sentence. “I’ve changed. I’m not the man I was when I created Silk Road,” he said, as his voice grew hoarse with emotion and cracked. “I’m a little wiser, a little more mature, and much more humble.”

“I wanted to empower people to make choices in their lives…to have privacy and anonymity,” Ulbricht told the judge. “I’m not a sociopathic person trying to express some inner badness.”

Ulbricht’s sentencing likely puts the final seal on the saga of Silk Road, the anarchic underground market the 31-year-old Texan created in early 2011. At its peak, the Dark Web site grew to a sprawling smorgasbord of every narcotic imaginable — before Ulbricht was arrested in a public library in San Francisco in October of 2013. Eighteen months later, he was convicted in a Manhattan court on seven felony charges, including conspiracies to traffic in narcotics and launder money, as well as a “kingpin” charge usually reserved for the leaders of organized crime groups....

Ulbricht’s defense team has already said it will seek an appeal in his case. That call for a new trial will be based in part on recent revelations that two Secret Service and Drug Enforcement Administration agents involved in the investigation of the Silk Road allegedly stole millions of dollars of bitcoin from the site. One of the agents is even accused of blackmailing Ulbricht, and of allegedly selling him law enforcement information as a mole inside the DEA. But the judge in Ulbricht’s case ruled that those Baltimore-based agents weren’t involved in the New York FBI-led investigation that eventually took down the Silk Road, preventing their alleged corruption from affecting Ulbricht’s fate.

Speaking to press after the sentencing, Ulbricht’s lead attorney Joshua Dratel said that Forrest’s sentence was “unreasonable, unjust, unfair and based on improper consideration with no basis in fact or law.” He added: “I’m disappointed tremendously.”

In emotional statements at the hearing, the parents of drug users who had overdosed and died from drugs purchased from the Silk Road called for a long sentence for Ulbricht. “I strongly believe my son would still be alive today if Mr. Ulbricht had never created Silk Road,” said one father whose 25-year old son had died from an overdose of heroin, requesting “the most severe sentence the law will allow.”

In the weeks leading up to his sentencing hearing, Ulbricht’s defense team attempted to lighten his punishment with arguments about his motives and character, as well as emphasizing the Silk Road’s positive effect on its drug-using customers. In more than a hundred letters, friends, family, and even fellow inmates pointed to Ulbricht’s idealism and lack of a criminal history. And the defense argued that Silk Road had actually reduced harm in the drug trade by ensuring the purity of the drugs sold on the site through reviews and ratings, hosting discussions on “safe” drug use, and giving both buyers and sellers an avenue to trade in narcotics while avoiding the violence of the streets.

But the prosecution countered that any protection the Silk Road offered drug users was dwarfed by the increased access it offered to dangerous and addictive drugs. And beyond the two parents who spoke at the Friday hearing, it pointed to six individuals who it claimed had died of drug overdoses from drugs purchased on the Silk Road.

In her statement preceding Ulbricht’s sentencing, Judge Forrest fully sided with the prosecution against the defense’s “harm reduction” argument, arguing that the Silk Road vastly expanded access to drugs. “Silk Road was about fulfilling demand, and it was about creating demand,” she said. “It was market-expanding.”

She also tore into the argument that the Silk Road reduced violence in the drug trade, pointing out that most of the academic papers submitted by the defense to support that argument focused only on the protection for the final buyer of drugs. But that digital remove, she argued, did nothing to prevent violence at any other point in the narcotics supply chain, from production to distribution. “The idea that it’s harm reducing is so very narrow,” she said. “It’s…about a privileged group, sitting in their own homes, with their high speed internet connections.”

The Justice Department also argued in their letter to Judge Forrest that Ulbricht should be made an example of to stop even more Dark Web market kingpins from following in his footsteps. After all, dozens of copycat sites and advancements on the Silk Road market model have sprouted in the years since its takedown, including the Silk Road 2, Evolution, and the currently largest Dark Web black market to survive law enforcement’s attacks, Agora. To combat the spread of those anonymous bazaars, prosecutors asked Judge Forrest to “send a clear message” with a sentence for Ulbricht well beyond the mandatory minimum.

Judge Forrest sided with the prosecution on that point, too, arguing that she needed to create a strong deterrent for the next Dread Pirate Roberts. “For those considering stepping into your shoes…they need to understand without equivocation that there will be severe consequences,” Forrest said.

The defense’s arguments about Ulbricht’s character and his idealistic motives were also undercut by accusations that Ulbricht had paid for the murder of six people, including a potential informant and a blackmailer. Those accusations never became formal charges in Ulbricht’s case — five out of six of the murder-for-hires appear to have been part of a lucrative scam targeting Ulbricht, with no actual victims.

But those murder accusations nonetheless deeply colored Ulbricht’s trial, and strongly influenced his sentence. “I find there is ample and unambiguous evidence that [Ulbricht] commissioned five murders to protect his commercial enterprise,” Forrest said, leaving out one alleged attempted murder for which Ulbricht was charged in a different case.

With those attempted murders as context, Forrest was merciless in her assessment of Ulbricht’s seeming multiple personalities: the altruistic and admirable young man described in the letters sent to her as evidence of his character, versus the callous drug lord she saw in his actions. “People are very complicated, and you are one of them,” she said simply. “There is good in you, Mr. Ulbricht. There is also bad. And what you did with the Silk Road was terribly destructive.”

May 31, 2015 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

Comments

Naturally, dozens if not more sites like his have popped up, with some owners absconding with funds of users.

Copy of prior comment at the time of the possibility of this outcome:

Good opportunity to move for a mistrial. The prosecutor has just demanded a sentenced for the purpose of general deterrence.

In general deterrence, one wants to frighten strangers to the defendant, ones he has never met, who have not yet committed crime, and over whom he has no influence. It is to influence their mental state. It is unknown if they follow his sentencing, or if they will ever find out about his sentencing in Russia or China, where the government encourages people to harass the USA. If they do learn of this sentence, the system is so incompetent, there is a 10% risk of being arrested for committing a major crime, compared to the certainty of $millions to be made.

This motion violates the Fifth Amendment Procedural Process Right to a fair hearing.

Where is the defense?

In fairness, the defense did bring up the published data that he saved multiple more lives than were endangered. Good for them. This is the only mitigating factor I can support, assistance to victims during the time surrounding the crime.

Sentencing question. May one submit an argument that he put out contracts on people's assassination without a conviction or without submission to the jury, as an aggravating factor without a separate trial?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 31, 2015 11:45:05 AM

Yet another vile feminist lawyer on a witch hunt for the productive male.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 31, 2015 11:47:12 AM

I have to say this strikes me as pretty outrageous, and I am not one to defend this conduct on libertarian grounds. Would 20-25 years NOT have sent a strong message? Is this really a guy who is so depraved, we can never let him walk the streets again? This just strikes me as senseless and pointlessly harsh, a real outlier, and, frankly, unnecessarily cruel for a guy with clear potential to do something constructive with himself and some positive attributes Was it really so important that Ulbricht not be released when he is 50 or 55? Does anyone have anything good to say about the sentence here? Is it defensible? Anyone have any insight into Judge Forrest? She was a former Cravath partner and government official, so clearly smart, but she seems to have a reputation as a harsh sentences, not in keeping with more recent trends of thinking on these issues. Does Professor Berman have any thoughts on the normative aspects here? Thanks.

Posted by: Mark | May 31, 2015 11:48:50 AM

I think guys like this are the sort of people who warrant long sentences even w/o the further apparent lethal aspect of his crimes which involved threatening life and limb. Even if drugs should be legal, granting that for sake of argument, his crimes here advances the dangers of criminalization and after all they are illegal.

LWOP to me generally is a horrid punishment to inflict so I'm sympathetic with Mark's comment, but comparatively to other punishments, it very well might be proportional. One thing to note about this sort of thing is that unlike a violent crime as such, he could get out at 55 and do it again. I'm thinking he very well might "Sneakers" like find himself a place in prison too, honestly.

But, yes, I don't see the value in -- especially if he doesn't have the chance of parole except with the faint chance an executive will commute or by some other route -- locking him up until he dies. I think some future society will find our prison system inhuman.

Posted by: Joe | May 31, 2015 12:30:45 PM

Joe. Soft on serial rapists and murderers of little girls. Harsh on the productive male, that saved hundreds of lives.

I am beginning to suspect tendencies to his being a running dog for the vile feminist lawyer. Once that is decided, he is dismissed.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 31, 2015 12:59:59 PM

I found the defense attorney's comments at the post-sentencing press conference to be improper, unprofessional, and stupid. I have litigated many cases against many lawyers. The good lawyers (the ones uniformly respected by adversaries, judges, and the community) would NEVER publicly criticize a judge in the manner this attorney did. If this defense lawyer was a good lawyer, he would have said something along the lines of: "We are disappointed in the judge's decision. We continue to believe in the strength of our arguments, and we look forward to presenting them to the court of appeals."

Posted by: hmmm | May 31, 2015 4:36:46 PM

Hmmm. I find your remarks about the remarks of the defense remarking on the sentencing to be inappropriate. The Rules of Conduct about civility toward the judge apply solely during the trial. These remarks were made after the trial.

Judges are the lowest form of scum. They may and should be vilified. Indeed, I have called for an all out boycott, where judges are blacklisted, and denied all products and services because they are traitors to this country, the final common pathway to executing the treason of the filthy subhuman lawyer hierarchy. They are the muscle, the enforcers of the sick orthodoxy of the lawyer profession hierarchy, a treasonous rent seeking scheme to destroy our nation.

I once reported a lawyer for calling a news conference. He loudly called for mobs to attack and "guillotine" a judge who rendered an adverse verdict. I defended the judge, saying she had zero latitude but to obey the law and render that verdict. The Disciplinary Counsel indicated a full investigation of the matter, and no violation of the Rules of Conduct, because it was outside the trial, and immunized by the Free Speech Clause.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 31, 2015 5:37:33 PM

I couldn't find news stories that called it LWOP, just life, so in many reader's minds it was possible that parole was possible at some point. Most readers of those reports may not realize it was LWOP. Hat's off to wired for calling it right.

Posted by: George | May 31, 2015 6:18:24 PM

IS the Probation Office PSR online anywhere? I couldn't find it.

Posted by: William Jockusch | Jun 1, 2015 2:13:07 AM

By the way, Judge Forrest is not a particularly smart or fair judge at all. See, e.g., In Re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, ll-cv-2598 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2014) where she grants immunity to reckless auditors using bizarre, results-driven reasoning that misstates applicable precedent. Like most Obama appointees, her orientation is very much pro-prosecution in criminal cases and pro-corporation in civil cases. Cravath’s Forrest was named one of “America’s Leading Lawyers for Business” by Chambers USA in 2007 and then appointed by Barack Obama as a prosecutor (and then a district judge).

So I do not know the details of this case against Ulbricht, but based on what I have seen of her work, the defense lawyer's outrage should probably be taken at face value. Yes, his comments seem strong, but that was most likely because her conduct was in fact extreme.

Posted by: Calvin | Jun 1, 2015 2:18:13 PM

I actually DO support leniency on libertarian grounds but Joe's comments make sense. The law is what it is and he did break the law, but LWOP? As if he is beyond all rehabilitation? Criminal justice reform in this country will proceed at the pace of a snail who is doing the one-step-forward-two-steps-back cha-cha dance, when we still have judges like this bench. I was going to include prosecutors but THESE prosecutors didn't even demand the life sentence.

Back to being libertarian -- to say that this site was about "creating demand" and "market expanding" - she appears clueless as to what the dark web is. Was this explained to her?

Silk Road's buyers had to seek the place out and download special software to even access the site. They also had to convert dollars to bitcoin to make purchases, I believe. This wasn't a site that your kids could just Google up or find on Facebook. You had to first know it was there, then you had to learn how to access it, then you had to take the actions necessary to do so. They weren't advertising or creating pop-up ads on any generally accessible websites. They weren't in anyone's face tempting them with bags of heroin.

We were told 50 years ago that the war on drugs was to combat the seedy guy on the corner who wanted to addict our kids to drugs. Don't sites like this take the problem off of the streets and put it where only consenting adults who jump through several hoops can access it?

Also, don't buy the "victim" families attributing their loved ones deaths to this site. Addicts themselves will tell you, if the drugs don't come from one place, they will find them in another.

More than fifty years of drug war, eighty if you want to go all the way back to early 20th century legislation, have not stopped people who want or need mind-altering substances from obtaining them. Moreover, many of today's opiate addicts are being introduced to their drug of choice by the purveyors of legal pain medications.


Posted by: StopTheDrugWar | Jun 1, 2015 4:13:28 PM

About the sentence itself . . . seems fair enough in light of the SIX attempted murders. Absent that, I would feel differently.

Posted by: William Jockusch | Jun 1, 2015 5:54:17 PM

@ Willaim Jockusch, from the article:

The defense’s arguments about Ulbricht’s character and his idealistic motives were also undercut by accusations that Ulbricht had paid for the murder of six people, including a potential informant and a blackmailer. Those accusations never became formal charges in Ulbricht’s case — five out of six of the murder-for-hires appear to have been part of a lucrative scam targeting Ulbricht, with no actual victims.

But those murder accusations nonetheless deeply colored Ulbricht’s trial, and strongly influenced his sentence. “I find there is ample and unambiguous evidence that [Ulbricht] commissioned five murders to protect his commercial enterprise,” Forrest said, leaving out one alleged attempted murder for which Ulbricht was charged in a different case.

IOW, the judge found him guilty of these "attempted murders" but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Might that be grounds for appeal?

Posted by: George | Jun 1, 2015 6:17:40 PM

As a (retired) software engineer, I have never liked rogue computer users, big or small, and there is no question that Ulbricht is a major rogue. I identify with the computer experts who took him down.

I would have been satisfied with 40 years on the "continuing criminal enterprise" charge, but life is warranted, in my opinion. It is pretty much the same, because there is still a chance that he could get compassionate release at some point. I wouldn't allow him computer use of any kind, or even computer documentation, during his incarceration.

George, I don't think "guilty" and "reasonable doubt" apply to the attempted murders, since he was not charged and tried for these. The judge was considering aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding where in the 20 to life range to set the term of the sentence. The judge found "ample and unambiguous evidence," and that should be enough to support them as aggravating factors.

Posted by: Gary Hill | Jun 1, 2015 10:20:50 PM

Compassionate release in its current form in the Federal BOP is for prisoners pretty much on their deathbeds - and even then, almost no one gets approved. If fairness demands a modicum of hope for release, it has to be built in to the sentence itself. Compassionate release is a long shot even for prisoners in the last stages of terminal illness.

Posted by: StopTheDrugWar | Jun 2, 2015 1:36:12 PM

Stop..., ok, but if the sentence had been 40 years, he would be 70, so possibly would qualify anyway before long. So if the sentence should have been less than 40, what then? Certaainly not 20 (the minimum). Not many sympathize with a Latin American drug lord who goes away for life. Had be given 20, the message could have been interpreted to mean that young, educated, white Americans get special treatment. I don't think that's acceptaable. The message has to be equal justice for all.

Maybe 30 years then? He would be 60 with no possibility of following what should have been his career as an engineer. I doubt he would be content to work as a Wal-Mart greeter, and they probably wouldn't hire him anyway. Perhaps he could retire to his parents' property in Costa Rica, if it's still in the family, otherwise what?

I think he has burned all of his bridges. The best, perhaps only, contribution he can make to society is to serve as an example to show that the "kingpin" statute means what it says and applies to all.

Posted by: Gary Hill | Jun 2, 2015 5:02:22 PM

Stop..., ok, but if the sentence had been 40 years, he would be 70, so possibly would qualify anyway before long. So if the sentence should have been less than 40, what then? Certaainly not 20 (the minimum). Not many sympathize with a Latin American drug lord who goes away for life. Had be given 20, the message could have been interpreted to mean that young, educated, white Americans get special treatment. I don't think that's acceptaable. The message has to be equal justice for all.

Maybe 30 years then? He would be 60 with no possibility of following what should have been his career as an engineer. I doubt he would be content to work as a Wal-Mart greeter, and they probably wouldn't hire him anyway. Perhaps he could retire to his parents' property in Costa Rica, if it's still in the family, otherwise what?

I think he has burned all of his bridges. The best, perhaps only, contribution he can make to society is to serve as an example to show that the "kingpin" statute means what it says and applies to all.

Posted by: Gary Hill | Jun 2, 2015 5:02:25 PM

Gary,

Think about what you are saying. Do you really believe 20 years would not have sent a strong message? Was it really necessary to send this guy away for life -- with no hope of parole -- to "send a message"? Is this a punishment that we would have seen in other Western democracies for something like this. You seem to be saying, "because others face draconian penalties, this guy must too." In fact, I think it is relatively rare for courts to impose LWOP, when they were not forced by a mandatory minimum to do so. Also, why shouldn't a young, educated person get some favorable treatment? Don't those attributes suggest more potential for rehabilitation than most other offenders. When looked at in human terms, this sentence is just crazy. What really would have been wrong with 20 years. Aren't there huge diminishing returns to scale when it comes to general deterrence and incapacitation. A sentence in the UK, Canada, Australia, or any number of Western democracies would have been nothing like this, and everyone knows it. Doesn't that suggest our system is an embarrassment and judges do the right thing when they show some restraint? The "kingpin" statute is idiocy, and it is surprising to see a thoughtful commentator rely on strict adherence to it to support a draconian outcome.

Posted by: Mark | Jun 2, 2015 5:50:43 PM

Mark, I did write that I thought 40 years would be enough, although I am ok with life. I definitely think 20, which is the minimum, would not have been enough. The judge said that she spent considerable time considering the sentence, and it was her decision to make. I think part of the difficulty here is that Ulbricht was charting new territory in the "ongoing criminal enterprise" business, so that would motivate the judge to be strict to avoid setting a precedent of leniency. She hopes the sentence will discourage imitators. But what really sealed the deal for life was documentation that he was seeking to have people killed who threatened his business. That put him in a category with the more familiar drug lords, even though he as not very good at that side of the business.

The sentence is indeed harsh, but I don't think it's "crazy.". Call me insensitive, but I just can't find any reason to be sympathetic to Ulbricht's plight. He was a smart fellow, academically, with a B.S. in physics and M.S. in materials science and engineering. He was well equipped to have had a successful career and a good life and he threw it away. I, too, have a graduate engineering degree but it never occurred to me to use my skills to invent a new form of criminal enterprise. It wasn't just because the technology wasn't available then, either. Most people who earn a graduate degree do something positive with it.

Some people do think our high incarceration rate is an embarrassment, but I'm not too concerned about that. I suppose I'm a typical American in that respect for thinking that it doesn't matter what outsiders think about that. I happen to find the excessive leniency in many western democracies toward the most heinous criminals to be more deserving of embarrassment.

As for the "kingpin" statute, it is intended to deal effectively with people who wield a great deal of power in criminal enterprises without getting their own hands dirty. I don't see how that is "idiocy." It's perfectly reasonable for society to want to put away such people. Remember that Al Capone eluded the law for a long time before finally being convicted of tax evasion. The thing here is that Ulbricht isn't typical. That's because he was an innovator, but that's no reason to treat him differently. If the Congress feels the law was misapplied here, they can change it to xclude such cases. I don't see that happening, though.

Posted by: Gary Hill | Jun 2, 2015 8:00:09 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB