30 Years For Online Pharmacy Spammer 310
jotter507 writes "So, you get arrested for running an illegal online pharmacy and the judge orders you to stop selling medication over the Internet. Don't sit around and do nothing before the trial! Run off to the Dominican Republic on a false passport, withdraw money from an account ordered frozen, and start up another online 'pharmacy.' It didn't end well for 27-year old Christopher William Smith, also known as 'Rizler.' The world-reviled spammer and Internet drug dispenser received a 30-year sentence from a federal judge on Wednesday."
Before anyone calls this sentence excessive (Score:5, Informative)
In other words...good riddance scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before anyone calls this sentence excessive (Score:5, Funny)
Chris "Saundo" Saunderson
That would be cool.
Soko
Re:Before anyone calls this sentence excessive (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only did he flee the country, but he fled the country to setup shop outside of US jurisdiction to have the money keep rolling in. Why he ever came back at that point I'll never know. I guess the lure of his $1.5 million home and numerous fancy cars in Prior Lake, MN was too much for him.
I don't think his sentence was excessive in the least. What I do think
Re: (Score:2)
If it helps, keep in mind that their conviction of these crimes will follow them around pretty much for the rest of their lives. Most employment applications require the applicant to be forthcoming on felony convictions. For good jobs, many applications indicating a felon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you didn't read what I had to say. The judge presiding in the case offered to write a let
Re: (Score:2)
It is an excessive sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Still excessive in my opinion. American sentences boggle one's mind... After Stalin's death the maximum sentence in USSR was reduced from 25 years to 15 — although many crimes were still punishable by death (as they are here) and one also got to spend their days in much harsher conditions than in the US.
The main difference here is that in the US sentences are added up upon one another, whereas in most of the rest of the world they run concurrently. It could be argued, that American system continues to deter criminals after their first crime, while the other system makes the subsequent crimes "free". On the other hand, once a crook has accumulated enough years in US, their subsequent crimes are also free, because any sentence will be, in effect, a life one. With a considerable sentencing leeway given to judges, in neither system do the subsequent crimes need to be "free".
Increasing the harshness of the punishment hardens the criminals and makes them more likely to escalate violence. There is a well known historical precedent from medieval Europe, where a local baron instituted death penalty for highway robbers. Having nothing more to risk, the robbers started killing their victims instead of simply robbing them...
What works best is the inevitability of punishment, rather then the harshness of it. 25% of the spammers receiving a 1 year sentence would deter more scumbags, than 2 of them (a fraction of a percent) getting publicly chopped up on a wheel.
Re:It is an excessive sentence (Score:4, Informative)
No, that is by no means a hard and fast rule [law.com].
Re:It is an excessive sentence (Score:5, Interesting)
It is interesting what you say but I have to give you the other end of spectrum. I live in a country where the maximum penalty is 25 years. It really does not matter if you kill one person or 4 you will get at most 25 years.
Recently we had a case in the news where one guy killed 3 little girls, hid the evidence, tried to blame it on another guy and commited two or three more crimes, he got nailed with 25 years and the defence is appealing to try to reduce the time (unlikely, since the total time was around 60 years, even if they reduce somewhat it will still be over 25).
Now I believe, 25 years in jail is a long time. When you get out of there you sure did have some time to think about the things you've done and how to straighten up (of course, some never do). The real problem here is paroles, saw it on the news that although he got 25 years sentence, in some cases they get out on parole after 6 years, and hardly anyone gets more than 16 years or real jail time.
Now this starts to look short. So we either need to review the parole system or we need to start comulating penalties like in the US so that criminals do pay their time in jail. If one of the girls he killed was my daughter and he got out of jail in 6 years... oh boy, don't even want to imagine how I would feel and just how much I would be willing to do.
Re: (Score:3)
16 is still very long. It is one year longer, than the longest sentence in USSR. 6 may be short, but it is, probably, in cases, the man is judged to have completely reformed...
The purpose of punishment is not to exact vengeance — it is to deter crimes and to comfort the victims.
If anything coul
Re:It is an excessive sentence (Score:5, Interesting)
Baloney. The purpose of punishment is punishment. Nothing, not a damn thing, deters crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the "maximum of 25 years" thing, this may be financially beneficial to the state--but I fail to see how it benefits the society (especially in extreme cases such as established seria
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone kills my children and the legal system fails to get vengeance, I will simply get it myself. That is another aspect to consider. Too weak punishments mean that people won't bother with the courts at all.
We can, however, make sure that he never kills anyone ever aga
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main reasons for prison is to keep people safe from the wolves among us. In the old days they would be killed to get the same result.
Re:It is an excessive sentence (Score:5, Interesting)
A proportional justice system means that anything less than this ultimate crime, should have a lesser sentence.
From there, it's just a question of how you map things -- is it linear or logarithmic with the severity of the crime (since causing a crash that injures two people is only 1/100000000 as bad as killing everyone in the world with kittens, should your sentence for doing this be only 1/100000000 as long as a life sentence, or only 1/1000?) What level of crime is sufficient that anything above it maps to life in prison? How much will that cost?
To the victim, any sentence probably seems too lenient, because the victim has been personally affected. The questions are: what is best for society as a whole, and what are we actually trying to do with imprisonment?
Fundamentalists (which I use in its original meaning) and many conservatives feel that criminality is permanent, and as such, prisons are primarily punishment, retribution, or a way of getting rid of criminals if we can't outright kill them. As a result, they tend to want very long prison sentences or the death penalty.
Progressives, and most liberals, feel that criminality is situational, and as such, prisons can be used for rehabilitation, so that once the sentence is served, with appropriate help and training, the person coming out is possibly no longer a criminal and can live a useful, productive, non-criminal life.
Basically, you have to ask yourself what you think prison is for. If it's for making people suffer for having done bad things, you're probably going to want long sentences and capital punishment. If it's for fixing broken people, you're probably going to favor shorter sentences and definitely going to favor education, job training, and self-advancement opportunities being offered in prisons. Victims of crime are naturally going to feel retributive towards the criminals who caused them suffering, and probably towards criminals in general. I personally think that one of the responsibilities of society at large is to approach crime with a neutral point of view, and make sentencing depend on what's best for society as a whole, rather than just to appease the feelings of the victim.
Concurrent sentences the norm ... (Score:2)
I believe concurrent sentences are by far the norm in the US as well. Sometimes it is even a statutory requirement that sentences be concurrent if the various offenses stem from the same instance of criminal conduct. Perhaps you are confused by various modifiers where years are added for possesion of a gun, selling drugs near a school, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
As a concession to the beat up population of a murderous despot who jailed anyone who look at any of his cronies the wrong way.
>Still excessive in my opinion.
For attempted fucking murder? Are you crazy? If someone tried to kill you or someone you love, I doubt you'd be so forgiving.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, it is likely, I would not be forgiving, and I'd be demanding a harsh penalty. Being in a calm state that I am today, I can say, I'd be wrong, however...
Re:It is an excessive sentence (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with the US justice system really isn't the length of sentences, it's the recidivism [wikipedia.org]. Nearly 80% of people convicted of stealing a car are re-arrested later for the same thing.
Punishing people feels fair. You want someone who did something bad to suffer, in particular if you were hurt by what they did. On the other hand, prison shouldn't be a place where criminals to go to be better, harder criminals. It should be somewhere where people who are a danger to society are helped to b
Re: (Score:2)
Show me how that can be done and I'll agree with it. Since rehabilitation is mostly a pipedream, I don't.
The flip side of the coin (Score:2)
Saying that inevitability alone is all the deterrent and harshness doesn't matter, paints a highly skewed and misleading picture. Consider this extreme example: let's say we make the penalty for murder something as trivial as house arrest for a day. We also make it
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really take a window dressing law in the Soviet criminal justice system seriously? As if the Soviets were actually reforming anything and not just engaging in some kind of PR exercise for internal or external consumption?
What works best is the inevitability of punishme
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He also didn't really "flee" the country - as I understand it, he used a fake passport to go to the Dominican Republic to set up his pharmacy there after it was shut down in 2005, then _returned_ to Minnesota and continued spamming and sellin
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad he won't have email in prison. I'd like to send him some spam for "v1a_gra".
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea (Score:2, Funny)
Enlarge Your S-E-N-T-E-N-C-E with MegaDOJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well, kudos to those involved for putting another spammer away. Keep up the good work.
Re: (Score:2)
amazing (Score:2, Funny)
It couldn't happen to a better guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Ouch. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ouch. (Score:5, Funny)
Federal Time is good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Still... I wake up almost every morning hoping to see a headline about "spammer brutally murdered in his mansion." Yes, I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes for such headlines, but my imagination goes further... I want to see something in the story stating that the cause of death was from being buried under the weight of several thousand cans of canned-meat [by-]products.
I'm sure there are more creative ideas than this, but I think the world would generally approve of this means of waste disposal.
Re: (Score:2)
I think perhaps having the canned meat pumped through both orifices simultaneously would be interesting. Imagine the statement following the autopsy: "This man was filled with Spam(r) from his esophagus to his rectum. I would have to attribute that as the cause of death."
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, there is no parole and time off for good behavior. This is good... very good.
The federal system does not have parole, but inmates can earn up to 15% sentence reduction (serving 85%) with good behavior.
Pardon me /.ers but Reagan instituted mandatory (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW, this guy is much more than a spammer and 30 years is far from a reasonable sentence. 300 years for conspiracy to murder the child of an adverse witness is a fair term FOR THAT ONE CRIME.
A Cage is where we put people too dangerous to be a part of society. (IMHO, that includes you loonies who think business and people should have unfettered power - s**t what happens when your "unfettered" business starts feeding us CO-treated bad meat or your drunken neighbor decides to fire his
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are entirely correct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
.50 sniper rifle
Very few (if any) .50's are used for sniping. The standard rifle used by US Army snipers is a Remington 700 in 7.62 NATO (.308" caliber); the DC snipers used a Bushmaster chambered in 5.56 NATO (.223" caliber). Almost all rifle bullets used for sniping are 8mm (.315") or smaller in diameter. I'm assuming by .50 you mean .50 BMG, and in the civilian sector it is used almost exclusively for very long range TARGET shooting. A few people use it to hunt large animals (such as African safari hunts) but even
Re: Pardon me - I shoot. (Score:2)
The point of using a
300 years? how long do folks live in your place? (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding is that in the USA, sentences can be put back to back, is that true? so if you did ten things that were worth a ten year sentence you'd get a hundred years?
If so, what's the point of issuing sentences over 75 years or so? why not just say "until you're dead, no remission"? Genuine question rather than flamebait, can anybody enlighten me to the legal thought behind what seems a bit silly on the surface. As som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can serve sentences for multiple offenses consecutively or concurrently. The Judge makes that determination.
If you are a "good prisoner" you may have your sentence reduced by some divisor - and that is done by a pardons and parole board (in most states). They (the board) are guided by the term imposed and other factors. The crimes this guy committed did not permit a sentence of "life without possibility of parole" so a very, very long sentence sen
Think about the children!!! (Score:2)
WTF man? Why are you people constantly putting "murder of *the child*"? Why does it even matter if it was a child, a 30 year old man or a 100 year old granny with no teeth? Isn't the law suppose to me blind??
All he probably got was X years for conspiracy to murder a witness. Period. I'm sick and tired of people constan
Think about the underlying crime (Score:2)
Why focus on the kid? Because the conspiracy involved more than mere murder. It was a threat to silence an adverse witness. The sentence should have been 300 years if the Perp had threatened the witnesses' spouse, parent(s), children, grandchildren or best friend.
Anybody willing to kill to cover a crime needs a long, long sentence. I quit a job as an assistant county prosecutor where the elected prosecutor cut a deal with the hired killer (double shotgun mu
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Easier way. (Score:3, Informative)
You can almost hear it... (Score:2)
(Oh noes! Where will teenage boys buy their Accutane now? How will insecure old men buy their C.1.a.L.1.s anonymously? Anarchy and chaos, I tell you!)
Been said before (Score:2, Funny)
If there is any justice in this world... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If there is any justice in this world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prison sucks. It sucks for the people who go there, it sucks for the people who work there, and it sucks for the society that has to pay for it.
Re:If there is any justice in this world... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's not right either. Crimes committed in prison should not be given a free pass by society, whether rape, assault, or whatever.
I agree. But that is no reason for some people to condone criminal behavior in prisons.
BTW, I love how I got modded "Flamebait" for speaking out against rape. Nice...
Modding... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some crimes I don't condone and people I personally wouldn't like to see re-integrated back into society (rapists, sociopaths who murder). But there are a lot of people who make mistakes and should be allowed to return to society after serving their time.
From my spam today: (Score:4, Funny)
Conservative values in his new relationship (Score:2)
Obligatory quote... (Score:3, Funny)
Pain medication (Score:2, Interesting)
The government's overzealous prosecution against pain medication is a far greater moral wro
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pain medication (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two basic problems. The primary one is that doctors are legally restricted about how much medication they can give, and are taking professional risks if they don't seriously restrict the prescriptions they write for these medications. The government is stopping doctors from helping people in the name of the "War on Drugs."
The second problem is that only the pain sufferer knows what they are going through. I think some doctors do not give the sufferer enough choice about what degree of medication they take. My doctor denied me a hydrocodone (Vicodin) refill, despite these facts: 1. It provided pain relief when over the counter drugs did not. 2. My pain was very bad and was reducing my ability to work, sleep, and generally function. 3. I was only taking 50% of the maximum allowed daily dose. I had not abused the medication in any way, and used it only when most needed. 4. A reasonable dose of hydrocodone is actually safer than many over-the-counter pain drugs.
The only reason my doctor could give for denying my medication was the risk of developing addiction. But I had showed no signs of addiction, and when I stopped the medication I experienced no withdrawal. I just experienced a lot of pain.
For more very interesting thoughts see this article, "The DEA's War on Pain Doctors" [villagevoice.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Informative)
Prison isn't fun. A friend of mine spend 2 in a Canadian prison for sellign pot and turned his life around because he never wants to go back. This is a massively built black guy who would never have to worry about beingont he receiving end of prison rape.
The whole "but homeless people would kill to be there" is a fallacy too. Life on the streets is rough but you still have some freedoms to massage your vices or turn it around. In America/Canada you still can eat regularly as well and you pan handle enough to get some booze or food fairly easily. How often do you hear in hedlines that a homeless person comitted a crime to go to prison. I have never heard of this. I live in one of the coldest cities in NA. I'm sure it happens in some places but the arguementis a fallacy because our prisons here and there aren't filled with homeless. Their filled with drug dealers. Check the stats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Informative)
The guy wasn't "just" a spammer. He ran an online pharmacy, and his assistant (whose children he tried to have killed) was responsible for procuring Vicodin for him to sell.
He was a fraud, a fugitive, and a would-be killer. He was also apparently willing to sell your teenage daughter real narcotics, and did so often enough that the gov't sold 1.6 million dollars worth of his cars at auction. Sorry, I can't drum up a lot of sympathy for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the fact that he conducted business gives the feds any legitimate right to say what kind of business he can conduct. They can tax it, that's about it.
He's alluding to the ICC (Score:4, Insightful)
Article I, section 8: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
I'll be the first one to admit that this clause has been abused, but if this constitutes abuse, it's at least much closer to the original intent than many other applications of the ICC.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I'll certainly agree with. However, from other posts, it appears that TFS really had little relationship to the actual case; it seems to have been more about tax evasion. I read the summary only, mea culpa.
Ditto (Score:2)
Enumerated power (Score:3, Interesting)
Was this guy ACTUALLY selling medicine, and that in good faith? or was he running a scam?
He sold many things of different legality (Score:5, Informative)
Also, of course, after being convicted but before being sentenced, he tried to stash some of money where the Feds couldn't get it, which is not the brightest way to get the judge to take it easy on you.
Re: (Score:2)
So much for TFS. Oh well, it's slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... because he wasn't doing anything else illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh libertarianism... What will you justify next!
Anarchism != Libertarianism (Score:5, Informative)
Libertarianism would certainly not tolerate this guy, as he was running a scam, committed what any sane person would consider real crimes, and solicited murder - exactly the kind of thing Libertarians DO want a government around to deal with, and deal with harshly & efficiently.
The word you're looking for is Anarchism - where everything he did would be legal precisely because absolutely nothing would be illegal, and that because there would be no government to declare anything illegal.
Re:Anarchism != Libertarianism (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's always this method... (Score:2)
Stop! Or I'll say "Stop" again! (Robin Williams, I believe)
But seriously, technically you can have laws without enforcement. In fact, IIRC, there have been laws passed by Congress that a certain president has said (via signing statements) he will not enforce/implement. Still, I'm not arguing this is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The political philosophy of anarchy could be called libertarian socialism as opposed to communism which could be called authoritarian socialism.
Libertarianism, as extolled by the American Libertarian party, purports to believe in political freedom whilst maintaining private property but with no regulation of any kind on the private property and whilst having no commons.
Anarchy doesn't mean everything is "legal" and that there are no rules. Anarchy posits a system in which people have political and econ
Re: (Score:2)
The whole small government libertarians envision doesn't regulate speech or commerce, so yes this guy would still be out there, selling shitty drugs through spam under a libertarian system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excellent ! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about the government telling someone what business they can or cannot run, it's about this person selling pills which are claimed to be the real thing. In other words, he was selling placebos and not telling people these weren't the real thing.
Further, Congress has delegated authority to regulate medicinces to the FDA since medicines are not state specific. You can find the same bottle of Advil in Georgia as you can in Kansas. The FDA has stated that if it's a medicine, it must undergo rigorous testing to prove its relative safety.
This guy was claiming he had real drugs which he could deliver on the cheap. Not only was he violating FDA guidelines, he was perpetrating fraud.
So tell me, what country do you live in that allows someone to perpetrate fraud and not get penalized?
Re: (Score:2)
Admitting he used relatives to hide money from his transactions didn't help matters either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason... (Score:3, Informative)
There's a reason people post "print" link to articles instead of to the ad-laden one, and it's the publishers' faults.
It's because for years now, we the consumers have been so abused with web publishers pushing ads on us that we immediately jump to defend ourselves against them, whether it's justified or not. If Internet publishers had been reasonable all
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... so where's the print link again?
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does it undermine ANYTHING? People can still get the drugs with a doctor's prescription. And I'd much rather have opiate addicts popping pills than shooting heroin with dirty needles and spreading HIV+ among other things!
-b.