What is Ross being punished for?
Is Ross' "real crime" -- the thing he is being ruined for selling drugs? The disproportionately harsh sentence says no, especially in light of the fact that Ross himself did very little trade. Is Ross' "real crime" killing people? No -- he did not do that, nor was he tried for that.
So why is Ross really being punished?
Set aside for a moment the sophist words of the judge in her sentencing act; table the immense corruption involved in the prosecution of Ross; I ask you that, just for a moment, you listen to the content of the behavior of the people working to ruin Ross. Forget the words. Listen to the acts.
Note how they inexplicably disallowed Ross vital legal defenses; note the use of the testimony of a known thieving and extortionist cop; note how they sullied Ross' reputation publicly prior to the trial, so as to make a fair trial impossible. Note the disinformation surrounding the case, especially how many people falsely believe that Ross is being punished for murder. Note, in sum, how the actions of the people working to ruin him are not consistent with prosecuting either of these crimes.
If you do that, the truth becomes immediately crystal-clear: "None of you shall ever think about willfully disobeying us. If you do, you will be the next one we'll ruin."
Yes, the one thing Ross is being punished for -- which is consistent with the callous, unjust, egregious and deceitful behavior of those ruining him publicly -- is willful disobedience (also known as insubordination).
Why?
There is one idea every prospective or active ruler understands better than any other: where no one obeys, no one rules. This is a millennia-old principle of archist rule. If there is one thing that the rulers who want to stay rulers cannot allow, is for the ruled to flaunt their disobedience of the rulers' orders. That is especially so when that disobedience is principled and deliberate.
This is why, when the ruler finds himself challenged, he cannot afford to give a shit about justice or even the appearance thereof. He must, ruthlessly and at all costs, force the insubordinate to subordinate... else the ruler finds himself not a ruler anymore. The more effective the insubordination, the more fear must be struck into the ruled, the crueler and more painful the punishment must be.
This fact of rulership explains why the harshest punishments are reserved for insubordination to the rulers, which in turn answers the question of why Ross was given such a disproportionately cruel sentence relative to other drug sellers. Two hundred years ago, the more belligerently the abolitionist Negroes defied their Masters, the harsher and more publicly the Masters punished them. Similarly, Lenin would order people beheaded and their heads displayed in public squares. Today's U.S. society sees perpetual rape cages as the maximum tolerable punishment, so that's what Ross gets. But make no mistake: if Ross had lived just a few hundred years ago, his punishment would have been public gutting and exsanguination.
(Some of you likely noticed the astonishing parallels between Ross' predicament and an abusive parent raging at their kid "you are grounded forever!" or brutalizing their kid, as reaction to the kid's insubordination. I agree. Be that as it may, that's probably a topic for a different conversation.)
Once one understands what was at stake for the rulers if Ross had succeeded, one understands why Ross being ruined was a foregone conclusion from the outset.
Unfortunately for the rulers, it's too late, as others have already decided to follow Ross' insubordinate footsteps. Short of sudden total despotism, I don't see how the rulers will preserve their grip long-term.
spoiler (click to show/hide)