Not yet.

Its a simplification, but he is basically a martyr for bitcoin and a hero to anarchists and libertarians who believe government should have less power and rules should not be applied/enforced in an uneven manner.

A simple analogy, if a man targeted and killed your entire family and you confronted and injured him, is it really fair given that HIS family is the government, that you be punished to the highest degree while he gets to continue targeting and killing other families?

The government conspired against one man, they entrapped him, their agents took advantage and profited personally from his platform.

I don't believe this was about justice, I believe it was sending a message about who is boss.

Another analogy, you are hungry, a man named Robinhood steals from the rich to give to the poor. You survive another day.

The police find and capture this man. More people become homeless, the homeless are dying all around you, Robinhood is plastered all over the walls to scare anyone else from ever attempting this again.

No one does anything about the growing homeless, but immediate action was taken when the privileged were slightly inconvenienced at the benefit of the poor. And of course, it isn't like rich aren't stealing from the poor.

I know these are analogies and not proofs or facts, but some of the facts are not framed neutrally.

"Facilitated drug trade", or "opened a market for alternative medications that were originally outlawed to allow racists to target a minority group more effectively"?

We seem to live by arbitrary truths like "breaking the law is bad", and although it is generally true, it is an absolute statement that leaves no room for context.

I don't believe there were any correlations between drug related deaths and assaults, and the silk road being operational for example.