That's an interesting perspective. But it does hinge upon two different assumptions.
First, it hinges upon the assassination market being fake (or more generally, that the severity of what was happening there is overstated), which I would think the most effective way to evaluate would be to consider with an institution devoted to getting to the heart of what is true and false. Such as a court. Which it did.
Unless you are advising that our nation should use some other institution, such as your personal judgment, to determine truth from fiction, I'm not sure what you are proposing. So far as the law is concerned, the severity of what was happening there was extreme enough to justify the sentance, and you disagreeing with the outcome doesn't make it any less a valid outcome for one who believes in the rule of law. Which I'll admit, you might not.
The second part is to take issue with the laws that our society has created, and to a very large degree supports. While there is widespread support for legalization of marijuana, the same cannot be said for the kind of hard drugs that Silk Road was reputed to traffic in. So I think it can be frustrating when you disagree with the rest of society in a democracy, but that doesn't make the democracy itself flawed. It just makes you an outlier, which is a feature not a bug of a representative democracy.
I think it's easy to pick and choose from the outcomes that you like in order to criticize our court system. But I would encourage you to focus more on the process itself, and advising specific fixes to the process if you are unhappy with its results.
On the other hand, if you can't identify specific changes you'd like to make in the process, then you should just sit back and accept the results.
And if you are instead of advising that we just scrap the whole thing start over, I would encourage you to get clear on what specifically you would like to be different in the new society versus the old, and why revolution is the most effective way to accomplish it.
David