7 ms·

25 years for this seems a bit harsh.

by dopamean 11y ago

mikecb 11y ago
That's a statutory maximum, not a guideline or even remotely likely sentence.
- baldfat 11y ago
  BUT that is what the Federal Prosecutor will ask for. Aaron Swartz was told that they were pursuing the maximum sentence. It isn't even fair how these things are handled against our own fellow citizens.
  - tzs 11y ago
    The prosecutors were seeking around 7 years in the Swartz case at trial, and offering a few months for a plea bargain.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      This was the original published statement: If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. https://web.archive.org/web/20120526080523/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120526080523/http://www.justic... Yes they offered him 6 months finally but that is not how it starts. Plus in this country you get caught red handed you get a nice plea bargain and get less time than someone who might be innocent and they went to trial because they don't feel guilty and boom higher sentence for not taking the plea bargain. 90% of cases never go to trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the-problem-with-pleas/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the... My friend who swore he was innocent and went to trial on a he said she said had zero evidence was offered 18 months went to trial and got 12 years. That was more than some murders, man slaughter and rape. If you have a FBI trial your defense will cost millions or you take the plea bargain. Justice system is broken.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        The DOJ's press release isn't a binding legal document, and there is no calculation under the CFAA sentencing guidelines that gets you anywhere near 35 years. The 35 year number is simply a lie.
        baldfat 11y ago
        > The 35 year number is simply a lie Are you saying the DOJ is lying or that the fact that Aaron Swartz was told he could be facing 35 years in jail? This is so odd. I feel like people are down voting me to defend the DOJ's handling of Aaron Swartz?
        tptacek 11y ago
        The DOJ is lying, and lies routinely about this. A link to Popehat, the blog of a former federal white-collar crimes prosecutor who writes about civil liberties, was provided upthread and explains it in detail. There is no substance whatsoever to the "35 years" figure. The reality is that we don't really have to ask what Swartz was thinking, because after his death, his lawyer wrote up his predicament. The trial would have been ruinously expensive, but there was a very good chance that even if he was found guilty, he would serve no custodial sentence. You can back that up by finding the federal sentencing guidelines, lookup up the CFAA guidelines, and applying them to Swartz, who had no previous criminal record, caused no significant damage in his offense, and sought no profit from his crimes (all factors considered by the guidelines). It's very hard to shoot down an urban myth as virulent as "Swartz faced 35 years in prison", though. Especially when so many people want it to be true.
        baldfat 11y ago
        I agree with you except for one thing. > It's very hard to shoot down an urban myth as virulent as "Swartz faced 35 years in prison" Because that is in fact what the DOJ sent out to the press in this document stating the non-mythical number 35. Trying to understand why 35 years is a myth the public continues to hold on to: Pragmatically you are saying that could not happen but the empirical evidence of DOJ communication to the public is 35 years.
  - mikecb 11y ago
    That's not true in this case. The government has previously stated that they will probably ask for less than 5 years. Read Popehat on this very case: https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys-possible-sentence-conceals-prosecutorial-power/ https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...

25 years for this seems a bit harsh.

mikecb 11y ago

That's a statutory maximum, not a guideline or even remotely likely sentence.

baldfat 11y ago
BUT that is what the Federal Prosecutor will ask for. Aaron Swartz was told that they were pursuing the maximum sentence. It isn't even fair how these things are handled against our own fellow citizens.
- tzs 11y ago
  The prosecutors were seeking around 7 years in the Swartz case at trial, and offering a few months for a plea bargain.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    This was the original published statement: If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. https://web.archive.org/web/20120526080523/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120526080523/http://www.justic... Yes they offered him 6 months finally but that is not how it starts. Plus in this country you get caught red handed you get a nice plea bargain and get less time than someone who might be innocent and they went to trial because they don't feel guilty and boom higher sentence for not taking the plea bargain. 90% of cases never go to trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the-problem-with-pleas/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the... My friend who swore he was innocent and went to trial on a he said she said had zero evidence was offered 18 months went to trial and got 12 years. That was more than some murders, man slaughter and rape. If you have a FBI trial your defense will cost millions or you take the plea bargain. Justice system is broken.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      The DOJ's press release isn't a binding legal document, and there is no calculation under the CFAA sentencing guidelines that gets you anywhere near 35 years. The 35 year number is simply a lie.
      - baldfat 11y ago
        > The 35 year number is simply a lie Are you saying the DOJ is lying or that the fact that Aaron Swartz was told he could be facing 35 years in jail? This is so odd. I feel like people are down voting me to defend the DOJ's handling of Aaron Swartz?
        tptacek 11y ago
        The DOJ is lying, and lies routinely about this. A link to Popehat, the blog of a former federal white-collar crimes prosecutor who writes about civil liberties, was provided upthread and explains it in detail. There is no substance whatsoever to the "35 years" figure. The reality is that we don't really have to ask what Swartz was thinking, because after his death, his lawyer wrote up his predicament. The trial would have been ruinously expensive, but there was a very good chance that even if he was found guilty, he would serve no custodial sentence. You can back that up by finding the federal sentencing guidelines, lookup up the CFAA guidelines, and applying them to Swartz, who had no previous criminal record, caused no significant damage in his offense, and sought no profit from his crimes (all factors considered by the guidelines). It's very hard to shoot down an urban myth as virulent as "Swartz faced 35 years in prison", though. Especially when so many people want it to be true.
        baldfat 11y ago
        I agree with you except for one thing. > It's very hard to shoot down an urban myth as virulent as "Swartz faced 35 years in prison" Because that is in fact what the DOJ sent out to the press in this document stating the non-mythical number 35. Trying to understand why 35 years is a myth the public continues to hold on to: Pragmatically you are saying that could not happen but the empirical evidence of DOJ communication to the public is 35 years.
- mikecb 11y ago
  That's not true in this case. The government has previously stated that they will probably ask for less than 5 years. Read Popehat on this very case: https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys-possible-sentence-conceals-prosecutorial-power/ https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...