4 ms·

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

by mikecb 11y ago

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.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The "faces up to" is technically true, but substantively misleading. They upper statutory limit for the crime charged was, indeed, 35 years. The details of the specifics of the charges would not, under the federal sentencing guidelines, support anything near that maximum sentence, and while upward departures from the guidelines are technically possible, there is no basis for thinking they were likely in that case. It's a deception that serves DOJ interest in making their activities seem more significant and newsworthy, and the press don't bother to challenge it, either through laziness out because the artificially enhanced dramas serves the interests of the press.
- 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...

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

by mikecb 11y ago

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

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.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The "faces up to" is technically true, but substantively misleading. They upper statutory limit for the crime charged was, indeed, 35 years. The details of the specifics of the charges would not, under the federal sentencing guidelines, support anything near that maximum sentence, and while upward departures from the guidelines are technically possible, there is no basis for thinking they were likely in that case. It's a deception that serves DOJ interest in making their activities seem more significant and newsworthy, and the press don't bother to challenge it, either through laziness out because the artificially enhanced dramas serves the interests of the press.
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...