2 ms·
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 w
by 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.
- tptacek 11y agoI don't really care who's to blame. I'm certainly not defending the DOJ. A very thorough and compelling study of mass incarceration published earlier this year suggests that prosecutorial overzealousness probably accounts for more of our prison population than any other factor. But the "35 year sentence" claim has nothing to do with Swartz's predicament. He had excellent legal representation, both formally (he had a series of well-qualified criminal defense attorneys) and informally (he had a support system compromised of several of the most respected legal scholars in the country). Every one of them would have told him that he could, and should, ignore the "35 year" figure from the DOJ's press release --- the DOJ writes a similar press release for every headline prosecution, and in each case applies the same absurd heuristic of adding up the maximum possible sentence for all counts, ignoring the sentencing guidelines and offense grouping rules. The 35-year sentence is also mooted by Heymann's own initial negotiation with Swartz, where he threatened Swartz with a 7-year sentence. 7 years was his ambit claim; it was the worst possible case Heymann could generate, and a fabulously unrealistic one given the CFAA sentencing guidelines.