This outcome isn't an outcome yet, so I don't know how it can possibly be blatantly wrong. The hacker has not been sentenced yet, the rape perpetrators were. Co

This outcome isn't an outcome yet, so I don't know how it can possibly be blatantly wrong. The hacker has not been sentenced yet, the rape perpetrators were. Comparing a "possible lifetime + cancer" sentence to an actually imposed one is poor journalism - please check out either https://popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-shitty-journalism/ https://popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-shitt... or 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... for an explanation why this kind of reporting is just wrong. But even if you don't read those blog posts, consider this - the reported sentences are the maximum possible under the statute. From there, you would apply contextual circumstances - what the actual circumstances of the crime were, criminal history, admission of guilt, likelihood of recidivism, danger to society, whatever else the judge might find important, and adjust the sentence. Unless you think the hacker has undoubtedly committed the most egregious hacking crime, then he's not getting the maximum sentence. And is the outcome for the rape perpetrators "blatantly wrong"? I don't really know the specifics of the case. Just quickly reading this CNN report - http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-... - you can find out they're minors, they were remorseful, the rape was not violent, and most importantly, jail was not the only punishment they received - they were put on the sex offenders registry, which will most likely ruin their chances at having a decent life.