4 ms·

Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors had offered Aa

Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors had offered Aaron 6 months, he could’ve got less.

modo_mario 6y ago
>Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors office was working to pile on even more charges for a theoretical max of 50 years. The offer was a plea deal which the prosecutor thought was an appropriate sentence yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway guaranteeing him years in jail if he did not accept and waive the constitutional rights he'd have during a trial. He declined and his counter offer was rejected. This illustrates how it is a legal fiction that plea bargaining is a voluntary negotiation between the prosecutor and defendant
- ryanlol 6y ago
  > The prosecutors office was working to pile on even more charges for a theoretical max of 50 years The theoretical maximum is utterly irrelevant. > guaranteeing him years in jail if he did not accept So you acknowledge that he definitely did violate the law, no? Sounds like the prosecutor was very generous with their plea deal offers. “According to Swartz’s lawyers, the prosecutors in the case offered two different pleas. First, they would agree to a sentence of four months if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to the felonies. And second, they could agree to a deal in which Swartz agreed to plead guilty, the government would argue for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could argue for a lesser sentence (presumably including probation). In all likelihood, the judge would have then sentenced Swartz to 4 months under the 1st plea and whatever the judge thought appropriate, up to 6 months, under the second plea.”
  - modo_mario 6y ago
    Yeah he violated the law and the few months offered in the plea deal isn't that long but the fact that you can be blackmailed/threatened into basically being forced to take them and giving up your rights in court or get fucked otherwise is a travesty of the American justice system. If the proper fitting punishment for his crime was 4 months or 6 months or what have you like that should be the kind of punishment that's on the table and expected during a fair trial. Not something that's achieved outside of court trough deals. Looking from the outside in from a western European country it's hard to see why this is such ingrained concept in the US.
- akudha 6y ago
  yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway Why? What does she get out of it? I honestly do not understand. It is one thing pile charges on a violent murderer - not that it makes it right, at least it is debatable. Why would she think decades in jail makes sense in this case? I honestly do not understand. How do these people sleep at night?
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    She offered Swartz 4 months for his crimes, why should she have any difficulty sleeping at night over this?
    - modo_mario 6y ago
      Threatening with many many years in jail which you don't even believe they deserve in order to get someone to give up their rights in court is immoral.

Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors had offered Aaron 6 months, he could’ve got less.

modo_mario 6y ago

>Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors office was working to pile on even more charges for a theoretical max of 50 years. The offer was a plea deal which the prosecutor thought was an appropriate sentence yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway guaranteeing him years in jail if he did not accept and waive the constitutional rights he'd have during a trial. He declined and his counter offer was rejected. This illustrates how it is a legal fiction that plea bargaining is a voluntary negotiation between the prosecutor and defendant

ryanlol 6y ago
> The prosecutors office was working to pile on even more charges for a theoretical max of 50 years The theoretical maximum is utterly irrelevant. > guaranteeing him years in jail if he did not accept So you acknowledge that he definitely did violate the law, no? Sounds like the prosecutor was very generous with their plea deal offers. “According to Swartz’s lawyers, the prosecutors in the case offered two different pleas. First, they would agree to a sentence of four months if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to the felonies. And second, they could agree to a deal in which Swartz agreed to plead guilty, the government would argue for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could argue for a lesser sentence (presumably including probation). In all likelihood, the judge would have then sentenced Swartz to 4 months under the 1st plea and whatever the judge thought appropriate, up to 6 months, under the second plea.”
- modo_mario 6y ago
  Yeah he violated the law and the few months offered in the plea deal isn't that long but the fact that you can be blackmailed/threatened into basically being forced to take them and giving up your rights in court or get fucked otherwise is a travesty of the American justice system. If the proper fitting punishment for his crime was 4 months or 6 months or what have you like that should be the kind of punishment that's on the table and expected during a fair trial. Not something that's achieved outside of court trough deals. Looking from the outside in from a western European country it's hard to see why this is such ingrained concept in the US.
akudha 6y ago
yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway Why? What does she get out of it? I honestly do not understand. It is one thing pile charges on a violent murderer - not that it makes it right, at least it is debatable. Why would she think decades in jail makes sense in this case? I honestly do not understand. How do these people sleep at night?
- ryanlol 6y ago
  She offered Swartz 4 months for his crimes, why should she have any difficulty sleeping at night over this?
  - modo_mario 6y ago
    Threatening with many many years in jail which you don't even believe they deserve in order to get someone to give up their rights in court is immoral.