4 ms·

I don't think threatening to wield what we now know is a poorly constructed law to put someone in prison for nearly the rest of their natural life is the same a

I don't think threatening to wield what we now know is a poorly constructed law to put someone in prison for nearly the rest of their natural life is the same as giving someone the finger. He faced up to 35 years in prison for doing what many of us consider an effort to make the world a better place based on his own moral principals.

xadhominemx 5y ago
He was offered a 6 month sentence in a low security facility
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  To admit guilt instead of actually defending himself in court. There is something implicitly wrong about getting a different sentence as punishment for actually having your day in court.
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    Ok so you acknowledge that he was not actually facing a long prison sentence? And yes pleading guilty carries a lower sentence in part because you are rewarded for accepting responsibility for your actions.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      He was indeed facing a long prison sentence if he chose to defend himself and rewarding people for pleading guilty makes no sense. You aren't accepting responsibility you are literally making a self serving bet that you will probably lose your case and thereby serve a lesser sentence by taking a plea. Unfortunately innocent people make that same calculation and sometimes accept a short sentence rather than fearing a sentence that represents basically an end to their normal life. If you are innocent or believe as is in fact the case here that the governments position is legally incorrect you shouldn't face punishment for arguing that in front of a judge. For innocent people whom are inevitably convicted every day in any justice system this represents a punishment for asserting innocence. The fact that you think this is normal is just a sign that our entire society is itself abnormal and broken.
tzs 5y ago
He wasn't actually facing 35 years. DoJ press releases don't take into account a couple of aspects of sentences when they come up with a number. First, they ignore that actual sentencing takes into account assorted aggravating and mitigating factors. To get the maximum on a charge you have to have several aggravating factors and few mitigating factors. Basically, if it is possible that someone could receive 20 years, say, for a given charge--even if to get 20 years they would pretty much have to be that crime's equivalent of Al Capone, then they are going to say 20 years on every press release involving that crime even if it concerns the mildest possible instance of it. Second, there are often multiple charges that could apply to the same act and would require largely the same elements of proof. Prosecutors can charge you with all of them and let the jury decide which, if any, to convict you of. Many of these are grouped for sentencing, so that if you are convicted of more than one in the same group you only get sentenced for one of them. Grouping is ignored in the press releases. If you are charged with three things, with a max of 10 years each (and remember, that 10 years is already greatly exaggerated as described earlier), the press release is going to say you are facing up to 30 years. This really needs to be changed. The DoJ knows what facts they intend to try and prove about your particular instances of the crimes they are charging you with. They are perfectly capable of looking at the aggravating factors for the charge, comparing to what they are trying to prove, and figuring out the real maximum for your case. They are certainly also capable of dealing with grouping. I can't see any good reason they should not do so, and so put realistic maximums in their press releases. Here's a good article on how press release sentences are misleading [1]. Here's an article that looks at it specifically in the context of Swartz [2]. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... [2] http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aa...

xadhominemx 5y ago

He was offered a 6 month sentence in a low security facility

michaelmrose 5y ago
To admit guilt instead of actually defending himself in court. There is something implicitly wrong about getting a different sentence as punishment for actually having your day in court.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Ok so you acknowledge that he was not actually facing a long prison sentence? And yes pleading guilty carries a lower sentence in part because you are rewarded for accepting responsibility for your actions.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    He was indeed facing a long prison sentence if he chose to defend himself and rewarding people for pleading guilty makes no sense. You aren't accepting responsibility you are literally making a self serving bet that you will probably lose your case and thereby serve a lesser sentence by taking a plea. Unfortunately innocent people make that same calculation and sometimes accept a short sentence rather than fearing a sentence that represents basically an end to their normal life. If you are innocent or believe as is in fact the case here that the governments position is legally incorrect you shouldn't face punishment for arguing that in front of a judge. For innocent people whom are inevitably convicted every day in any justice system this represents a punishment for asserting innocence. The fact that you think this is normal is just a sign that our entire society is itself abnormal and broken.

tzs 5y ago

He wasn't actually facing 35 years. DoJ press releases don't take into account a couple of aspects of sentences when they come up with a number. First, they ignore that actual sentencing takes into account assorted aggravating and mitigating factors. To get the maximum on a charge you have to have several aggravating factors and few mitigating factors. Basically, if it is possible that someone could receive 20 years, say, for a given charge--even if to get 20 years they would pretty much have to be that crime's equivalent of Al Capone, then they are going to say 20 years on every press release involving that crime even if it concerns the mildest possible instance of it. Second, there are often multiple charges that could apply to the same act and would require largely the same elements of proof. Prosecutors can charge you with all of them and let the jury decide which, if any, to convict you of. Many of these are grouped for sentencing, so that if you are convicted of more than one in the same group you only get sentenced for one of them. Grouping is ignored in the press releases. If you are charged with three things, with a max of 10 years each (and remember, that 10 years is already greatly exaggerated as described earlier), the press release is going to say you are facing up to 30 years. This really needs to be changed. The DoJ knows what facts they intend to try and prove about your particular instances of the crimes they are charging you with. They are perfectly capable of looking at the aggravating factors for the charge, comparing to what they are trying to prove, and figuring out the real maximum for your case. They are certainly also capable of dealing with grouping. I can't see any good reason they should not do so, and so put realistic maximums in their press releases. Here's a good article on how press release sentences are misleading [1]. Here's an article that looks at it specifically in the context of Swartz [2]. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... [2] http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aa...