3 ms·
It's not at all relevant to this thread, but no he wasn't. At their worst, prosecutors were threatening to push for 7 years; the guideline sentence for Swartz's
by tptacek 17d ago
It's not at all relevant to this thread, but no he wasn't. At their worst, prosecutors were threatening to push for 7 years; the guideline sentence for Swartz's offense, were he to take it to trial and lose, would likely have been under the level allowing for straight probation (go to a sentencing calculator and plug the values in); writing after his death, his own lawyer stated that had he gone to trial and lost he was unlikely to face a custodial sentence at all.
We get this "35 year" number from adding up all the counts he faced, taking their maximum sentence. That's just not how sentencing works. Like charges group, and you're sentenced according to the most severe charge.
People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing their work for them.
- tzs 17d agoThis is 100% correct. Here are some useful links. This is an explanation of just how they got those ridiculous numbers like 35 years [1]. There is also often confusion of what he did and what hewas charged with. Here's a two part series going over that [2][3]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130211030902/https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130211030902/https://www.popeh... [2] https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ [3] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...
- watwut 16d ago> People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing their work for them. If DOJ said to him or to the public potential punishment is 35 years, then yes it is fair to say he was facing that. They cant have it both ways - claim that 35 years is possible outcome to pressure the person and then turn around and be like "nah, that is exaggerated such huge penalties are not a thing". Seriously, it is 35 years when it suits DOJ and institutions. And it turns into "likely just straight probation" when ... suits DOJ and big companies.
- tptacek 16d agoAmong other problems with this argument you have the fact that DOJ doesn't decide sentences.
- watwut 16d agoOverwhelming majory of senteces comes from plea deal. And threat of large punishment of you dont sign is major driver there. So, we are really getting back to DOJ wants sentences to look super huge so you sign a deal ... but when it is politically inconvenient they suddenly get small.
- tptacek 16d agoSwartz had extremely good lawyers at both the beginning and the end of this case and was exactly the kind of nerd to have read the sentencing guidelines himself. And, once again: the DOJ doesn't set sentences, the judge does.
- rsanek 16d ago>would likely have been under the level allowing for straight probation (go to a sentencing calculator and plug the values in) Depends alot on the values inputted into such a calculator. See [0] for a solid discussion of what his future could have been (search for "That brings up the important question of how much time Swartz was actually facing"). TLDR, it's certainly not the case that only probation was guaranteed or even particularly likely. [0] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...