5 ms·

What about 35 or more years prison sentence threat ? Whether law was breached, is apparently not contested. What is weird is this sentence. In France, murder

by chmike 14y ago

What about 35 or more years prison sentence threat ? Whether law was breached, is apparently not contested. What is weird is this sentence. In France, murder gets you usually at most 20 years jail. The sentence seams totally disproportionate to the harm. Will Mr Orin Kerr also discuss this aspect ? Another point is the harm done just by the trial. Going for trial is in itself condemning someone to pay a huge amount of money. Even if if that someone is finally proven innocent or the charges excessive and abusive.

OGinparadise 14y ago
Technically that is the max sentence tied to the statues and does not depend on the prosecutors. Aaron would have probably gotten a few years in jail, but as a felon life would have never been the same. After jail some are probation for 1-10 years and some are prohibited from using computers for example. Being a felon also makes travel outside US very hard unless you're a superstar and very hard to get a job or associate with "regular" people and companies. It's a horrible label: convicted felon, and very few ask why and how you got it.
- chmike 14y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. i didn't know that. What justified to invoke felony in Aaron case ? What constitute felony ? (please note that my ignorance is becasue I'm not American)
  - bradleyjg 14y ago
    A felony is any crime for the which the maximum penalty is at least one year in prison. The term used to mean crimes which were potentially capital, but with so few of them these days the definition changed.
tptacek 14y ago
Clarity: Swartz wasn't seriously threatened with 35 years. The prosecution told his attorneys they'd seek ~7 years. 7 years is still ludicrous. 1 year would be ludicrous. The prosecutors can't fairly escape the blame for the "35 years" publicity, because they themselves bragged about it. Swartz's own lawyer predicted that there'd be minimal chance of him serving any time even if he'd been convicted. First time offender, no commercial purpose, no malice, no lasting damage.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  I think the 35 years is still important because the law allows the prosecutor to charge that, which is thoroughly insane and needs to be fixed, notwithstanding that the problem there is with the law rather than the prosecutor. Moreover, it allows prosecutors to threaten defendants with that and coerce even the innocent into plea bargains, and coerce those guilty of minor offenses into plea bargains for multi-year prison terms because the alternative is to risk multi-decade prison terms, which is a problem with the conduct of prosecutors when they choose to do that.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The point here is that the prosecution didn't threaten Aaron with 35 years. They were explicit about what they expected to get at trial. When they were trying to scare him, they scared him with a 6-7 year figure. It is, obviously, an extremely troubling fact that the prosecutors in this particular case decided to try to scare the shit out of the defendant to get him to cop to 13 felonies.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >The point here is that the prosecution didn't threaten Aaron with 35 years. Are we sure of that? Putting 6-7 years instead of 35 in the indictment or a public statement may be calculated by prosecutors to try to avoid outraging the jury or the public with wildly absurd penalties. That doesn't preclude their ability to use the maximum as leverage in plea negotiations prior to that. I'm willing to admit that I don't know either, but we can't assume what we don't know one way or the other. My point is that prosecutors should be precluded from being able to do that, and in general should be chastised for doing it even if they are legally allowed to, regardless of what happened in this specific case.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        His attorney said so directly, disclosing this weekend that: * If Swartz plead out, he was being required to plea to all 13 counts. * If he plead out the prosecution would seek some prison time. * If he went to court, the prosecution would seek 6-7 years of prison time. * His own attorney expected that even if he was found guilty, he would receive a suspended sentence. No credible source suggests that the prosecution seriously entertained or threatened 35 years. Though, again, the prosecution brought this misunderstanding on themselves by bragging to the media about a 35 year sentence.

by chmike 14y ago

OGinparadise 14y ago

Technically that is the max sentence tied to the statues and does not depend on the prosecutors. Aaron would have probably gotten a few years in jail, but as a felon life would have never been the same. After jail some are probation for 1-10 years and some are prohibited from using computers for example. Being a felon also makes travel outside US very hard unless you're a superstar and very hard to get a job or associate with "regular" people and companies. It's a horrible label: convicted felon, and very few ask why and how you got it.

chmike 14y ago
Thank you for the clarification. i didn't know that. What justified to invoke felony in Aaron case ? What constitute felony ? (please note that my ignorance is becasue I'm not American)
- bradleyjg 14y ago
  A felony is any crime for the which the maximum penalty is at least one year in prison. The term used to mean crimes which were potentially capital, but with so few of them these days the definition changed.

tptacek 14y ago

Clarity: Swartz wasn't seriously threatened with 35 years. The prosecution told his attorneys they'd seek ~7 years. 7 years is still ludicrous. 1 year would be ludicrous. The prosecutors can't fairly escape the blame for the "35 years" publicity, because they themselves bragged about it. Swartz's own lawyer predicted that there'd be minimal chance of him serving any time even if he'd been convicted. First time offender, no commercial purpose, no malice, no lasting damage.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
I think the 35 years is still important because the law allows the prosecutor to charge that, which is thoroughly insane and needs to be fixed, notwithstanding that the problem there is with the law rather than the prosecutor. Moreover, it allows prosecutors to threaten defendants with that and coerce even the innocent into plea bargains, and coerce those guilty of minor offenses into plea bargains for multi-year prison terms because the alternative is to risk multi-decade prison terms, which is a problem with the conduct of prosecutors when they choose to do that.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The point here is that the prosecution didn't threaten Aaron with 35 years. They were explicit about what they expected to get at trial. When they were trying to scare him, they scared him with a 6-7 year figure. It is, obviously, an extremely troubling fact that the prosecutors in this particular case decided to try to scare the shit out of the defendant to get him to cop to 13 felonies.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >The point here is that the prosecution didn't threaten Aaron with 35 years. Are we sure of that? Putting 6-7 years instead of 35 in the indictment or a public statement may be calculated by prosecutors to try to avoid outraging the jury or the public with wildly absurd penalties. That doesn't preclude their ability to use the maximum as leverage in plea negotiations prior to that. I'm willing to admit that I don't know either, but we can't assume what we don't know one way or the other. My point is that prosecutors should be precluded from being able to do that, and in general should be chastised for doing it even if they are legally allowed to, regardless of what happened in this specific case.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      His attorney said so directly, disclosing this weekend that: * If Swartz plead out, he was being required to plea to all 13 counts. * If he plead out the prosecution would seek some prison time. * If he went to court, the prosecution would seek 6-7 years of prison time. * His own attorney expected that even if he was found guilty, he would receive a suspended sentence. No credible source suggests that the prosecution seriously entertained or threatened 35 years. Though, again, the prosecution brought this misunderstanding on themselves by bragging to the media about a 35 year sentence.