4 ms·
So these were the choices they offered him: - Plead guilty and become a felon (even if he believed otherwise, and clearly against his conscience.) - Or face 13
by jeswin 14y ago
So these were the choices they offered him:
- Plead guilty and become a felon (even if he believed otherwise, and clearly against his conscience.)
- Or face 13 felony counts, potentially leading to a very lengthy prison sentence.
The prosecutors were trying to make sure the case never goes to court. This is disgusting!
- maxharris 14y agoeven if he believed otherwise, and clearly against his conscience So you're saying that a man who steals a car shouldn't face felony charges as long as he claims that his conscience is clear? The law must be objective, not based on whim.
- jeswin 14y agoThe problem is that the alternative to not accepting guilt is a ridiculously lengthy prison sentence. What do you do then?
- maxharris 14y agoYou say it's "ridiculously lengthy," and I say it's not. This is what we have procedures, judges and juries for.
- jeswin 14y ago7 years (which is what I read) is a "ridiculously lengthy" prison term for downloading papers from the internet for no financial gain. How can one see it any other way? This isn't about the judge and jury. 7 years is what the prosecutors would have asked, and we are discussing the fairness in their approach.
- maxharris 14y agoIt's not about who gains. His actions violated the rights of all of the people at JSTOR and MIT. In a murder trial, you can't properly argue that the killer ought to face lighter charges because his crime was not motivated by personal financial gain. This is relevant here because we're talking about criminal court. I'm not saying that what Swartz did is the same as murder. However, the same concept applies in both cases.