4 ms·

You have any proof for your statement? This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. To be frank I feel myself a bit fooled b

You have any proof for your statement? This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. To be frank I feel myself a bit fooled by this information, reading yesterday that 6 month have been proposed to Swartz. When talking about things as serious as death, we seem to assume that every information is depicted really carefully, but this is far from being true.

jacquesm 14y ago
> This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. It's not just in blogs, it is also in DOJ press releases attributed to Carmen Ortiz, linked elsewhere in this thread.
- blablabla123 14y ago
  I wonder where Ars Technica gets their information from... "If convicted on all charges, he could have spent more than 50 years in prison." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-and-information-activist-takes-his-own-life/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-...
  - sp332 14y ago
    That's up to the judge of course. The DA can make recommendations, but they don't decide what the sentence is.
  - ceol 14y ago
    That's if he was found guilty and given the maximum sentence for all charges, which a lot of people seem to be missing. The key words there being "could have."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mcherm 14y ago
Here is a Department of Justice press release threatening 35 years: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... The additional charges added later (after this press release) are the source of the 50 year estimate. 6 months was offered IF he agreed to plead guilty. If he went to trial, the prosecutors claim in the above press release that he faced 35 years; in private communications they have claimed they intended to press for 7 years. There are exceptions, but most of the blog articles I have read on the subject have been extremely well sourced and well researched.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
  Apparently a material statement of fact that charges x, y, and z could result in a sentence of up to 35 years is a "threat"? People have shown a great ability to leap into conflating the two, a statement of intent versus a statement of fact.
  - jamieb 14y ago
    "We're not saying its going to happen to you, but these other three businesses have burned to the ground. If you give us 10%, we can make sure it doesn't happen to you." At no point in this sentence did I say "If you do not pay us 10% we will burn down your business." However prosecutions have successfully argued, and any reasonable person would agree, that the first sentence is a threat, is coercive, and is criminal. Making a statement about what "could" happen can be interpreted (often correctly) as a threat. Making a statement about what could happen when the person making it is instrumental, even a required agent, in the future event, is most certainly evidence of a threat. Making such a statement while offering a lesser harm (or sentence) is most certainly a threat. You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong. "I didn't intend to burn down their business, judge. I just pointed out that it could happen. Whether or not I would have intended to do so after they decided not to accept my plea-bargain^H^H^H pay my protection fee is immaterial to the case. You are conflating the two, a statement of intent verses a statement of fact. The fact is I did not burn down their business and you have no record of my saying that I intended to."
edderly 14y ago
It's very well covered in the previously linked article by Orin Kerr http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains... > Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments.

jacquesm 14y ago

> This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. It's not just in blogs, it is also in DOJ press releases attributed to Carmen Ortiz, linked elsewhere in this thread.

blablabla123 14y ago
I wonder where Ars Technica gets their information from... "If convicted on all charges, he could have spent more than 50 years in prison." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-and-information-activist-takes-his-own-life/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-...
- sp332 14y ago
  That's up to the judge of course. The DA can make recommendations, but they don't decide what the sentence is.
- ceol 14y ago
  That's if he was found guilty and given the maximum sentence for all charges, which a lot of people seem to be missing. The key words there being "could have."

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mcherm 14y ago

Here is a Department of Justice press release threatening 35 years: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... The additional charges added later (after this press release) are the source of the 50 year estimate. 6 months was offered IF he agreed to plead guilty. If he went to trial, the prosecutors claim in the above press release that he faced 35 years; in private communications they have claimed they intended to press for 7 years. There are exceptions, but most of the blog articles I have read on the subject have been extremely well sourced and well researched.

FireBeyond 14y ago
Apparently a material statement of fact that charges x, y, and z could result in a sentence of up to 35 years is a "threat"? People have shown a great ability to leap into conflating the two, a statement of intent versus a statement of fact.
- jamieb 14y ago
  "We're not saying its going to happen to you, but these other three businesses have burned to the ground. If you give us 10%, we can make sure it doesn't happen to you." At no point in this sentence did I say "If you do not pay us 10% we will burn down your business." However prosecutions have successfully argued, and any reasonable person would agree, that the first sentence is a threat, is coercive, and is criminal. Making a statement about what "could" happen can be interpreted (often correctly) as a threat. Making a statement about what could happen when the person making it is instrumental, even a required agent, in the future event, is most certainly evidence of a threat. Making such a statement while offering a lesser harm (or sentence) is most certainly a threat. You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong. "I didn't intend to burn down their business, judge. I just pointed out that it could happen. Whether or not I would have intended to do so after they decided not to accept my plea-bargain^H^H^H pay my protection fee is immaterial to the case. You are conflating the two, a statement of intent verses a statement of fact. The fact is I did not burn down their business and you have no record of my saying that I intended to."

edderly 14y ago

It's very well covered in the previously linked article by Orin Kerr http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains... > Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments.