3 ms·
That's a strange line of argument. It's obvious that the communication to Aaron was "up to 35 years", he wasn't told "up to 7 years" or "up to 3 years", the co
by 3amOpsGuy 14y ago
That's a strange line of argument.
It's obvious that the communication to Aaron was "up to 35 years", he wasn't told "up to 7 years" or "up to 3 years", the communication he received was "up to 35 years in prison".
To argue that the prosecutors didn't intend to push to maximum penalty would be to do so without any basis in fact - it would be mere speculation and of 0 value compared to the recorded facts as they stand.
- anonymouz 14y agoFrom the very press release we are commenting on it is clear that this is not mere speculation but what the prosecutors office claims: "Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law." At best you could say that her statement contradicts the one of Aaron Swartz' lawyer (I don't know, I don't have a reference for his statement), but ignoring the existence of one statement while elevating the other one to the level of truth is dishonest.
- 3amOpsGuy 14y ago>> From the very press release Which occurred after the unfortunate events and as such constitutes nothing more than back-pedalling at full speed. When Aaron was suffering through this, what information did he have to make his decisions on? What her office said, did, failed to say or failed to do before the events is what matters.