3 ms·
Linus addresses this in a comment further down below his post : "oh, I'm sure that it's "true" that in private talks they were very much not seeking the maximu
by RobAley 14y ago
Linus addresses this in a comment further down below his post :
"oh, I'm sure that it's "true" that in private talks they were very much not seeking the maximum penalty. That's how the whole plea bargain thing works.
But there's no question that Carmen Ortiz' office also made the whole thing very public, and everything that ever got written about that PR statement talked about the "up to 35 years" etc. So the whole "never said we intended to seek" thing is at very best misleading. It was always there very much as a threat.
It was always there very much hanging over Aaron Swartz.
And trying to say anything else is just lying."
- zokier 14y ago> It was always there very much as a threat. But wouldn't the maximum penalty be there always no matter what the prosecution would do? I mean, isn't the final decision made by the judges, who can give the penalty the deem fit (in the bounds of the law)?
- mverwijs 14y agoIsn't the max penalty dependant on what the charges were? Those charges were in the hands of the procecutors. If they really did not wish to come across as threatening, they could have charged him with less (as far as I understand it).
- anonymouz 14y agoWell, they need to charge him with something that they believe they can actually prove to the court. Furthermore, it is obviously in the interest of the prosecution to charge him with everything that they think they can prove, because if they pick just one and fail to prove it to the court they lose. Suppose for example they think they can prove charges A,B and C, and say, each of them comes with a maximum penalty of 1 year. Even if they seek a conviction for 6 months they will put forth all three charges, after all it might turn out that the court finds him innocent of A, and if they didn't bring B,C the prosecution is screwed.