4 ms·

> I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Absolutely not.

by tveita 14y ago

> I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Absolutely not. I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. This is not an obscure lawyer technicality, this something you see in the papers every day. Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean. Maximum penalties set an upper bound on sentencing based on the crimes you are charged with, to prevent abuses. The high maximum penalties in this case probably means the laws are overly broad, but say very little about what the actual sentence will be. Moreover, I do not think the items he was charged have a minimum sentence - he could have been found guilty, and still gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

sixothree 14y ago
It sounds as if you're implying that it is not possible for him to have been found guilty and have gotten the maximum penalty?
detst 14y ago
> I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. And I'm shocked to see how many people misinterpret those geeks. We don't believe he was absolutely going to end up in jail for 35 years; we believe it was hung over his head to extort a plea deal, while remaining a real possibility. > Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean. We're not talking about the concept; we get that. We're talking about a prosecutor that had large discretion in which, if any, charges to bring and brought multiple charges that had high maximum penalties for a reason. It's disingenuous to come back later and try to downplay the real charges with the real prospect of 35 years in jail, even if its real purpose was extortion. It's easy to say "you need to know what that means and doesn't mean" until you're the one actually facing those penalties and financial ruin. I'm sure reminding you how the game works will be very comforting.
- danielweber 14y ago
  What was being "hung over his head" was 7 years in prison. I still find 7 years offensive, but we need to understand the basic facts: - 6 months is what he would get with plea bargain - 6-7 years is what he would get if he went to trial and lost - 35 years was what was in press releases to deter other people from committing the crime
  - ben336 14y ago
    Thats a great summary. It doesn't matter what was said in public if it was overruled in private. It sounds very clear that Aaron knew the maximum they were seeking was 7 years.
    - daltonlp 14y ago
      I agree, that's a great summary. If you were Aaron, and those were the options you faced, would you have taken taken the plea deal?
- pyre 14y ago
  | we believe it was hung over his head to extort a | plea deal, while remaining a real possibility All you have to go by are public statements/press releases though. All of the private communications between Aaron (and his lawyers) and the prosecution are relevant here. It sounds like, while quoting 'up to' numbers in public, they were telling his defence that they planned to seek 6-7 years at trial (without a plea bargain). Obviously this wasn't something they were bound to (they could change their mind and seek maximum penalties at trial). That said, if they were telling him behind closed doors that they would seek 6-7 years, I don't think we can claim that they were holding the possible 35 year sentence over his head. As others have said in other discussions, if a judge had ignored the prosecutor and thrown the maximum sentence at him, it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal (max. penalties for a first time offender are almost always overturned on appeal). I think one of the biggest factors was that he was facing a possible $1+ million trial with no funds to pay for it. Also, 6-7 years in prison isn't anything to laugh at.
charlieok 14y ago
A slap on the wrist plus a lot of debt, for him and possibly also other members of his family...
VikingCoder 14y ago
Here's a terrible analogy, to explain to you why I think your reasoning is wrong: When you play Russian Roulette, death for you is the MAXIMUM PENALTY. So, your two options are to play Russian Roulette, or I'll bargain with you - you can give me $10,000. "At no time did I ever seek - or even tell you that I intended to seek - death for you." But your two choices were, to play Russian Roulette, or give me $10,000. I might even have accepted a counter-offer from you, say, $8,000. Keep in mind, if you play Russian Roulette, it's up to the gun what really happens. You might just hear a loud CLICK. But limiting the maximum penalty to death, rather than for instance killing everyone you know and love, is there to prevent abuses. I know it's a terrible analogy. I just want to point out that the statement, "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," that's a way of saying, "He had two choices, one, risk the maximum penalties, or two, bargain with us." That's a strong-arm bargaining tactic. Most people accept the plea bargain, but that doesn't mean the threat of maximum penalties wasn't made. EDIT: As a prosecutor, her job is to put the gun on the table, load it with as many bullets as she can, and then get you to accept a plea. If Aaron had not accepted the plea, she would have done everything in her power to convict him of everything she could. Back to my analogy, there was more than one bullet in the gun - maybe 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. A reasonable person would probably accept the plea - and that's up for debate, too. But for her to assert that "At no time did this office ever seek... maximum penalties under the law" is really deceptive / a lie.

by tveita 14y ago

sixothree 14y ago

It sounds as if you're implying that it is not possible for him to have been found guilty and have gotten the maximum penalty?

detst 14y ago

> I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. And I'm shocked to see how many people misinterpret those geeks. We don't believe he was absolutely going to end up in jail for 35 years; we believe it was hung over his head to extort a plea deal, while remaining a real possibility. > Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean. We're not talking about the concept; we get that. We're talking about a prosecutor that had large discretion in which, if any, charges to bring and brought multiple charges that had high maximum penalties for a reason. It's disingenuous to come back later and try to downplay the real charges with the real prospect of 35 years in jail, even if its real purpose was extortion. It's easy to say "you need to know what that means and doesn't mean" until you're the one actually facing those penalties and financial ruin. I'm sure reminding you how the game works will be very comforting.

danielweber 14y ago
What was being "hung over his head" was 7 years in prison. I still find 7 years offensive, but we need to understand the basic facts: - 6 months is what he would get with plea bargain - 6-7 years is what he would get if he went to trial and lost - 35 years was what was in press releases to deter other people from committing the crime
- ben336 14y ago
  Thats a great summary. It doesn't matter what was said in public if it was overruled in private. It sounds very clear that Aaron knew the maximum they were seeking was 7 years.
  - daltonlp 14y ago
    I agree, that's a great summary. If you were Aaron, and those were the options you faced, would you have taken taken the plea deal?
pyre 14y ago
| we believe it was hung over his head to extort a | plea deal, while remaining a real possibility All you have to go by are public statements/press releases though. All of the private communications between Aaron (and his lawyers) and the prosecution are relevant here. It sounds like, while quoting 'up to' numbers in public, they were telling his defence that they planned to seek 6-7 years at trial (without a plea bargain). Obviously this wasn't something they were bound to (they could change their mind and seek maximum penalties at trial). That said, if they were telling him behind closed doors that they would seek 6-7 years, I don't think we can claim that they were holding the possible 35 year sentence over his head. As others have said in other discussions, if a judge had ignored the prosecutor and thrown the maximum sentence at him, it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal (max. penalties for a first time offender are almost always overturned on appeal). I think one of the biggest factors was that he was facing a possible $1+ million trial with no funds to pay for it. Also, 6-7 years in prison isn't anything to laugh at.

charlieok 14y ago

A slap on the wrist plus a lot of debt, for him and possibly also other members of his family...

VikingCoder 14y ago

Here's a terrible analogy, to explain to you why I think your reasoning is wrong: When you play Russian Roulette, death for you is the MAXIMUM PENALTY. So, your two options are to play Russian Roulette, or I'll bargain with you - you can give me $10,000. "At no time did I ever seek - or even tell you that I intended to seek - death for you." But your two choices were, to play Russian Roulette, or give me $10,000. I might even have accepted a counter-offer from you, say, $8,000. Keep in mind, if you play Russian Roulette, it's up to the gun what really happens. You might just hear a loud CLICK. But limiting the maximum penalty to death, rather than for instance killing everyone you know and love, is there to prevent abuses. I know it's a terrible analogy. I just want to point out that the statement, "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," that's a way of saying, "He had two choices, one, risk the maximum penalties, or two, bargain with us." That's a strong-arm bargaining tactic. Most people accept the plea bargain, but that doesn't mean the threat of maximum penalties wasn't made. EDIT: As a prosecutor, her job is to put the gun on the table, load it with as many bullets as she can, and then get you to accept a plea. If Aaron had not accepted the plea, she would have done everything in her power to convict him of everything she could. Back to my analogy, there was more than one bullet in the gun - maybe 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. A reasonable person would probably accept the plea - and that's up for debate, too. But for her to assert that "At no time did this office ever seek... maximum penalties under the law" is really deceptive / a lie.