6 ms·

Guarded by the threat of 35 years in prison, perhaps.

by benesch 14y ago

Volpe 14y ago
I thought the 35 years was false. Sentences aren't cumulative like that... or was my understanding wrong?
- pygy_ 14y ago
  In the US, they are. People have been sentenced to 200+ years in jail.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    But would have they been in this case?
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      The prosecution wanted something along 6-7 years, but it's the judge/jury who decide (not sure which in this case).
      - Cadsby 14y ago
        Judges are the ones with power over sentencing. But it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the time the judge simply signs off on whatever sentencing recommendation is made by the prosecution.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        The prosecution wanted 6-7 years if it went to trial. According to Jennifer Granick the sentencing guideline (assuming trumped-up loss calculations) would have been on the order of 1-2 years. There were a couple of plea bargains on offer, the worst of which was 6-8 months. If it came to the judge+jury deciding it would likely have been on the order of 1-2 years.
        pygy_ 14y ago
        Thanks for your reply. > According to Jennifer Granick the sentencing guideline (assuming trumped-up loss calculations) would have been on the order of 1-2 years. There were a couple of plea bargains on offer, the worst of which was 6-8 months. I'm not that familiar with the US Justice process, and nothing in that sentence makes sense to me :-/ Didn't he plan to go to trial? I thought he did. In which case would the 1-2 years have been recommended? By "trumped up loss", do you mean that the prosecution exaggerated the loss of the MIT/JSTOR? At last, why is the 6-8 months plea bargain offer the worse? I thought it was the best one offered...
        mpyne 14y ago
        > I'm not that familiar with the US Justice process, and nothing in that sentence makes sense to me :-/ Basically in the U.S. justice system you have a right to trial by jury, but this is expensive for both sides, takes a lot of time (both for the prosecution and defense, but also for the jury itself), so typically both sides will engage in a process of plea bargaining. This is where the prosecution gives up on some things (such as their recommended sentence) in order to convince the defense not to pursue the trial by jury. Depending on the evidence involved (which hasn't been thrown out by the judge at this point) it may even be advantageous for the defense to pursue a plea bargain to try to get a reduced sentence on what looks to be an almost certain conviction. In this case there was an offer by the prosecution for a 6-8 month prison sentence plea bargain. However, if the prosecution really wants to avoid a jury trial then generally they'll argue for a longer-than-normal sentence should they win a conviction (because otherwise the defense would simply always settle for jury trial and hope for a "Hail Mary" that overturns the case on a technicality). So the prosecution had announced that they would argue for a sentence of 6-7 years (or so) should the trial go to a jury phase and convict Swartz. The "fair sentence" is independent of what the defense and prosecution think, and is determined by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It is based on these guidelines that Jennifer Granick estimated a sentence of 1-2 years, if convicted. In any event the actual sentence is determined by a judge, usually based on the sentencing guidelines (1-2 years) and biased up or down based on how convinced the judge is of the arguments presented by the prosecution and defense. It's hard to say exactly what the judge would do, it really just depends on the judge. As far as I know about Aaron, he wanted to plea bargain, but didn't want to plead to any charges that would make him a felon (but unfortunately the CFAA legal code is all "felonies" due to the way their maximum sentence is derived based on damages caused). > By "trumped up loss", do you mean that the prosecution exaggerated the loss of the MIT/JSTOR? It never got to that point, but basically the CFAA allows the victim to claim any costs that are reasonably associated with the crime committed by the suspect as damages. It's very open-ended, so you can claim damages even for functions you might ordinarily have been doing anyways. For example, if MIT has 3 network techs looking into the network intrustion then their wages could be claims as damages, even if MIT would have had those 3 on work that day anyways. JSTOR shut off MIT's access for a few days while trying to block Swartz so MIT can not only claim the pro-rated value of their JSTOR contract for the time it was down, but they can also claim damages for all of their scientists and researchers who were delayed or otherwise affected by the loss of JSTOR services, even if it really could have waited a few days. So that's what I mean by "trumped-up", the CFAA gives a very large book you can throw at the accused. > At last, why is the 6-8 months plea bargain offer the worse? I thought it was the best one offered... Way earlier in the case there had been a plea offer on the table that would have involved no jail time, but allegedly MIT did not buy off on that (this is kind of older data though I haven't seen anything refuting that). At the time Aaron killed himself there was apparently two different pleas, one where the prosecution would ask for 8 months but the defense could argue to convince the judge to reduce it, and another where the sentence was more "dialed-in". It escapes me what the differences between the two would have been in practice though, I'm not familiar enough with the private discussions (at least until those details get leaked out too)

Guarded by the threat of 35 years in prison, perhaps.

by benesch 14y ago

Guarded by the threat of 35 years in prison, perhaps.

Volpe 14y ago

I thought the 35 years was false. Sentences aren't cumulative like that... or was my understanding wrong?

pygy_ 14y ago
In the US, they are. People have been sentenced to 200+ years in jail.
- Volpe 14y ago
  But would have they been in this case?
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    The prosecution wanted something along 6-7 years, but it's the judge/jury who decide (not sure which in this case).
    - Cadsby 14y ago
      Judges are the ones with power over sentencing. But it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the time the judge simply signs off on whatever sentencing recommendation is made by the prosecution.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      The prosecution wanted 6-7 years if it went to trial. According to Jennifer Granick the sentencing guideline (assuming trumped-up loss calculations) would have been on the order of 1-2 years. There were a couple of plea bargains on offer, the worst of which was 6-8 months. If it came to the judge+jury deciding it would likely have been on the order of 1-2 years.
      - pygy_ 14y ago
        Thanks for your reply. > According to Jennifer Granick the sentencing guideline (assuming trumped-up loss calculations) would have been on the order of 1-2 years. There were a couple of plea bargains on offer, the worst of which was 6-8 months. I'm not that familiar with the US Justice process, and nothing in that sentence makes sense to me :-/ Didn't he plan to go to trial? I thought he did. In which case would the 1-2 years have been recommended? By "trumped up loss", do you mean that the prosecution exaggerated the loss of the MIT/JSTOR? At last, why is the 6-8 months plea bargain offer the worse? I thought it was the best one offered...
        mpyne 14y ago
        > I'm not that familiar with the US Justice process, and nothing in that sentence makes sense to me :-/ Basically in the U.S. justice system you have a right to trial by jury, but this is expensive for both sides, takes a lot of time (both for the prosecution and defense, but also for the jury itself), so typically both sides will engage in a process of plea bargaining. This is where the prosecution gives up on some things (such as their recommended sentence) in order to convince the defense not to pursue the trial by jury. Depending on the evidence involved (which hasn't been thrown out by the judge at this point) it may even be advantageous for the defense to pursue a plea bargain to try to get a reduced sentence on what looks to be an almost certain conviction. In this case there was an offer by the prosecution for a 6-8 month prison sentence plea bargain. However, if the prosecution really wants to avoid a jury trial then generally they'll argue for a longer-than-normal sentence should they win a conviction (because otherwise the defense would simply always settle for jury trial and hope for a "Hail Mary" that overturns the case on a technicality). So the prosecution had announced that they would argue for a sentence of 6-7 years (or so) should the trial go to a jury phase and convict Swartz. The "fair sentence" is independent of what the defense and prosecution think, and is determined by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It is based on these guidelines that Jennifer Granick estimated a sentence of 1-2 years, if convicted. In any event the actual sentence is determined by a judge, usually based on the sentencing guidelines (1-2 years) and biased up or down based on how convinced the judge is of the arguments presented by the prosecution and defense. It's hard to say exactly what the judge would do, it really just depends on the judge. As far as I know about Aaron, he wanted to plea bargain, but didn't want to plead to any charges that would make him a felon (but unfortunately the CFAA legal code is all "felonies" due to the way their maximum sentence is derived based on damages caused). > By "trumped up loss", do you mean that the prosecution exaggerated the loss of the MIT/JSTOR? It never got to that point, but basically the CFAA allows the victim to claim any costs that are reasonably associated with the crime committed by the suspect as damages. It's very open-ended, so you can claim damages even for functions you might ordinarily have been doing anyways. For example, if MIT has 3 network techs looking into the network intrustion then their wages could be claims as damages, even if MIT would have had those 3 on work that day anyways. JSTOR shut off MIT's access for a few days while trying to block Swartz so MIT can not only claim the pro-rated value of their JSTOR contract for the time it was down, but they can also claim damages for all of their scientists and researchers who were delayed or otherwise affected by the loss of JSTOR services, even if it really could have waited a few days. So that's what I mean by "trumped-up", the CFAA gives a very large book you can throw at the accused. > At last, why is the 6-8 months plea bargain offer the worse? I thought it was the best one offered... Way earlier in the case there had been a plea offer on the table that would have involved no jail time, but allegedly MIT did not buy off on that (this is kind of older data though I haven't seen anything refuting that). At the time Aaron killed himself there was apparently two different pleas, one where the prosecution would ask for 8 months but the defense could argue to convince the judge to reduce it, and another where the sentence was more "dialed-in". It escapes me what the differences between the two would have been in practice though, I'm not familiar enough with the private discussions (at least until those details get leaked out too)