3 ms·

Somewhat off topic, but this has been bothering me for a while now: about the role of aaron swartz in all this... initially I read he was facing "up to 35 year

by fkeel1 14y ago

Somewhat off topic, but this has been bothering me for a while now: about the role of aaron swartz in all this... initially I read he was facing "up to 35 years" in prison. After his death people started speaking of "up to 50 years". In relation to the USSC hack I have started seeing 50+ years pop up. I feel like these exaggerations do not do anyone any good. The actual facts are horrible enough - bloating them up like that does not support his cause, rather, imo might undermine it, as it reduces the credibility of anyone arguing his case.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
35 years was the maximum under the laws he was originally charged with. 50 years was the maximum after the supplemental indictment that added additional charges. Under the sentencing guidelines a judge shouldn't, but still could have sentenced him to the maximum. If the goal is to change the law and the argument is that the penalties are absurd, the fact that the penalties are absurd is very relevant and not an exaggeration.
- mpyne 14y ago
  "Win the lottery and you could receive up to $200 million!!! Buy your ticket today!!!" And yet we say the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math...
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sentencing guidelines based on the maximum penalty? In other words, the absurdity of 50 years in theory is what creates the absurdity of seven or ten years in practice. If the maximum penalty was one year or less then the guidelines would have discounted that to something entirely rational for cases like Aaron Swartz, but it wasn't, causing the disproportionality. Buying a $1 lottery ticket would be a whole lot more rational if the rare case resulting in $200M caused the average case to result in $35M.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges into a single charge. E.g. the "computer fraud" and "wire fraud" charges that are for some reason separate under CFAA would count as just one conviction under FSG. So even if we was convicted for 1 or 5 charges relating to the same underlying accusation you should still get the same recommended sentence. Since I'm not a lawyer I don't want to try to analyze further but there's also provisions about whether to make multiple sentences concurrent or sequential (which can also add time). You don't have to take my word about the maximum sentence though: Jennifer Granick was very critical of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the case and her estimate of the FSG recommendation (based on trumped-up loss calculations) was 1-2 years in prison. There is a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely to convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes the court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges into a single charge. Even so, I believe the maximum penalty under the CFAA is still 20 years on its own. The fact that there are multiple possible charges with such disproportionate penalties for a single underlying action just underscores the need for systematic reform. >There is a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely to convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes the court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc. In other words there isn't a legitimate reason to add charges but there are a number of cynical and illegitimate reasons.

by fkeel1 14y ago

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

35 years was the maximum under the laws he was originally charged with. 50 years was the maximum after the supplemental indictment that added additional charges. Under the sentencing guidelines a judge shouldn't, but still could have sentenced him to the maximum. If the goal is to change the law and the argument is that the penalties are absurd, the fact that the penalties are absurd is very relevant and not an exaggeration.

mpyne 14y ago
"Win the lottery and you could receive up to $200 million!!! Buy your ticket today!!!" And yet we say the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math...
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sentencing guidelines based on the maximum penalty? In other words, the absurdity of 50 years in theory is what creates the absurdity of seven or ten years in practice. If the maximum penalty was one year or less then the guidelines would have discounted that to something entirely rational for cases like Aaron Swartz, but it wasn't, causing the disproportionality. Buying a $1 lottery ticket would be a whole lot more rational if the rare case resulting in $200M caused the average case to result in $35M.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges into a single charge. E.g. the "computer fraud" and "wire fraud" charges that are for some reason separate under CFAA would count as just one conviction under FSG. So even if we was convicted for 1 or 5 charges relating to the same underlying accusation you should still get the same recommended sentence. Since I'm not a lawyer I don't want to try to analyze further but there's also provisions about whether to make multiple sentences concurrent or sequential (which can also add time). You don't have to take my word about the maximum sentence though: Jennifer Granick was very critical of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the case and her estimate of the FSG recommendation (based on trumped-up loss calculations) was 1-2 years in prison. There is a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely to convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes the court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges into a single charge. Even so, I believe the maximum penalty under the CFAA is still 20 years on its own. The fact that there are multiple possible charges with such disproportionate penalties for a single underlying action just underscores the need for systematic reform. >There is a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely to convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes the court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc. In other words there isn't a legitimate reason to add charges but there are a number of cynical and illegitimate reasons.