6 ms·

The punishment for leaking classified info has always been a life sentence and usually in solitary confinement too like the guys convicted of treason and spying

The punishment for leaking classified info has always been a life sentence and usually in solitary confinement too like the guys convicted of treason and spying doing life in supermax prison beside the unabomber. Selling weapons to the enemy, wholesale massacre of civillians and pillaging is a slap on the wrist. Manning didn't leak anything top secret either, wonder what is in store for Snowden if they ever catch him. He'll probably get more time than the guy who got 1000 years + life for running a dungeon. What's up with the excessive ridiculous sentences in the US? 136 years... do they keep your corpse in the prison after you die of old age to finish the time?

marvin 13y ago
Compare this to Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people (overwhelmingly teenagers). He got 21 years in prison with the possibility of indefinite custody if psychiatrists conclude he is still a danger to society at the end of it. And most Norwegians appear to agree to this sentence, which is the maximum permitted by law. There were few calls for harsher sentencing laws when he was convicted. Now imagine how stealing and revealing a few documents which don't harm anyone is multitudes worse than this. US criminal law is just insane.
batemanesque 13y ago
the US does have excessive sentencing in some cases but citing figures like 136 years isn't really evidence, as they represent a theoretical maximum sentence which isn't necessarily anywhere near what the suspect will actually receive.
alan_cx 13y ago
I too wonder about the comedy sentencing in the US, which clearly is not working it terms of prevention at all. The only think I can come up with is its some sort of replacement for the olde gunslinger vengeance of the wild west era which has yet to be civilized. I also think there is an arrogance that says the US is the best country in the world, and how could any one possibly act against it since what ever it does simply must be good, pure and legal. Anything that dents that image to the rest of the world is treason, some how. It reminds me of extreme religion's reaction to criticism. Which to me it would do since I view the USA as pretty much a religion. So, heretics like Manning will be metaphorically burned at the stake. Such sentences are not justice, they are PR. Interesting to me that Snowden, having witness the Manning case, still felt he had to whistle blow. Tell me how much he believed in his actions.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The U.S. does have ridiculous sentences, but maybe by a factor of 2x from what you'd find in other countries. The maximum sentences quoted in news articles are just gibberish. E.g. http://www.fbi.gov/minneapolis/press-releases/2013/more-terrorism-sentences-imposed-in-federal-court http://www.fbi.gov/minneapolis/press-releases/2013/more-terr.... Two women were sentenced to 10 years and 20 years, respectively, for raising money for a Somali terrorist organization. That's probably too harsh by a factor of 2-4x, but the theoretical maximum sentence for the first case was probably 100+ years (a dozen counts of providing material support to a terrorist organization).
  - mtgx 13y ago
    Those 30+ years sentences for small crimes do sound scary when they try to get people to accept the plea bargain. My guess is this is one of the main reasons why these sort of silly sentences are kept.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I'm not sure what the solution might be. I think its an excellent feature of the system that a judge, who can see the whole situation in front of him, is empowered to set sentences instead of a legislature that must necessarily speak in general terms. My preferred solution would be to get rid of statutory sentences and sentencing guidelines and instead just have a couple of maximums (20 years for a non-homicide crime, life/death for homicide). But that wouldn't stop prosecutors from bullying a defendant into accepting a plea deal by arguing "the judge could sentence you to up to 20 years!" The other solution, less discretion in the hands of the judge is, I think, worse. Americans are not a compassionate people to criminals. It's easy for a voter and a legislator to call for 20 years or 30 years for a crime. Much harder for a judge sitting in front of a real human being to do that. So if you move discretion more to the statutory process, I think you'll get the opposite of the desired result.
      - mung 13y ago
        The concept of a plea bargain (as far as I understand it) is quite messed up but so entrenched in the American legal system that to make that suggestion I assume would get either blank stares or calls of one's insanity and possibly 'subversive commie associations' or whatever... What the hell though. "We're going to throw the book at you and show no mercy, but if you say you did it you'll go a bit lighter." Seriously that has no place in a trial.
rayiner 13y ago
> What's up with the excessive ridiculous sentences in the US? 136 years... That's not the sentence. It's the maximum authorized by Congress. In the Anglo-American system, judges are primarily responsible for sentencing, not the legislature, though the legislature sets limits and guidelines.

marvin 13y ago

Compare this to Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people (overwhelmingly teenagers). He got 21 years in prison with the possibility of indefinite custody if psychiatrists conclude he is still a danger to society at the end of it. And most Norwegians appear to agree to this sentence, which is the maximum permitted by law. There were few calls for harsher sentencing laws when he was convicted. Now imagine how stealing and revealing a few documents which don't harm anyone is multitudes worse than this. US criminal law is just insane.

batemanesque 13y ago

the US does have excessive sentencing in some cases but citing figures like 136 years isn't really evidence, as they represent a theoretical maximum sentence which isn't necessarily anywhere near what the suspect will actually receive.

alan_cx 13y ago

I too wonder about the comedy sentencing in the US, which clearly is not working it terms of prevention at all. The only think I can come up with is its some sort of replacement for the olde gunslinger vengeance of the wild west era which has yet to be civilized. I also think there is an arrogance that says the US is the best country in the world, and how could any one possibly act against it since what ever it does simply must be good, pure and legal. Anything that dents that image to the rest of the world is treason, some how. It reminds me of extreme religion's reaction to criticism. Which to me it would do since I view the USA as pretty much a religion. So, heretics like Manning will be metaphorically burned at the stake. Such sentences are not justice, they are PR. Interesting to me that Snowden, having witness the Manning case, still felt he had to whistle blow. Tell me how much he believed in his actions.

rayiner 13y ago
The U.S. does have ridiculous sentences, but maybe by a factor of 2x from what you'd find in other countries. The maximum sentences quoted in news articles are just gibberish. E.g. http://www.fbi.gov/minneapolis/press-releases/2013/more-terrorism-sentences-imposed-in-federal-court http://www.fbi.gov/minneapolis/press-releases/2013/more-terr.... Two women were sentenced to 10 years and 20 years, respectively, for raising money for a Somali terrorist organization. That's probably too harsh by a factor of 2-4x, but the theoretical maximum sentence for the first case was probably 100+ years (a dozen counts of providing material support to a terrorist organization).
- mtgx 13y ago
  Those 30+ years sentences for small crimes do sound scary when they try to get people to accept the plea bargain. My guess is this is one of the main reasons why these sort of silly sentences are kept.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I'm not sure what the solution might be. I think its an excellent feature of the system that a judge, who can see the whole situation in front of him, is empowered to set sentences instead of a legislature that must necessarily speak in general terms. My preferred solution would be to get rid of statutory sentences and sentencing guidelines and instead just have a couple of maximums (20 years for a non-homicide crime, life/death for homicide). But that wouldn't stop prosecutors from bullying a defendant into accepting a plea deal by arguing "the judge could sentence you to up to 20 years!" The other solution, less discretion in the hands of the judge is, I think, worse. Americans are not a compassionate people to criminals. It's easy for a voter and a legislator to call for 20 years or 30 years for a crime. Much harder for a judge sitting in front of a real human being to do that. So if you move discretion more to the statutory process, I think you'll get the opposite of the desired result.
    - mung 13y ago
      The concept of a plea bargain (as far as I understand it) is quite messed up but so entrenched in the American legal system that to make that suggestion I assume would get either blank stares or calls of one's insanity and possibly 'subversive commie associations' or whatever... What the hell though. "We're going to throw the book at you and show no mercy, but if you say you did it you'll go a bit lighter." Seriously that has no place in a trial.

rayiner 13y ago

> What's up with the excessive ridiculous sentences in the US? 136 years... That's not the sentence. It's the maximum authorized by Congress. In the Anglo-American system, judges are primarily responsible for sentencing, not the legislature, though the legislature sets limits and guidelines.