8 ms·

I don't understand why the penalty for his crimes is so severe (Wikipedia: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations

I don't understand why the penalty for his crimes is so severe (Wikipedia: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[16] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.[17]). That seems like a preposterous amount of time, money, and stipulations post-release. What was the federal prosecution's motivation for making an example out of him?

DanBC 13y ago
i) US prison system is weird and puts people in prison even when they pose no risk of harm to others ii) US justice system is a machine. Roll over and give up, or they're going to crush you like a bug.
agilebyte 13y ago
It is easy to be tough on crime, it is harder to politically justify the opposite. Edit: English
- canweriotnow 13y ago
  You mean to be crime on tough?
  - agilebyte 13y ago
    No, have fixed the sentence now.
  - deaconblues 13y ago
    It's a crime to be tough on easy.
danielweber 13y ago
He wasn't facing 35 years of time. His lawyer did not just fall off the turnip truck and knew how federal sentencing guidelines worked.
- adestefan 13y ago
  It's also the journalists, too. Anytime you see a story about someone's punishment for the crime and it includes the words "cumulative" or "up to" you know all they did was start adding up random numbers from every little charge. Sentencing doesn't work that way and at that point you need to just ignore the story.
  - DEinspanjer 13y ago
    I'd be willing to accept your statement at face value. Are there any good indicators for laymen what likely punishments he would have been facing if he would have continued to trial and lost? What sort of crimes typically have similar actual and enforced punishments? I'm wondering where on the scale it gets slotted. Is it between assault and shoplifting or grand theft and kidnapping?
    - girvo 13y ago
      Setencing is hard. Prosecutors have the incentive to put as many charges on them as possible, to get a guilty plea, but not all of them make it through, so it's hard to know what is going to happen until the defendant goes to trial. This goes for all sorts of crimes (most of them, in fact).
      - adestefan 13y ago
        You don't know what's going to be the final result until the defendant is actually sentenced. Of course this is all dependent upon the jurisdiction, but in most judges have significant leeway in the sentencing.
        girvo 13y ago
        Sorry, that's what I meant, yeah.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Are there any good indicators for laymen what likely punishments he would have been facing if he would have continued to trial and lost? For federal crimes, sentencing is generally governed by the federal sentencing guidelines. [1] The application is conceptually simple -- there are guidelines for determining the offense level for each base crime, guidelines for grouping offenses (some of which just keep the most serious, some of which start with the most serious and increase based on other offenses), and guidelines for adjustments to the offense level for various factors such as actual harms inflicted, the defendants criminal history, the defendants acceptance of responsibility, and so forth, and finally guidelines to translate offense level into sentence. But the details are quite involved. Perhaps the most important thing to note, in the federal guidelines, is that in most cases, where multiple convictions are handed down for offenses involve the same victim and the same act or transaction, or different acts or transaction as part of the same plan or scheme, the offense level is set by the single most serious count alone -- charging multiple counts of the same charge basically just increase the chance of getting a conviction. For state offenses, sentencing is handled by state-specific rules. [1] http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2013_Guidelines/index.cfm http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2013_Guidelines/index.cfm
gadders 13y ago
His plea bargain offer was 6 months in a Club Fed prison. Martha Stewart managed 5 months.
- sp332 13y ago
  To accept the plea bargain, he would have to waive his right to a trial. (Edit: he would also have to admit he was guilty of the crime.) If he was innocent, there was no incentive for him to accept 6 months in prison in exchange for his rights.
  - JonFish85 13y ago
    Sure there was: 6 months vs. up to 35 years. Even if I'm not guilty, as a pragmatist, that's a trade you can't refuse unless there is ROCK SOLID evidence that you're innocent of everything.
    - sp332 13y ago
      That's an argument for letting the prosecutor get away with putting any innocent person in jail, as long as a harsher sentence is threatened for the nonexistent crime. There was no way Swartz was getting 35 years even if he was convicted of everything. And the prosecutor piled on every charge he thought he had a chance at. Knuckling under and serving 6 months quietly isn't too appealing. And the alternative was lots of publicity for the cause, a good chance to change precedent in IP cases, and the possibility of serving some time as a martyr.
      - pyre 13y ago
        Swartz didn't want to serve any jail time. IIRC, as a political activist he didn't want to have a conviction on his record as it might hinder his efforts (or possible future aspirations of holding a public office).
        philwelch 13y ago
        Because serving time for an act of conscience always ruins someone's aspirations as an activist.
nova 13y ago
Intellectual "property" is a serious business.
acdha 13y ago
A former federal prosecutor explained why most of the numbers and potential years of jail-time you saw are a gross exaggeration: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
- rayiner 13y ago
  Great description! The main thing that confuses people is grouping. Prosecutors charge a large number of counts because they don't want to lose a conviction by being imprecise in characterizing the specific set of acts out of an overall course of conduct that was illegal. If you add up all the counts you get some big number, but the sentencing guidelines (3D1.2) clearly state: "All counts involving substantially the same harm shall be grouped together into a single Group." I think the sentencing guidelines are ridiculous (look at that big list of meaningless factors in the sushi chef example!), but its much more sensible to calculate a guideline range than to add up the theoretical maximum sentences.
lasermike026 13y ago
Repeal it yesterday.

DanBC 13y ago

i) US prison system is weird and puts people in prison even when they pose no risk of harm to others ii) US justice system is a machine. Roll over and give up, or they're going to crush you like a bug.

agilebyte 13y ago

It is easy to be tough on crime, it is harder to politically justify the opposite. Edit: English

canweriotnow 13y ago
You mean to be crime on tough?
- agilebyte 13y ago
  No, have fixed the sentence now.
- deaconblues 13y ago
  It's a crime to be tough on easy.

danielweber 13y ago

He wasn't facing 35 years of time. His lawyer did not just fall off the turnip truck and knew how federal sentencing guidelines worked.

adestefan 13y ago
It's also the journalists, too. Anytime you see a story about someone's punishment for the crime and it includes the words "cumulative" or "up to" you know all they did was start adding up random numbers from every little charge. Sentencing doesn't work that way and at that point you need to just ignore the story.
- DEinspanjer 13y ago
  I'd be willing to accept your statement at face value. Are there any good indicators for laymen what likely punishments he would have been facing if he would have continued to trial and lost? What sort of crimes typically have similar actual and enforced punishments? I'm wondering where on the scale it gets slotted. Is it between assault and shoplifting or grand theft and kidnapping?
  - girvo 13y ago
    Setencing is hard. Prosecutors have the incentive to put as many charges on them as possible, to get a guilty plea, but not all of them make it through, so it's hard to know what is going to happen until the defendant goes to trial. This goes for all sorts of crimes (most of them, in fact).
    - adestefan 13y ago
      You don't know what's going to be the final result until the defendant is actually sentenced. Of course this is all dependent upon the jurisdiction, but in most judges have significant leeway in the sentencing.
      - girvo 13y ago
        Sorry, that's what I meant, yeah.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Are there any good indicators for laymen what likely punishments he would have been facing if he would have continued to trial and lost? For federal crimes, sentencing is generally governed by the federal sentencing guidelines. [1] The application is conceptually simple -- there are guidelines for determining the offense level for each base crime, guidelines for grouping offenses (some of which just keep the most serious, some of which start with the most serious and increase based on other offenses), and guidelines for adjustments to the offense level for various factors such as actual harms inflicted, the defendants criminal history, the defendants acceptance of responsibility, and so forth, and finally guidelines to translate offense level into sentence. But the details are quite involved. Perhaps the most important thing to note, in the federal guidelines, is that in most cases, where multiple convictions are handed down for offenses involve the same victim and the same act or transaction, or different acts or transaction as part of the same plan or scheme, the offense level is set by the single most serious count alone -- charging multiple counts of the same charge basically just increase the chance of getting a conviction. For state offenses, sentencing is handled by state-specific rules. [1] http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2013_Guidelines/index.cfm http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2013_Guidelines/index.cfm

gadders 13y ago

His plea bargain offer was 6 months in a Club Fed prison. Martha Stewart managed 5 months.

sp332 13y ago
To accept the plea bargain, he would have to waive his right to a trial. (Edit: he would also have to admit he was guilty of the crime.) If he was innocent, there was no incentive for him to accept 6 months in prison in exchange for his rights.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  Sure there was: 6 months vs. up to 35 years. Even if I'm not guilty, as a pragmatist, that's a trade you can't refuse unless there is ROCK SOLID evidence that you're innocent of everything.
  - sp332 13y ago
    That's an argument for letting the prosecutor get away with putting any innocent person in jail, as long as a harsher sentence is threatened for the nonexistent crime. There was no way Swartz was getting 35 years even if he was convicted of everything. And the prosecutor piled on every charge he thought he had a chance at. Knuckling under and serving 6 months quietly isn't too appealing. And the alternative was lots of publicity for the cause, a good chance to change precedent in IP cases, and the possibility of serving some time as a martyr.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Swartz didn't want to serve any jail time. IIRC, as a political activist he didn't want to have a conviction on his record as it might hinder his efforts (or possible future aspirations of holding a public office).
      - philwelch 13y ago
        Because serving time for an act of conscience always ruins someone's aspirations as an activist.

nova 13y ago

Intellectual "property" is a serious business.

acdha 13y ago

A former federal prosecutor explained why most of the numbers and potential years of jail-time you saw are a gross exaggeration: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...

rayiner 13y ago
Great description! The main thing that confuses people is grouping. Prosecutors charge a large number of counts because they don't want to lose a conviction by being imprecise in characterizing the specific set of acts out of an overall course of conduct that was illegal. If you add up all the counts you get some big number, but the sentencing guidelines (3D1.2) clearly state: "All counts involving substantially the same harm shall be grouped together into a single Group." I think the sentencing guidelines are ridiculous (look at that big list of meaningless factors in the sushi chef example!), but its much more sensible to calculate a guideline range than to add up the theoretical maximum sentences.

lasermike026 13y ago

Repeal it yesterday.