4 ms·

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

• 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.
      • pyre 13y ago
        If you want to do more than tilting at windmills, maybe. Also, it wouldn't be like a "holding up traffic to protest" conviction.
• girvo 13y ago
  That's the issue, though. Prosecutors now have an incentive to stack as many charges as possible on a defendant for precisely this reason. To me, this is a bad thing, and not justice.