4 ms·

Why did it become socially acceptable for prosecutors to throw around 100-year threats, though? It seems like the only reason that's not a crime is because the

Why did it become socially acceptable for prosecutors to throw around 100-year threats, though? It seems like the only reason that's not a crime is because they're the legal system. Maybe there should be a limit on the span between maximum threat and minimum sentence, so that 100-year threats can't be thrown around unless the minimum plea is at least 5-10 years. That would make a prosecutor hesitate to employ such a powerful weapon, because the defendant would be more willing go to trial in that scenario, which reduces their chances of landing that conviction.

etherael 13y ago
It seems like the only reason that's not a crime is because they're the legal system. Of all of the activities undertaken by the state, an increasingly high percentage fall firmly under this definition.
gamblor956 13y ago
It's not, and they don't. For non-heinous crimes (i.e., crimes that aren't rape or murder) prosecutors threaten the maximum sentence for the "worst" crime charged, and only that number, because any competent defense attorney would immediately let their client know that sentences wouldn't be served consecutively. This is true in most, but not all states as well. (For heinous crimes, the consecutive sentences don't matter; the defendant has already received a life sentence and the additional years are meaningless.) This is also a legal ethics issue, since a prosecutor who fraudulently claims a higher maximum penalty during plea bargaining can be suspended or disbarred. Cops can lie to you--prosecutor's can't. They have sworn an oath (to the bar) to be honest in their legal representations. Prosecutors have been sanctioned, suspended, and even disbarred for being dishonest about sentencing because such dishonesty indicates moral turpitude that likely extends into other facets of their legal work. It's the media that throws around the 100-year numbers by adding together all of the potential individual sentences. It turns out that journalists aren't very good at understanding technology, science, or the law.
- sillysaurus3 13y ago
  Ah, thank you. So does anyone know what maximum threat he's actually facing?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    To follow up to ageisp0lis's post (which is apparently now deleted, but linked to http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/adding-105-charges-against-barrett-brown http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/adding-105-charges-against-bar...), the reasoning behind the 100-year number is: (1) that is the total maximum possible sentence assuming consecutive terms, and (2) it includes 2 other cases against him, not just the Stratfor case. My comments on this thread only discuss the Stratfor case, which is the second indictment of the 3 discussed by the DMLP article ageisp0lis linked.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - sillysaurus3 13y ago
      Is it true to say "no one really knows precisely how much of a threat he's facing"? The justice system is usually precise, so it seems odd that a precise maximum can't readily be found in this case. Do you think the maximum is probably more than 10 years? EDIT: I see you've run the numbers in your other comment, sorry: 1028 imposes a maximum sentence of 15 years for the gravest crime listed in the statute. Assuming he is found (or pleads guilty) this yields a likely maximum sentence of 17 years, or a potential maximum sentence of no more than 33 years. Does this seem excessive?
    - gamblor956 13y ago
      Going to sleep before the response link to your reply goes active, so here's my response: Is it true to say "no one really knows precisely how much of a threat he's facing"? The justice system is usually precise, so it seems odd that a precise maximum can't readily be found in this case. Do you think the maximum is probably more than 10 years? Yes, if he is found guilty. No, if he pleads. However, I heartily disagree that the justice system is precise. It's very messy, and two defendants with the exact same facts can get widely disparate sentences. A recent study from 2012 or 2013 revealed that judges were more likely to give harsh sentences after lunch than before lunch (controlling for race, criminal history, and other factors). 1028 imposes a maximum sentence of 15 years for the gravest crime listed in the statute. Assuming he is found (or pleads guilty) this yields a likely maximum sentence of 17 years, or a potential maximum sentence of no more than 33 years. Does this seem excessive? Yes since the crime is relatively non-serious compared to something like drug dealing or aggravated assault, and especially since our financial system already protects credit card holders. Hell, even violent robbery with a first-time gun enhancement can have a lower maximum potential sentence than 33 years.
NextUserName 13y ago
>Why did it become socially acceptable for prosecutors to throw around 100-year threats, though Because the media has been doing it for 20+ years. The news is more "interesting" when big numbers like that are thrown around.
rayiner 13y ago
Where did anyone throw around a 100 year number, besides the reporter? When someone is convicted of a federal crime, its the Department of Corrections that will put together a presentence report with a computation of the sentence under the guidelines. To get above that, the prosecutor has to argue to the judge that this case is special and requires a sentence above the guideline range. This is very difficult.

etherael 13y ago

It seems like the only reason that's not a crime is because they're the legal system. Of all of the activities undertaken by the state, an increasingly high percentage fall firmly under this definition.

gamblor956 13y ago

It's not, and they don't. For non-heinous crimes (i.e., crimes that aren't rape or murder) prosecutors threaten the maximum sentence for the "worst" crime charged, and only that number, because any competent defense attorney would immediately let their client know that sentences wouldn't be served consecutively. This is true in most, but not all states as well. (For heinous crimes, the consecutive sentences don't matter; the defendant has already received a life sentence and the additional years are meaningless.) This is also a legal ethics issue, since a prosecutor who fraudulently claims a higher maximum penalty during plea bargaining can be suspended or disbarred. Cops can lie to you--prosecutor's can't. They have sworn an oath (to the bar) to be honest in their legal representations. Prosecutors have been sanctioned, suspended, and even disbarred for being dishonest about sentencing because such dishonesty indicates moral turpitude that likely extends into other facets of their legal work. It's the media that throws around the 100-year numbers by adding together all of the potential individual sentences. It turns out that journalists aren't very good at understanding technology, science, or the law.

sillysaurus3 13y ago
Ah, thank you. So does anyone know what maximum threat he's actually facing?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- gamblor956 13y ago
  To follow up to ageisp0lis's post (which is apparently now deleted, but linked to http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/adding-105-charges-against-barrett-brown http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/adding-105-charges-against-bar...), the reasoning behind the 100-year number is: (1) that is the total maximum possible sentence assuming consecutive terms, and (2) it includes 2 other cases against him, not just the Stratfor case. My comments on this thread only discuss the Stratfor case, which is the second indictment of the 3 discussed by the DMLP article ageisp0lis linked.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - sillysaurus3 13y ago
    Is it true to say "no one really knows precisely how much of a threat he's facing"? The justice system is usually precise, so it seems odd that a precise maximum can't readily be found in this case. Do you think the maximum is probably more than 10 years? EDIT: I see you've run the numbers in your other comment, sorry: 1028 imposes a maximum sentence of 15 years for the gravest crime listed in the statute. Assuming he is found (or pleads guilty) this yields a likely maximum sentence of 17 years, or a potential maximum sentence of no more than 33 years. Does this seem excessive?
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    Going to sleep before the response link to your reply goes active, so here's my response: Is it true to say "no one really knows precisely how much of a threat he's facing"? The justice system is usually precise, so it seems odd that a precise maximum can't readily be found in this case. Do you think the maximum is probably more than 10 years? Yes, if he is found guilty. No, if he pleads. However, I heartily disagree that the justice system is precise. It's very messy, and two defendants with the exact same facts can get widely disparate sentences. A recent study from 2012 or 2013 revealed that judges were more likely to give harsh sentences after lunch than before lunch (controlling for race, criminal history, and other factors). 1028 imposes a maximum sentence of 15 years for the gravest crime listed in the statute. Assuming he is found (or pleads guilty) this yields a likely maximum sentence of 17 years, or a potential maximum sentence of no more than 33 years. Does this seem excessive? Yes since the crime is relatively non-serious compared to something like drug dealing or aggravated assault, and especially since our financial system already protects credit card holders. Hell, even violent robbery with a first-time gun enhancement can have a lower maximum potential sentence than 33 years.

NextUserName 13y ago

>Why did it become socially acceptable for prosecutors to throw around 100-year threats, though Because the media has been doing it for 20+ years. The news is more "interesting" when big numbers like that are thrown around.

rayiner 13y ago

Where did anyone throw around a 100 year number, besides the reporter? When someone is convicted of a federal crime, its the Department of Corrections that will put together a presentence report with a computation of the sentence under the guidelines. To get above that, the prosecutor has to argue to the judge that this case is special and requires a sentence above the guideline range. This is very difficult.