3 ms·

Same. They let him grab something to eat and even smoke a cigarette before they brought him in. Then he gets two years of probation. It all feels very reasonabl

Same. They let him grab something to eat and even smoke a cigarette before they brought him in. Then he gets two years of probation. It all feels very reasonable to me. Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing by downloading documents anyone can access just by virtue of connecting to the campus Wifi. There is definitely something really off here.

tzs 12y ago
> Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. He was facing, if he went to trail and lost on all charges, and the court decided that he had caused a large amount of monetary damage, around 7 years. If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. Prior discussion with more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640
- macspoofing 12y ago
  Unbelievable. >Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. You know why people keep using that number? Because that's the number the attorney's office itself used in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's be reasonable here. I'll fix it: >"Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing" There fixed it. Happy?? I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__ going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7. Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The sentencing judge could have made an example out of him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 + . Justice! Of course this raises another relevant question. Why is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office can do those great press releases extolling how tough on crime they are? Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years (here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not charge him for 7 years? >If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the next guy to not be so uppity and force them to cow-tow to prosecutor demands? Ridiculous.
  - tzs 12y ago
    Macspoofing wrote: You know why people keep using that number? Because that's the number the attorney's office itself used in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's be reasonable here. I'll fix it: "Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing" There fixed it. Happy?? If you had bothered to read the references that were in the comment I linked to, you would know that prosecutor press releases are not useful in these matters. This is the algorithm they use for coming up with a number: years = 0 foreach charge as c years += maximum_sentence_someone_can_get_for(c) Note that there is nothing in there about the particular defendant or the particular instance of c that defendant is accused of. Each charge has a sentencing range from probation up to several years in prison. The judge does not have free reign to pick from within that range. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines set a maximum based on the defendant's prior record and based on the details of the particular instance of the crime at hand and on the damages done. Note also that the press release algorithm just adds these up for all charges. In reality, related charges are grouped together under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. If you are convicted on more than one charge in the same sentencing group, you are only actually sentenced for whichever one gives the longest sentence. I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__ going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7. Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The sentencing judge could have made an example out of him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 + . Justice! No, 7 years was not the best outcome. It was the worst outcome. It was the outcome if the judge decided to make an example of him. This is not the armchair perspective. This is the perspective of anyone who is familiar with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and how they are used. You could have been one of those people, if you had bothered to read Orin Kerr's incredibly detailed analysis of the law in this case that was cited in the comment I linked to. Of course this raises another relevant question. Why is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office can do those great press releases extolling how tough on crime they are? Answered in the references I gave. Too bad you didn't read them. Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years (here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not charge him for 7 years? Up to this point, you were simply being willfully ignorant. Now you just being dumb. Defendants who have not dealt with federal charges before, and so have had no occasion to learn about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and how prosecutor press releases are way overflow, will learn this as soon as they talk to their lawyer after being charged. If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the next guy to not be so uppity and force them to cow-tow to prosecutor demands? The plea bargain offer for a few months sentence was on the table until the very end.
exarch 12y ago
>There is definitely something really off here. It's almost as though, by treating criminals so harshly as we do here ("tough on crime" is a popular slogan for politicians), that instead of reducing crime, we reduce our society's recognition of each individual's humanity and value, and thus cause crime to rise.

tzs 12y ago

> Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. He was facing, if he went to trail and lost on all charges, and the court decided that he had caused a large amount of monetary damage, around 7 years. If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. Prior discussion with more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640

macspoofing 12y ago
Unbelievable. >Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. You know why people keep using that number? Because that's the number the attorney's office itself used in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's be reasonable here. I'll fix it: >"Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing" There fixed it. Happy?? I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__ going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7. Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The sentencing judge could have made an example out of him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 + . Justice! Of course this raises another relevant question. Why is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office can do those great press releases extolling how tough on crime they are? Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years (here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not charge him for 7 years? >If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the next guy to not be so uppity and force them to cow-tow to prosecutor demands? Ridiculous.
- tzs 12y ago
  Macspoofing wrote: You know why people keep using that number? Because that's the number the attorney's office itself used in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's be reasonable here. I'll fix it: "Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing" There fixed it. Happy?? If you had bothered to read the references that were in the comment I linked to, you would know that prosecutor press releases are not useful in these matters. This is the algorithm they use for coming up with a number: years = 0 foreach charge as c years += maximum_sentence_someone_can_get_for(c) Note that there is nothing in there about the particular defendant or the particular instance of c that defendant is accused of. Each charge has a sentencing range from probation up to several years in prison. The judge does not have free reign to pick from within that range. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines set a maximum based on the defendant's prior record and based on the details of the particular instance of the crime at hand and on the damages done. Note also that the press release algorithm just adds these up for all charges. In reality, related charges are grouped together under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. If you are convicted on more than one charge in the same sentencing group, you are only actually sentenced for whichever one gives the longest sentence. I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__ going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7. Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The sentencing judge could have made an example out of him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 + . Justice! No, 7 years was not the best outcome. It was the worst outcome. It was the outcome if the judge decided to make an example of him. This is not the armchair perspective. This is the perspective of anyone who is familiar with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and how they are used. You could have been one of those people, if you had bothered to read Orin Kerr's incredibly detailed analysis of the law in this case that was cited in the comment I linked to. Of course this raises another relevant question. Why is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office can do those great press releases extolling how tough on crime they are? Answered in the references I gave. Too bad you didn't read them. Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years (here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not charge him for 7 years? Up to this point, you were simply being willfully ignorant. Now you just being dumb. Defendants who have not dealt with federal charges before, and so have had no occasion to learn about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and how prosecutor press releases are way overflow, will learn this as soon as they talk to their lawyer after being charged. If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the next guy to not be so uppity and force them to cow-tow to prosecutor demands? The plea bargain offer for a few months sentence was on the table until the very end.

exarch 12y ago

>There is definitely something really off here. It's almost as though, by treating criminals so harshly as we do here ("tough on crime" is a popular slogan for politicians), that instead of reducing crime, we reduce our society's recognition of each individual's humanity and value, and thus cause crime to rise.