5 ms·

As you have already seen many times before before, here is the actual statement released by the US Prosecutor's Office. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/201

As you have already seen many times before before, here is the actual statement released by the US Prosecutor's Office. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. Key Point: According to the actual documented statement released by the federal prosecutor, a statement which is still available on www.justice.gov, Swartz faced 35 years in prison and a one million dollar fine if convicted. These are well known, easily verifiable, and indisputable facts. When NPR stated that "Swartz faced a maximum penalty 35 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines" they were directly citing actual statements made by the federal prosecutor's office. The federal prosecutor's office stated "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." That is what they said. It is not false. It is not an exaggeration. NPR is citing exactly what the prosecutor actually said.

tptacek 12y ago
Instead of quoting my own comment, which addresses your argument directly, I'll quote former federal prosecutor Ken White directly from the article I linked to: People reporting on federal criminal justice — whether journalists or bloggers — routinely report on the statutory maximum sentence that a defendant could hypothetically get, an oft-ridiculous figure calculated by taking all the charged crimes and adding up the maximum punishment for each. This is usually followed by some sort of pronouncement that THIS PERSON CHARGED OF MINOR CRIMES FACES MORE JAIL TIME THAN YOU'D GET IF YOU BEAT A TODDLER TO DEATH WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS NUN WHILE RAPING A BLIND LIBRARIAN, or words to that effect. The problem is this number — the sum of the maximum sentence for all the crimes charged in a federal case — usually bears almost no relation to the sentence the defendant actually faces. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. The Department of Justice, and its constituent U.S. Attorney's Offices, bear responsibility for repeating statutory maximums in their press releases bragging of indictments. Journalists and bloggers bear responsibility for repeating those numbers uncritically, especially if they repeat the "THAT'S MORE THAN YOU'D GET FOR DOUBLE-MURDER" meme. Read the rest of the article, which explains in detail how sentencing actually works. White's article is written about a whale sushi case, so I provided a link to the applicable sentencing guideline for computer fraud cases. Later You edited your comment to make the point that NPR was reporting what the prosecutors actually said. I addressed that in my comment too, but, more importantly: no, that's not what they did. They wrote that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. Not that prosecutors incorrectly and dishonestly claimed that he faced such a sentence --- or even that the provenance of that number was the prosecutors at all. Any reader could (and probably does) come away from that piece with the idea that Swartz actually faced a 35 year sentence. And of course, that's preposterous.
- jhart3333 12y ago
  You need to atone for your actions regarding Aaron Swartz sir. When I first arrived at Hacker News I happened upon a thread where Aaron was asking for help from his compatriots, his fellow hackers. What he got was a sharp stick in the eye. The top voted comment was by a fellow who had been an active and helpful participant in this forum wherein he called Aaron out for not covering his own expenses for his defense. We now know that Aaron had already spent his fortune defending himself from a prosecutor out of control, Stephen Heymann, and was literally broke. This is apparently standard procedure for the Justice Department: threaten defendants with financial ruin and many years in jail to get a plea. As a result they boast a rate of 90% pleading guilty in federal cases. Thus effectively removing one of the most cherished protections of our civil liberties: trial by a jury of your peers. You sir, shut down every thread in that post in which someone even suggested that Aaron might be in trouble. The fellow who posted the top comment on that thread decided to abstain from taking part this discussion forum following Aaron's suicide. You, however, did not. You carried on commenting and defending the very behavior of the Justice Department which, along with your actions, lead to Aaron's death.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    "You sir" need to spell his name right: Swartz.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - jhart3333 12y ago
      Is that all you are objecting to? The spelling of Aaron's name? Fixed by the way. I fixed Heymann's spelling too.
      - gojomo 12y ago
        Your scolding, scapegoating tone is pretty awful, too, but you'd have to delete the whole comment to correct it. No actions of any commenters here "lead to Aaron's death".
akerl_ 12y ago
As he states, the numbers supplied in press releases are based on a calculation which is totally disjoint from the one actually applied during a trial and sentencing.

tptacek 12y ago

Instead of quoting my own comment, which addresses your argument directly, I'll quote former federal prosecutor Ken White directly from the article I linked to: People reporting on federal criminal justice — whether journalists or bloggers — routinely report on the statutory maximum sentence that a defendant could hypothetically get, an oft-ridiculous figure calculated by taking all the charged crimes and adding up the maximum punishment for each. This is usually followed by some sort of pronouncement that THIS PERSON CHARGED OF MINOR CRIMES FACES MORE JAIL TIME THAN YOU'D GET IF YOU BEAT A TODDLER TO DEATH WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS NUN WHILE RAPING A BLIND LIBRARIAN, or words to that effect. The problem is this number — the sum of the maximum sentence for all the crimes charged in a federal case — usually bears almost no relation to the sentence the defendant actually faces. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. The Department of Justice, and its constituent U.S. Attorney's Offices, bear responsibility for repeating statutory maximums in their press releases bragging of indictments. Journalists and bloggers bear responsibility for repeating those numbers uncritically, especially if they repeat the "THAT'S MORE THAN YOU'D GET FOR DOUBLE-MURDER" meme. Read the rest of the article, which explains in detail how sentencing actually works. White's article is written about a whale sushi case, so I provided a link to the applicable sentencing guideline for computer fraud cases. Later You edited your comment to make the point that NPR was reporting what the prosecutors actually said. I addressed that in my comment too, but, more importantly: no, that's not what they did. They wrote that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. Not that prosecutors incorrectly and dishonestly claimed that he faced such a sentence --- or even that the provenance of that number was the prosecutors at all. Any reader could (and probably does) come away from that piece with the idea that Swartz actually faced a 35 year sentence. And of course, that's preposterous.

jhart3333 12y ago
You need to atone for your actions regarding Aaron Swartz sir. When I first arrived at Hacker News I happened upon a thread where Aaron was asking for help from his compatriots, his fellow hackers. What he got was a sharp stick in the eye. The top voted comment was by a fellow who had been an active and helpful participant in this forum wherein he called Aaron out for not covering his own expenses for his defense. We now know that Aaron had already spent his fortune defending himself from a prosecutor out of control, Stephen Heymann, and was literally broke. This is apparently standard procedure for the Justice Department: threaten defendants with financial ruin and many years in jail to get a plea. As a result they boast a rate of 90% pleading guilty in federal cases. Thus effectively removing one of the most cherished protections of our civil liberties: trial by a jury of your peers. You sir, shut down every thread in that post in which someone even suggested that Aaron might be in trouble. The fellow who posted the top comment on that thread decided to abstain from taking part this discussion forum following Aaron's suicide. You, however, did not. You carried on commenting and defending the very behavior of the Justice Department which, along with your actions, lead to Aaron's death.
- gojomo 12y ago
  "You sir" need to spell his name right: Swartz.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jhart3333 12y ago
    Is that all you are objecting to? The spelling of Aaron's name? Fixed by the way. I fixed Heymann's spelling too.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      Your scolding, scapegoating tone is pretty awful, too, but you'd have to delete the whole comment to correct it. No actions of any commenters here "lead to Aaron's death".

akerl_ 12y ago

As he states, the numbers supplied in press releases are based on a calculation which is totally disjoint from the one actually applied during a trial and sentencing.