3 ms·

It isn't DoJs job to speculate what the charges will actually result in, the "up to" although unrealistic is still accurate. It's reasonable to expect for the

by jdong 12y ago

It isn't DoJs job to speculate what the charges will actually result in, the "up to" although unrealistic is still accurate. It's reasonable to expect for the media to accurately interpret this, but clearly that isn't happening.

vishnugupta 12y ago
It is also worth noting that once a maximum sentencing of 35 years is set, how ever less probable, loss aversion[1] kicks in and the accused in general is expected to get into plea bargain, plead guilty and be done with it. It's really immaterial whether the accused knows the fine print or not. Here's a thought experiment I did on myself. I have to chose between the following two. 1. Challenge the accusation. There's a net probability of 1% of me sent to prison for 35%. 2. Plead guilty and face prison time of 7 years. I'd chose #2 because the prospect of spending 35 years in prison terrifies me! Reporters parrot 35 years probably because for an accused facing 35 years is a real prospect, however improbable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
- tptacek 12y ago
  Two issues with that logic: (1) Swartz had extremely capable counsel who knew how federal sentencing worked, and (2) the prosecutors themselves threatened not 35 years but 7. The plea deal offered wasn't for 7 years (that would have been insane). It was for something like six months. Six months in prison is still a travesty, but it is nothing at all like 7 years.
  - vishnugupta 12y ago
    > the prosecutors themselves threatened not 35 years but 7. Please pardon my ignorance here; but was there a non zero probability of Swartz being sentenced for 35 years? That is key here in my opinion. Because if there was even a remote chance then that's sufficient to play on the mind of Swartz and psyche him up. And if the probability of 35 years sentence was exactly zero then one ought to sue the media and the ecosystem who have kept drumming up 35 years. As the studies by the Nobel laureate and multiple others have shown when it comes to loss aversion, with such high stakes, humans don't think "logically". The capability of counsel is also irrelevant here.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Yes, there was a zero chance of Swartz ending up with 35 years. The judge could have sentenced to 3500 years as easily as 35 years, but both of those would have been turned over on appeal.

by jdong 12y ago

vishnugupta 12y ago

It is also worth noting that once a maximum sentencing of 35 years is set, how ever less probable, loss aversion[1] kicks in and the accused in general is expected to get into plea bargain, plead guilty and be done with it. It's really immaterial whether the accused knows the fine print or not. Here's a thought experiment I did on myself. I have to chose between the following two. 1. Challenge the accusation. There's a net probability of 1% of me sent to prison for 35%. 2. Plead guilty and face prison time of 7 years. I'd chose #2 because the prospect of spending 35 years in prison terrifies me! Reporters parrot 35 years probably because for an accused facing 35 years is a real prospect, however improbable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

tptacek 12y ago
Two issues with that logic: (1) Swartz had extremely capable counsel who knew how federal sentencing worked, and (2) the prosecutors themselves threatened not 35 years but 7. The plea deal offered wasn't for 7 years (that would have been insane). It was for something like six months. Six months in prison is still a travesty, but it is nothing at all like 7 years.
- vishnugupta 12y ago
  > the prosecutors themselves threatened not 35 years but 7. Please pardon my ignorance here; but was there a non zero probability of Swartz being sentenced for 35 years? That is key here in my opinion. Because if there was even a remote chance then that's sufficient to play on the mind of Swartz and psyche him up. And if the probability of 35 years sentence was exactly zero then one ought to sue the media and the ecosystem who have kept drumming up 35 years. As the studies by the Nobel laureate and multiple others have shown when it comes to loss aversion, with such high stakes, humans don't think "logically". The capability of counsel is also irrelevant here.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Yes, there was a zero chance of Swartz ending up with 35 years. The judge could have sentenced to 3500 years as easily as 35 years, but both of those would have been turned over on appeal.