You wrote this: >As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this, why shouldn't it be fair to factor [the purported 35-year maximum s

You wrote this: >As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this, why shouldn't it be fair to factor [the purported 35-year maximum sentence] in when trying to get an idea of how Swartz felt? . . .They lie to the public and exaggerate to the accused, in order to instill fear, prop up careers, and coerce the accused. That's what I am responding to. Beyond that, it sounds like we're not disagreeing much, except for this small point: it is true, as you say, that being convicted of any felony at all is a huge deal. And probably even more so for Aaron Swartz. But that doesn't mean that the difference between a six-month sentence and a 35-year sentence is not also incredibly significant! I sympathize with those who think that this debate over the length of Aaron's potential and likely sentences misses the point. But I think that is just another criticism that ought to be leveled at media outlets and activists who continue to repeat the 35-year number without explanation or qualification. Those people repeat the 35-year figure precisely because they do regard it as significant and, often, reiterate it as a way of inflaming people's passions. I think this is a dishonest way of framing and spurring the debate. I, like you it seems, think that we would be better off reevaluating what is criminalized in the first place than flailing about, speculating about how long Aaron's sentence would have been, what the government "threatened him" with, etc. In short: I take issue with the 35-year number not because I think that, in reality, the sentence was so short that Aaron had nothing to worry about, but because it is a misleading (because it is misinformed) starting point for any meaningful discussion.