3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYes, 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.