4 ms·

30 years in jail is a false dichotomy and people need to quit parroting that in relation to this case, it was never ever in any way going to be close to that.

smsm42 12y ago
Well, 30 years maybe a bit exaggerated, but multiple years in jail were well on the agenda if Swartz would not take the plea agreement, as the facts of the case were against him and the jury probably would not (and would be instructed not to) relate to his motives and why he did it. Then it would come to the sentencing and as the feds were determined to make an example of him... it would be hard to expect much leniency, especially given the fact that Swartz probably didn't think what he did was wrong (even if how he did it may be against he law) so he would not get the "regret" leniency too. So maybe not 30 years, but multiple years still, which is very harsh and can ruin one's life. P.S. btw, please look up what "dichotomy" is. You can not have dichotomy of one thing, at least in the meaning of the word we're dealing with here.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  He was given 6 months and should have taken it. Many people who violate the law think what they did wasn't wrong, but this has no bearing in the matter when it comes to sentencing.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    6 months and the status of convicted felon. This is not an easy thing to take.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      He shouldn't have repeatedly broken the law if he wasn't prepared to deal with the legal consequences.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8345282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8345282 To this, I can only add that there are a lot of bad laws and even more, much more, bad prosecutions, so sounding like every prosecution is right and if you don't like it, just don't break the law, is not only sounding mean and morally obtuse, but also very uninformed.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Sorry but serving six months jail time (and most likely less) for repeatedly breaking and entering is perfectly reasonable to me and not obtuse whatsoever. Most on HN are outraged with this type of sentencing because it's someone they liked, but if it was anyone else it would be perfectly acceptable.
        smsm42 12y ago
        Did you spend time in federal prison? Are you dealing with convicted felon status? You seem to be awfully quick recommending people to sit in jail and accept the life of a convicted felon. It's either you recommend it from experience of it not being a big deal, or it is the obtuseness.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        I have not. Why? Because I don't repeatedly break the law, since I don't want to go to jail. Hence my comment above, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

smsm42 12y ago

Well, 30 years maybe a bit exaggerated, but multiple years in jail were well on the agenda if Swartz would not take the plea agreement, as the facts of the case were against him and the jury probably would not (and would be instructed not to) relate to his motives and why he did it. Then it would come to the sentencing and as the feds were determined to make an example of him... it would be hard to expect much leniency, especially given the fact that Swartz probably didn't think what he did was wrong (even if how he did it may be against he law) so he would not get the "regret" leniency too. So maybe not 30 years, but multiple years still, which is very harsh and can ruin one's life. P.S. btw, please look up what "dichotomy" is. You can not have dichotomy of one thing, at least in the meaning of the word we're dealing with here.

res0nat0r 12y ago
He was given 6 months and should have taken it. Many people who violate the law think what they did wasn't wrong, but this has no bearing in the matter when it comes to sentencing.
- smsm42 12y ago
  6 months and the status of convicted felon. This is not an easy thing to take.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    He shouldn't have repeatedly broken the law if he wasn't prepared to deal with the legal consequences.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8345282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8345282 To this, I can only add that there are a lot of bad laws and even more, much more, bad prosecutions, so sounding like every prosecution is right and if you don't like it, just don't break the law, is not only sounding mean and morally obtuse, but also very uninformed.
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        Sorry but serving six months jail time (and most likely less) for repeatedly breaking and entering is perfectly reasonable to me and not obtuse whatsoever. Most on HN are outraged with this type of sentencing because it's someone they liked, but if it was anyone else it would be perfectly acceptable.
        smsm42 12y ago
        Did you spend time in federal prison? Are you dealing with convicted felon status? You seem to be awfully quick recommending people to sit in jail and accept the life of a convicted felon. It's either you recommend it from experience of it not being a big deal, or it is the obtuseness.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        I have not. Why? Because I don't repeatedly break the law, since I don't want to go to jail. Hence my comment above, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.