2 ms·

>The number of counts charged in CFAA doesn't appear to have much to do with sentencing. This is a bit counter-intuitive. In any type of sentencing hearing, i

>The number of counts charged in CFAA doesn't appear to have much to do with sentencing. This is a bit counter-intuitive. In any type of sentencing hearing, if there is any discretion whatsoever, the number or counts/charges is always used an aggravating/mitigating factor. Actually the same goes for negotiating a plea deal, that is why I say 44 felony counts negotiated down to a single misdemeanor is an acknowledgement by the prosecutor something is wrong with the case. >Incidentally: you probably can be charged with breaking and entering for checking your neighbors window locks. Yes, but this would generally result in a single count, notwithstanding how many times the defendant "checked" doors/windows. However, in this case the Defendant was charged with an additional count for each time he tried to "unlawfully access" a given system - which was sometimes multiple times in the course of a minute (the proverbial "door/window check"). The point is the CFAA law is undeveloped and as a result the prosecutors are taking a mile with the inch they are given.

tptacek 12y ago
I think you're going to need to be more specific about the way you're saying multiple counts enhance sentences. Here's a relevant chunk of the sentencing guidelines: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2012/2012-3d11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2012/2012-3d11 In any case, this "440 year" nonsense comes from taking the product of the maximum sentence for all counts, which is simply not how sentencing works, or anything like it.
- will_brown 12y ago
  Here is the US Sentencing Commission staff paper regarding Chapter3 PartD (Multiple Counts): http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research/working-group-reports/simplification/MULTIPLE.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research/working... Excerpt: "The Commission created the multiple count rules upon recognizing two important things. First, the Commission acknowledged that an offender who commits five offenses, for example, deserves more punishment than if he commits one, but not necessarily five times the otherwise applicable penalty. Consequently, the guidelines had to provide a mechanism for calculating incremental increases in punishment for multiple offenses. Second, if the guidelines based punishment on the number of offenses of which an offender was convicted, the Commission realized that formal charging decisions could have a tremendous impact on the resulting sentence. Consequently, the Commission had to create guidelines to limit the significance of formal charging decisions to ensure that similar defendants who engage in similar offense behavior will receive similar sentences." In short, it supports both our positions, that multiple counts are taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing, but that the sentencing is stepped so that enhancement is not a 1 to 1 multiple. That said I did not mean to imply multiple counts enhance sentences, but that where there is discretion, multiple counts would be used as a aggravating factor.

tptacek 12y ago

I think you're going to need to be more specific about the way you're saying multiple counts enhance sentences. Here's a relevant chunk of the sentencing guidelines: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2012/2012-3d11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2012/2012-3d11 In any case, this "440 year" nonsense comes from taking the product of the maximum sentence for all counts, which is simply not how sentencing works, or anything like it.

will_brown 12y ago
Here is the US Sentencing Commission staff paper regarding Chapter3 PartD (Multiple Counts): http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research/working-group-reports/simplification/MULTIPLE.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research/working... Excerpt: "The Commission created the multiple count rules upon recognizing two important things. First, the Commission acknowledged that an offender who commits five offenses, for example, deserves more punishment than if he commits one, but not necessarily five times the otherwise applicable penalty. Consequently, the guidelines had to provide a mechanism for calculating incremental increases in punishment for multiple offenses. Second, if the guidelines based punishment on the number of offenses of which an offender was convicted, the Commission realized that formal charging decisions could have a tremendous impact on the resulting sentence. Consequently, the Commission had to create guidelines to limit the significance of formal charging decisions to ensure that similar defendants who engage in similar offense behavior will receive similar sentences." In short, it supports both our positions, that multiple counts are taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing, but that the sentencing is stepped so that enhancement is not a 1 to 1 multiple. That said I did not mean to imply multiple counts enhance sentences, but that where there is discretion, multiple counts would be used as a aggravating factor.