6 ms·
Thanks for the popehat link. Very enlightening. From it: > When the government quotes the maximum sentence, they are trying to scare you. > When the press qu
by jeremysmyth 12y ago
Thanks for the popehat link. Very enlightening.
From it:
> When the government quotes the maximum sentence, they are trying to scare you.
> When the press quotes it, they are uninformed or lazy.
The first is what I intended to imply: Prosecutors are permitted to scare the bejaysus out of defendants by quoting statutory maxima (not, as could be inferred, that they can present that to the judge.)
The second is what I was guilty of ;)
- tptacek 12y agoOK, but Swartz wasn't scared by the 35 year number, for two reasons: first, despite what the press release said, they were overt with Swartz about what their worst-case sentence actually was (the 7 year figure was their threat about what would happen if the case went to trial and he lost), and second because Swartz had very good legal representation. A 1-2 year worst case sentence follows pretty straightforwardly from the actual sentencing guidelines if you look at them. However, there are mitigating factors in the Swartz case: first-time offender, non-remunerative offense, unenthusiastic victims. Probation was a real possibility. 7 years was not.
- mikecb 12y agoAnd that's why it's important for defendants to have their own counsel, to inform them of how the system actually works, as Aaron's counsel would have done.