6 ms·

40 years sounds like an awful brutal sentence hanging over this man's head. Then again, the accusation is that he forged documents and emails, and deleted othe

by nfoz 12y ago

40 years sounds like an awful brutal sentence hanging over this man's head. Then again, the accusation is that he forged documents and emails, and deleted others, as part of a lawsuit. That seems pretty bad. But 40 years literally takes someone's life away. The crime was nonviolent. Maybe 10 years in jail would be a harsh enough penalty? That's pretty life-changing. I suppose it's up to the judge, maybe if he wasn't using crazy methods to flee from bail he wouldn't end up with the max penalty. Seems like he's screwed now. This whole thing makes me uncomfortable.

cloakandswagger 12y ago
Personally, if presented the chance to be financially set for life at the risk of going to jail for a decade, I might go for it depending on what I thought my odds were. Conversely, if there was a risk of going to jail for 40 years then no odds short of 99% could convince me to risk it.
- dmm 12y ago
  This comment will be used against you if you are ever charged with a crime.
  - cloakandswagger 12y ago
    Unless it's a crime with 40+ years penalty, in which case it will exonerate me!
lione 12y ago
Seriously. I don't get how a non violent crime like this gets more jail time then if someone was a heroin selling murderer.
- declan 12y ago
  Welcome to the wonderful world of federal overcriminalization. Aaron Swartz faced 13 federal felonies (the Feds upped it from 4 to 13 at some point) and a possible maximum of 50+ years in prison: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-go... Then there's the No Electronic Theft Act, which Clinton signed into law. It made not-for-profit copyright infringement -- think sharing on P2P networks -- a federal felony. Previously it was a civil matter. Now <gvb> is correct that there are sentencing guidelines that will make the likely sentence less. But even the outside possibility of a young man or woman leaving prison when they're 70-80+ years old for a non-violent crime is remarkable. (Note I'm not defending Paul Ceglia, who may well have committed fraud and should pay the price if convicted; I'm merely saying that the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the offense.) These are DOJ stats for the year 2000, but it gives you an idea of the range for violent felonies: "The mean prison sentence for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was nearly 20 years and 8 months." http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day" is an excellent resource, and I separately wrote about the overcriminalization of federal law here: http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u-s-anti-hacking-law-went-astray/ http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u...
  - jakobegger 12y ago
    I think one of the problem in the Swartz case is that the sentences from multiple felonies add up; otherwise there was no way to arrive at such a ridiculus penalty for a copyright violation. In many countries this is not possible, eg. in Austria you will get no more than the maximum sentence even if you are convicted of multiple felonies.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I think sentences in the U.S. are too long. That said, "Three Felonies a Day" is a shitty book with shitty examples. Take these examples on the website: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp.... It's presented in the book as a small business owner convicted for selling undersized lobster tails in plastic packaging in violation of a new-longer valid Honduran law. But in reality she was convicted by a jury for her role in a conspiracy to import $17 million in undersized lobster tails: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-r119.html http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-.... There is a good debunking of it here: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059964426 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059964426.
    - declan 12y ago
      Well, the mere fact that a jury convicted someone of violating Federal Law X doesn't mean that Federal Law X is a good, just, or sensible law. Aaron Swartz may well have been convicted of violating Federal Law Y, but that doesn't justify his prosecution (or the existence of Federal Law Y). Here's a better description of the case: Seafood dealers were prosecuted and convicted for importing lobster tails from Honduras because they allegedly violated an obscure Honduran regulation requiring that frozen seafood be shipped in cardboard boxes instead of clear plastic bags, and because about three percent of the 70,000 pound shipment consisted of Caribbean spiny lobster tails that were less than 5.5 inches in length, which allegedly violated another Honduran regulation on size limit... Because the seafood was shipped in clear plastic bags instead of opaque boxes, they were also charged with "smuggling," even though the shipments regularly went through Customs inspections and testing by the Food and Drug Administration at the port near Mobile, Alabama... There was just one problem with the Justice Department's case: the Honduran regulations that served as the predicate for the charges were later declared to be null and void, repealed, and otherwise of no legal effect by Honduran courts, the Honduran Attorney General, and other high level Honduran officials, including the Honduran Human Rights Commission. The Honduran government took the extraordinary step of filing a brief in the court of appeals, and again in the Supreme Court, providing the official views of the country that the regulations were invalid. Source: http://www.wlf.org/upload/022404PK.pdf http://www.wlf.org/upload/022404PK.pdf It sounds like you owe Harvey, who wrote Three Felonies a Day, an apology (he was EFF's first lawyer, I recall, and I wouldn't be surprised if he reads HN occasionally). But I have no brief to defend the book or talk at length about lobster tails; my point was overcriminalization is real.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  To be fair, the guy was trying to steal half of Facebook. That's a huuuuge amount of money. Plus the falsifying legal documents to do it. But yeah, 40 years is a long time. It's hard to make comparisons between sentences in the US because everything has an absurdly long prison sentence tied to it. :\
- mhurron 12y ago
  Money.
gvb 12y ago
40 years is the maximum prison term. The prison term he would get if he were convicted would likely be a fraction of that.
- nfoz 12y ago
  This is a curious phenomenon, then. If someone said, "max. 40 years but you probably won't get that", my mind is probably going to be stuck on the number "40 years". That's probably sufficient to terrify somebody into doing really stupid things to avoid it, like we see here. 40 years in jail means that someone is such a tyrranical menace to society that they cannot be trusted to be around other people for the rest of their life.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- downandout 12y ago
  Actually, under the federal sentencing guidelines, if found guilty he will be sentenced based upon "intended loss" [1] - which is this case is somewhere around $15 billion. That would easily qualify him for the maximum sentence. The loss table [2] actually maxes out at $400 million. [1] "...loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss" - see [2] [2] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2b11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2b11
  - parfe 12y ago
    That document only determines sentencing level, not years. You need to also reference the criminal history calculation and finally the actual sentencing guideline. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-... http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2012/manual-pdf/Sentencing_Table.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manua...
    - 12y ago
outworlder 12y ago
Yeah. Even arrests with no conviction can make someone's life much harder. Imagine 5 years - which is considered a very low sentence by US standars - during a person's prime productive years (let's say, at 22). There will be a 5 year gap in the applicant's resumé, where he not only was unemployed, but in jail. Good luck landing a job if you are of a Kevin Mitnick caliber.

by nfoz 12y ago

cloakandswagger 12y ago

Personally, if presented the chance to be financially set for life at the risk of going to jail for a decade, I might go for it depending on what I thought my odds were. Conversely, if there was a risk of going to jail for 40 years then no odds short of 99% could convince me to risk it.

dmm 12y ago
This comment will be used against you if you are ever charged with a crime.
- cloakandswagger 12y ago
  Unless it's a crime with 40+ years penalty, in which case it will exonerate me!

lione 12y ago

Seriously. I don't get how a non violent crime like this gets more jail time then if someone was a heroin selling murderer.

declan 12y ago
Welcome to the wonderful world of federal overcriminalization. Aaron Swartz faced 13 federal felonies (the Feds upped it from 4 to 13 at some point) and a possible maximum of 50+ years in prison: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-go... Then there's the No Electronic Theft Act, which Clinton signed into law. It made not-for-profit copyright infringement -- think sharing on P2P networks -- a federal felony. Previously it was a civil matter. Now <gvb> is correct that there are sentencing guidelines that will make the likely sentence less. But even the outside possibility of a young man or woman leaving prison when they're 70-80+ years old for a non-violent crime is remarkable. (Note I'm not defending Paul Ceglia, who may well have committed fraud and should pay the price if convicted; I'm merely saying that the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the offense.) These are DOJ stats for the year 2000, but it gives you an idea of the range for violent felonies: "The mean prison sentence for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was nearly 20 years and 8 months." http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day" is an excellent resource, and I separately wrote about the overcriminalization of federal law here: http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u-s-anti-hacking-law-went-astray/ http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u...
- jakobegger 12y ago
  I think one of the problem in the Swartz case is that the sentences from multiple felonies add up; otherwise there was no way to arrive at such a ridiculus penalty for a copyright violation. In many countries this is not possible, eg. in Austria you will get no more than the maximum sentence even if you are convicted of multiple felonies.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I think sentences in the U.S. are too long. That said, "Three Felonies a Day" is a shitty book with shitty examples. Take these examples on the website: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp.... It's presented in the book as a small business owner convicted for selling undersized lobster tails in plastic packaging in violation of a new-longer valid Honduran law. But in reality she was convicted by a jury for her role in a conspiracy to import $17 million in undersized lobster tails: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-r119.html http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-.... There is a good debunking of it here: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059964426 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059964426.
  - declan 12y ago
    Well, the mere fact that a jury convicted someone of violating Federal Law X doesn't mean that Federal Law X is a good, just, or sensible law. Aaron Swartz may well have been convicted of violating Federal Law Y, but that doesn't justify his prosecution (or the existence of Federal Law Y). Here's a better description of the case: Seafood dealers were prosecuted and convicted for importing lobster tails from Honduras because they allegedly violated an obscure Honduran regulation requiring that frozen seafood be shipped in cardboard boxes instead of clear plastic bags, and because about three percent of the 70,000 pound shipment consisted of Caribbean spiny lobster tails that were less than 5.5 inches in length, which allegedly violated another Honduran regulation on size limit... Because the seafood was shipped in clear plastic bags instead of opaque boxes, they were also charged with "smuggling," even though the shipments regularly went through Customs inspections and testing by the Food and Drug Administration at the port near Mobile, Alabama... There was just one problem with the Justice Department's case: the Honduran regulations that served as the predicate for the charges were later declared to be null and void, repealed, and otherwise of no legal effect by Honduran courts, the Honduran Attorney General, and other high level Honduran officials, including the Honduran Human Rights Commission. The Honduran government took the extraordinary step of filing a brief in the court of appeals, and again in the Supreme Court, providing the official views of the country that the regulations were invalid. Source: http://www.wlf.org/upload/022404PK.pdf http://www.wlf.org/upload/022404PK.pdf It sounds like you owe Harvey, who wrote Three Felonies a Day, an apology (he was EFF's first lawyer, I recall, and I wouldn't be surprised if he reads HN occasionally). But I have no brief to defend the book or talk at length about lobster tails; my point was overcriminalization is real.
wlesieutre 12y ago
To be fair, the guy was trying to steal half of Facebook. That's a huuuuge amount of money. Plus the falsifying legal documents to do it. But yeah, 40 years is a long time. It's hard to make comparisons between sentences in the US because everything has an absurdly long prison sentence tied to it. :\
mhurron 12y ago
Money.

gvb 12y ago

40 years is the maximum prison term. The prison term he would get if he were convicted would likely be a fraction of that.

nfoz 12y ago
This is a curious phenomenon, then. If someone said, "max. 40 years but you probably won't get that", my mind is probably going to be stuck on the number "40 years". That's probably sufficient to terrify somebody into doing really stupid things to avoid it, like we see here. 40 years in jail means that someone is such a tyrranical menace to society that they cannot be trusted to be around other people for the rest of their life.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
downandout 12y ago
Actually, under the federal sentencing guidelines, if found guilty he will be sentenced based upon "intended loss" [1] - which is this case is somewhere around $15 billion. That would easily qualify him for the maximum sentence. The loss table [2] actually maxes out at $400 million. [1] "...loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss" - see [2] [2] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2b11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2b11
- parfe 12y ago
  That document only determines sentencing level, not years. You need to also reference the criminal history calculation and finally the actual sentencing guideline. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-... http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2012/manual-pdf/Sentencing_Table.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manua...
  - 12y ago

outworlder 12y ago

Yeah. Even arrests with no conviction can make someone's life much harder. Imagine 5 years - which is considered a very low sentence by US standars - during a person's prime productive years (let's say, at 22). There will be a 5 year gap in the applicant's resumé, where he not only was unemployed, but in jail. Good luck landing a job if you are of a Kevin Mitnick caliber.