4 ms·

yes he was. note i said "up to" in my post. and on top of that he was linked to political activism, which tends to get the judge to throw the book at you (ala J

yes he was. note i said "up to" in my post. and on top of that he was linked to political activism, which tends to get the judge to throw the book at you (ala Jullian Assange, Wesley Snipes, and many more). from his wiki page On September 12, 2012, federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.

tptacek 11y ago
This is simply not how federal sentencing works. You don't add up all the sentences from all the charges and then serve them back to back.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Well, that is how the upper bound of federal sentencing works. It is just extremely unusual for the imposed sentence to be at the upper bound, due to a number of factors, particularly the federal sentencing guidelines (though upward departures from the guidelines are possible, and may reach anything up to the upper bound -- that's why it is an upper bound.)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    In the history of computer crime, has a judge ever departed from the grouping guidelines of the CFAA and wire fraud laws? Also: do you agree with the commenter upthread who is loudly asserting that Swartz faced 30-50 years for scraping JSTOR?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > In the history of computer crime, has a judge ever departed from the grouping guidelines of the CFAA and wire fraud laws? Not that I am aware of, but I wouldn't necessarily expect to be aware of it unless it also happened to be a very high profile case (also, the history of the guidelines being held to be discretionary rather than mandatory is much shorter than the "entire history of computer crime" -- U.S. v. Booker, which held that the provisions making the guidelines mandatory was a violation of the Sixth Amendment, was only decided in 2005.) > Also: do you agree with the commenter upthread who is loudly asserting that Swartz faced 30-50 years for scraping JSTOR? With the "up to" language presented, AFAICT the 30-50 year range is accurate in that the upper bound is within that range (35 years being apparently more precisely accurate, from what I can find.) Of course, it would not seem likely that the actual sentence would have been anywhere near the upper bound, but it was the maximum legally possible sentence. So the statement is correct, though quite likely misleading without understanding how federal sentencing works in practice.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You're being evasive. His meaning is clear. For instance, in his most recent comment, he suggested that Swartz's political activism made the longer sentence likely. He was not merely spelling out the technicality that the judge could depart from the guidelines and issue an absurd sentence. He was strongly implying that the 30-50 year sentence DOJ bragged about was anchored in reality. Do you agree with him? Do you actually believe Swartz and his attorney reasonably believed he faced 30-50 years? When we consider Swartz's predicament, or really the predicament of anyone faced with federal charges, should we assume that sentences will not group, regardless of what the guidelines say? Is the "30 years" top-line sentence useful to our discussion?
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You're being evasive. No, I'm not. I directly answered both as to the accuracy of the "up to" statement (stating that that statement is, stricly speaking, accurate) and its likely relevance to actual sentencing (stating also that is misleading in the absence of an understanding of how federal sentencing works.) > For instance, in his most recent comment, he suggested that Swartz's political activism made the longer sentence likely. That's a different claim than the one you asked me if I agreed with. FWIW, I've done no study myself and aware of none that gives any basis for saying what effect, if any, political activism has on sentencing decisions (my intuition is that crimes related motivated by it probably are correlated with a lack of remorse shown and negatively correlated with factors -- both within the guidelines and that judges are likely to apply in considering outside the guidelines -- that favor mitigation of sentences, so the idea that it does lead to greater sentences is intuitively plausible.) > He was strongly implying that the 30-50 year sentence DOJ bragged about was anchored in reality. And I directly addressed the connection between that and reality. > Do you agree with him? Asked and answered. Repeatedly, at this point. > When we consider Swartz's predicament, or really the predicament of anyone faced with federal charges, should we assume that sentences will not group, regardless of what the guidelines say? We should assume that there is the potential for that to occur, yes, particularly if we are the ones facing them. Any other assumption in a post-Booker world is imprudent. As to the likelihood of upward departures, what assumptions we should make depends on the available information we have on cases that are similar, and what judges have done and appeals courts have allowed or not in the way of upward departures. But the history of the guidelines being advisory is short, and in many cases there aren't much in the way of similar cases from which to form much of a judgement about that probability. > Is the "30 years" top-line sentence useful to our discussion? I don't think raising the Swartz case (upper-bound sentence or otherwise) is particularly useful in the context of the Bitcoin case.

tptacek 11y ago

This is simply not how federal sentencing works. You don't add up all the sentences from all the charges and then serve them back to back.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Well, that is how the upper bound of federal sentencing works. It is just extremely unusual for the imposed sentence to be at the upper bound, due to a number of factors, particularly the federal sentencing guidelines (though upward departures from the guidelines are possible, and may reach anything up to the upper bound -- that's why it is an upper bound.)
- tptacek 11y ago
  In the history of computer crime, has a judge ever departed from the grouping guidelines of the CFAA and wire fraud laws? Also: do you agree with the commenter upthread who is loudly asserting that Swartz faced 30-50 years for scraping JSTOR?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In the history of computer crime, has a judge ever departed from the grouping guidelines of the CFAA and wire fraud laws? Not that I am aware of, but I wouldn't necessarily expect to be aware of it unless it also happened to be a very high profile case (also, the history of the guidelines being held to be discretionary rather than mandatory is much shorter than the "entire history of computer crime" -- U.S. v. Booker, which held that the provisions making the guidelines mandatory was a violation of the Sixth Amendment, was only decided in 2005.) > Also: do you agree with the commenter upthread who is loudly asserting that Swartz faced 30-50 years for scraping JSTOR? With the "up to" language presented, AFAICT the 30-50 year range is accurate in that the upper bound is within that range (35 years being apparently more precisely accurate, from what I can find.) Of course, it would not seem likely that the actual sentence would have been anywhere near the upper bound, but it was the maximum legally possible sentence. So the statement is correct, though quite likely misleading without understanding how federal sentencing works in practice.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You're being evasive. His meaning is clear. For instance, in his most recent comment, he suggested that Swartz's political activism made the longer sentence likely. He was not merely spelling out the technicality that the judge could depart from the guidelines and issue an absurd sentence. He was strongly implying that the 30-50 year sentence DOJ bragged about was anchored in reality. Do you agree with him? Do you actually believe Swartz and his attorney reasonably believed he faced 30-50 years? When we consider Swartz's predicament, or really the predicament of anyone faced with federal charges, should we assume that sentences will not group, regardless of what the guidelines say? Is the "30 years" top-line sentence useful to our discussion?
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You're being evasive. No, I'm not. I directly answered both as to the accuracy of the "up to" statement (stating that that statement is, stricly speaking, accurate) and its likely relevance to actual sentencing (stating also that is misleading in the absence of an understanding of how federal sentencing works.) > For instance, in his most recent comment, he suggested that Swartz's political activism made the longer sentence likely. That's a different claim than the one you asked me if I agreed with. FWIW, I've done no study myself and aware of none that gives any basis for saying what effect, if any, political activism has on sentencing decisions (my intuition is that crimes related motivated by it probably are correlated with a lack of remorse shown and negatively correlated with factors -- both within the guidelines and that judges are likely to apply in considering outside the guidelines -- that favor mitigation of sentences, so the idea that it does lead to greater sentences is intuitively plausible.) > He was strongly implying that the 30-50 year sentence DOJ bragged about was anchored in reality. And I directly addressed the connection between that and reality. > Do you agree with him? Asked and answered. Repeatedly, at this point. > When we consider Swartz's predicament, or really the predicament of anyone faced with federal charges, should we assume that sentences will not group, regardless of what the guidelines say? We should assume that there is the potential for that to occur, yes, particularly if we are the ones facing them. Any other assumption in a post-Booker world is imprudent. As to the likelihood of upward departures, what assumptions we should make depends on the available information we have on cases that are similar, and what judges have done and appeals courts have allowed or not in the way of upward departures. But the history of the guidelines being advisory is short, and in many cases there aren't much in the way of similar cases from which to form much of a judgement about that probability. > Is the "30 years" top-line sentence useful to our discussion? I don't think raising the Swartz case (upper-bound sentence or otherwise) is particularly useful in the context of the Bitcoin case.