3 ms·

Anyone who has ever dealt with federal criminal law would know that the 35-50 years was BS. There are federal sentencing guidelines, which are almost always us

Anyone who has ever dealt with federal criminal law would know that the 35-50 years was BS. There are federal sentencing guidelines, which are almost always used. It's a matrix and you can know pretty much what you face if you are found guilty. It's also not correct to label a plea deal as what the prosecution thought they deserved. They factor in the cost of trial and probability of success. It's like any negotiation.

thesteamboat 11y ago
Most people have not dealt with federal criminal law. Yes, a good lawyer should be able to help interpret where things truly stand, but that does not absolve prosecutors acting in a coercive fashion to secure convictions. It's true that a plea deal is not what the prosecution `thought they deserved'. Too often, it's whatever they think that can get the defendant to agree to, and has little connection to justice. The particulars of the Swartz case were meant to be indicative of the larger problem, and he certainly had access to good legal counsel. Nevertheless, that 6 months quote comes from the prosecutors press release [0]: > The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law. Contrasted with her earlier press release [1]. > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carmen-ortiz-releases-totally-bogus-statement-concerning-aaron-swartz-prosecution.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carme... [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice... (Link to archive as the page has since been taken down) Also bonus reading on the connection to mandatory sentencing laws exacerbating this process: [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...

thesteamboat 11y ago

Most people have not dealt with federal criminal law. Yes, a good lawyer should be able to help interpret where things truly stand, but that does not absolve prosecutors acting in a coercive fashion to secure convictions. It's true that a plea deal is not what the prosecution `thought they deserved'. Too often, it's whatever they think that can get the defendant to agree to, and has little connection to justice. The particulars of the Swartz case were meant to be indicative of the larger problem, and he certainly had access to good legal counsel. Nevertheless, that 6 months quote comes from the prosecutors press release [0]: > The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law. Contrasted with her earlier press release [1]. > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carmen-ortiz-releases-totally-bogus-statement-concerning-aaron-swartz-prosecution.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carme... [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice... (Link to archive as the page has since been taken down) Also bonus reading on the connection to mandatory sentencing laws exacerbating this process: [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...