111–118 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hooray for a cultural environment that supports and condones the dehumanization and demonization of entities designated as enemies.
Are you talking about the prosecutors or their victims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"he might have faced as many as 2 years, but that he also might have avoided a custodial sentence even if he was convicted." This is in direct contradiction to what Aaron's lawyers have stated. Jail time was required, and if he did not plead guilty then the DOJ would push for a 7 year sentence.
Here you conflate the position of the prosecutors as related by Swartz's counsel with the actual opinion held by that counsel about the outcome of a conviction. The two are obviously not equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet he would care if he got fired.
Perhaps. He might make more money in private practice. But let's suppose you're right. I don't actually think firing would be an disproportioniate rebuke under the circumstances. To use language that Heymann might have used of Swartz, I think it would be great to make an example of him. All that said, I don't expect it to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you conflate the position of the prosecutors as related by Swartz's counsel with the actual opinion held by that counsel about the outcome of a conviction. The two are obviously not equivalent.
If the DOJ are pushing for 7 years, then "as many as 2 years" seems in direct contradiction to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still disagree on the technical sense. 35 years is within the ability of the judge to assign. Of course the judge wouldn't, and if the judge did it would be reduced on appeal. But they claimed that that was the statutory maximum, and if you read the statute you can readily confirm that.
I believe but cannot (due to crappy airplane wireless and the fact that I'm using my phone to read) confirm that there are elements missing from Swartz's offense that would have prevented a maximal sentence. Either way, I assume we agree that the DOJ published the press release knowing full well Swartz would not actually be subject to 35 years.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe but cannot (due to crappy airplane wireless and the fact that I'm using my phone to read) confirm that there are elements missing from Swartz's offense that would have prevented a maximal sentence. Either way, I assume we agree that the DOJ published the press release knowing full well Swartz would not actually be subject to 35 years.
Here is a great article illustrating my point (but with whale sushi, not the CFAA): http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
Ironically I've eaten at that restaurant. It was quite good before it was shut down. (No, I never had the whale sushi.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a great article illustrating my point (but with whale sushi, not the CFAA): http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
That is a good article. Ironically I've eaten at that restaurant. It was quite good before it was shut down. (No, I never had the whale sushi.)
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/sentencing-guidelines/s...
... and in the interpretation most generous to the DoJ I came up with a sentencing grade of 27, which works out to 7 years for a first-time offender.
I think if you read through the guidelines (they're interesting!) you'll see right away that there was no way he could have gotten 35 years. I stand by "the DOJ lied about the sentence in the press release".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps. He might make more money in private practice. But let's suppose you're right. I don't actually think firing would be an disproportioniate rebuke under the circumstances. To use language that Heymann might have used of Swartz, I think it would be great to make an example of him. All that said, I don't expect it to happen.
He would become a highly paid defense attorney, using his intimate knowledge of overzealous prosecutors to work against them.