Macspoofing wrote:
You know why people keep using that number? Because
that's the number the attorney's office itself used
in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's
be reasonable here. I'll fix it:
"Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years
in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised
release) Aaron Swartz was facing"
There fixed it. Happy??
If you had bothered to read the references that were in the comment I linked to, you would know that prosecutor press releases are not useful in these matters. This is the algorithm they use for coming up with a number:
years = 0
foreach charge as c
years += maximum_sentence_someone_can_get_for(c)
Note that there is nothing in there about the particular defendant or the particular instance of c that defendant is accused of. Each charge has a sentencing range from probation up to several years in prison. The judge does not have free reign to pick from within that range. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines set a maximum based on the defendant's prior record and based on the details of the particular instance of the crime at hand and on the damages done.
Note also that the press release algorithm just adds these up for all charges. In reality, related charges are grouped together under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. If you are convicted on more than one charge in the same sentencing group, you are only actually sentenced for whichever one gives the longest sentence.
I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can
find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__
going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7.
Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may
still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The
sentencing judge could have made an example out of
him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of
course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 +
. Justice!
No, 7 years was not the best outcome. It was the worst outcome. It was the outcome if the judge decided to make an example of him. This is not the armchair perspective. This is the perspective of anyone who is familiar with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and how they are used.
You could have been one of those people, if you had bothered to read Orin Kerr's incredibly detailed analysis of the law in this case that was cited in the comment I linked to.
Of course this raises another relevant question. Why
is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to
get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office
can do those great press releases extolling how
tough on crime they are?
Answered in the references I gave. Too bad you didn't read them.
Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking
whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another
notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years
(here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade
number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not
charge him for 7 years?
Up to this point, you were simply being willfully ignorant. Now you just being dumb. Defendants who have not dealt with federal charges before, and so have had no occasion to learn about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and how prosecutor press releases are way overflow, will learn this as soon as they talk to their lawyer after being charged.
If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the
table, he was facing a few months.
That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor
loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea
bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the
next guy to not be so uppity and force them to
cow-tow to prosecutor demands?
The plea bargain offer for a few months sentence was on the table until the very end.