So they made an example out of him.
If he was smart he should kept a lower profile and his first interaction with police (the multiple fake IDs) he should have shut it all down or pass the site to someone else.
But hey ego and hubris gets the best of us.
Undermining the authority in a public manner is a sure fire way to ensure that the legal system will use you to reassert it's own authority as an act of long term preservation of the system's status quo.
Lately with SCOTUS, I think we are seeing widespread dissent about the worth of the entire legal system. For many, the system was already unbelievably unjust simply for the logic of what you observe. That’s just how it is, but is that how it should be?
If you rob a bank, get caught, say sorry and work at restitution you’ll often be given a lighter sentence.
Rob a bank then brag that the cops will never catch you and you’re glad you got away with it? Yeah, you’ll get a more severe sentence.
The idea is that justice should take restitution and admission of guilt into account.
Doesn't that imply that not admitting guilt is a crime for which you get an extra penalty? Let's assume that is correct and ethical. The question then is how big should such an extra penalty be, for the crime of not agreeing you are guilty? Life in prison? Or perhaps capital punishment?
https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/coercive-plea-...
Then its good that we as a society have institutions that have a better judgement than you, random internet netizen.
There’s a reason people wear suits to court and we have all sorts of processes designed to venerate authority. Before modern times, power flowed from the Monarch. Now, we choose our representatives but the instruments by which power is administered still exists.
He got life in prison because the laws he broke called for it.