Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

> looked forward to meeting him

If the feds get their way you'll know exactly where to find him for the next 35 years.

There is virtually no chance Swartz is going to spend time in prison. People convicted of far more malicious computer frauds have spent minimal (and sometimes no) time in prison.

Swartz, on the other hand, is a young, successful first-time offender.

I know it makes the story a lot more boring to talk about when the only consequences are financial and reputational, but consider that perhaps when you talk about Swartz spending "35 years" in federal prison, you are being ghoulish.

"story a lot more boring"

"you are being ghoulish"

Agree.

It's an artifact of the way the media has everyone trained.

"If convicted he could spend up to 400 years in prison!" (counts*years per count, full load)

The math is also the way the prosecutors get people to plea.

Yeah, also a good point. For what it's worth: I don't support what Aaron did. I do hope he wins his case. And, like you said, it seems clear that the specific array of charges he's facing constitute a deliberate shock-and-awe campaign on the part of the AUSA prosecuting the case.

You maybe figure, the AUSA's position is, whatever happens in this case, Swartz is at least walking away with a felony conviction.

From serving on a federal grand jury I got the distinct (though unstated) impression that the indictment was used as leverage in plea negotiations. It is fine and good to display "I will fight this to the bitter end" bravado on the internet, but when faced with an uncertain trial outcome (all are, even if you are 100% innocent) where the cost of losing is say 20+ years in the federal system (which has no parole, so if you get 20 years you serve 20 years), people tend to welcome deals/pleas. In one view everyone wins, the govt. has a victory and the defendant avoids the worst outcome. On the other hand it is depressing to see the justice system used in this manner (i.e. bullying/threats used to get defendants to agree to a plea deal so the govt. doesn't have to bother with a real trial).

Out of curiosity, if you believe what he did violates the rule of law (I hope I have correctly summarized your view from other posts), why do you hope he escapes the legal consequences of his actions?

I certainly don't want Aaron to face unduly severe consequences for his actions, but I'm not sure how you are reconciling those two views.

There is a chance, especially if he isn't able to hire expensive legal counsel.

Even if he argued the whole case pro se, he still probably wouldn't get prison time. Again: people far dumber and more malignant than Swartz have avoided prison time in CFAA cases.

The DoJ definitely wants to make an example of Swartz, they don't hate him more than carders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com