Hacker News Reader

Comment by RyanMcGreal | Hacker News Reader

> It's the same procedure that everyone else gets.

That was also true of torture, flogging, stocks, breaking on the wheel, burning at the stake, the heretic's fork, knee splitters, the rack, thumbscrews, and the other various sadistic forms of punishment that every European civilization routinely used on its prisoners before they were condemned as barbaric and banned.

They were not regarded as "cruel and unusual" because they were uncommon, but because they went against contemporary ideas of fairness, civility and efficacy as legal tools.

I would argue that the threat of 35 or 50 years in a federal prison for a victimless act of civil disobedience is similarly "cruel and unusual" against today's ideas of fairness, civility and efficacy.

View on HN

My point is that he was not going to serve 50 nor 35 years. There is a lot of precedent already regarding "cyber crimes", and in most of them the served time is but a fraction of the maximum penalty. This happens each and every day and is the reason that plea bargains, judges, and juries exist.

On another point, you mentioned a plethora of violent punishments, which the topic at hand isn't. First it wasn't a punishment yet, second it wasn't violent, third it isn't unusual at all as it's the same process used for almost every criminal trial specially in an accusatory trial, and fourth cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. On this last point I'd like to make one distinction: cruelty is mostly referred to in two different contexts: 1) Physical pain: in which case there was none to speak of here, and 2) Disregard for the suffering of others (irregardless of physical pain): in which case she is both crueler than you and me because she prosecuted a bright young man with all means available to him to the point of having an influence in his death, and as cruel as both of us because we've all been in a position in which we have not cared about the suffering of another human being, either because you're (not directed to you, just trying to make a point here, don't take offense) not interested in middle eastern politics and international conflict, or because I didn't want to give my last dollar to that poor homeless man on the corner with arthritis.

> My point is that he was not going to serve 50 nor 35 years.

If he pleaded guilty, he was offered a high likelihood of serving only a short prison time.

I will set aside my contention that even a day of time in a federal prison is disproportionate for what amounts to a TOS violation, and instead focus on the fact that a short prison term would only come with a guilty plea.

The prosecutor used the threat of 35-50 years in prison to get Aaron to accept a guilty plea. If he chose to plead not guilty and attempt to defend himself, it would cost well over a million dollars in legal fees, and if he were found guilty anyway, the judge would be strongly predisposed to make an example of him by giving him a very long, punitive sentence.

A prosecutor forcing someone to admit guilt by threatening a life-destroying cruel and unusual punishment if they do not admit it - why, that is the very essence of using torture to extract a confession!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com