That seems like a preposterous amount of time, money, and stipulations post-release. What was the federal prosecution's motivation for making an example out of him?
That seems like a preposterous amount of time, money, and stipulations post-release. What was the federal prosecution's motivation for making an example out of him?
As I've argued elsewhere [1], "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!"
Once again: Swartz's own lawyer wrote that he believed it unlikely that Swartz would do any time in prison even if he was convicted after pleading not guilty.
The "35 years" thing is entirely fictional. Popehat has a fantastic blog post on why this fiction exists and how it is misunderstood.
Many of the counts would have been grouped under the guidelines.
What sort of crimes typically have similar actual and enforced punishments? I'm wondering where on the scale it gets slotted. Is it between assault and shoplifting or grand theft and kidnapping?
For federal crimes, sentencing is generally governed by the federal sentencing guidelines. [1] The application is conceptually simple -- there are guidelines for determining the offense level for each base crime, guidelines for grouping offenses (some of which just keep the most serious, some of which start with the most serious and increase based on other offenses), and guidelines for adjustments to the offense level for various factors such as actual harms inflicted, the defendants criminal history, the defendants acceptance of responsibility, and so forth, and finally guidelines to translate offense level into sentence. But the details are quite involved.
Perhaps the most important thing to note, in the federal guidelines, is that in most cases, where multiple convictions are handed down for offenses involve the same victim and the same act or transaction, or different acts or transaction as part of the same plan or scheme, the offense level is set by the single most serious count alone -- charging multiple counts of the same charge basically just increase the chance of getting a conviction.
For state offenses, sentencing is handled by state-specific rules.
[1] http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2013_Guidelines/index.cfm
So let's not use the "it was just to pressure him" defense.
Restating: people, in the same country as Aaron, have been sentenced to same or worse sentences, even for lighter stuff.
Plus, the Obama administration raised maximum sentences for hacking count to 20 years (up from 10).
As far as I know, only California has a three strikes law that can apply to non-violent felonies, and I don't know of any three strikes law that applies to convictions on multiple counts for the same conduct.
When you see stuff like "man gets life for possessing an unregistered firearm" (at least outside of California), you need to read the fine print and look for the prior murder or armed robbery convictions.
I disagree with three strikes laws even when structured to only apply to violent felonies, but they're totally irrelevant to this discussion.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
The main thing that confuses people is grouping. Prosecutors charge a large number of counts because they don't want to lose a conviction by being imprecise in characterizing the specific set of acts out of an overall course of conduct that was illegal. If you add up all the counts you get some big number, but the sentencing guidelines (3D1.2) clearly state: "All counts involving substantially the same harm shall be grouped together into a single Group."
I think the sentencing guidelines are ridiculous (look at that big list of meaningless factors in the sushi chef example!), but its much more sensible to calculate a guideline range than to add up the theoretical maximum sentences.
There was no way Swartz was getting 35 years even if he was convicted of everything. And the prosecutor piled on every charge he thought he had a chance at. Knuckling under and serving 6 months quietly isn't too appealing. And the alternative was lots of publicity for the cause, a good chance to change precedent in IP cases, and the possibility of serving some time as a martyr.
I've always wondered if the felony conviction aspect of the punishment wasn't just as unacceptable to him. It would prevent any political ambitions in the US, I believe.
ii) US justice system is a machine. Roll over and give up, or they're going to crush you like a bug.
Edit: English