She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would agree with Linus's interpretation of the two statements.
Absolutely not. I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. This is not an obscure lawyer technicality, this something you see in the papers every day. Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean.
Maximum penalties set an upper bound on sentencing based on the crimes you are charged with, to prevent abuses. The high maximum penalties in this case probably means the laws are overly broad, but say very little about what the actual sentence will be. Moreover, I do not think the items he was charged have a minimum sentence - he could have been found guilty, and still gotten off with a slap on the wrist.
And I'm shocked to see how many people misinterpret those geeks. We don't believe he was absolutely going to end up in jail for 35 years; we believe it was hung over his head to extort a plea deal, while remaining a real possibility.
> Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean.
We're not talking about the concept; we get that. We're talking about a prosecutor that had large discretion in which, if any, charges to bring and brought multiple charges that had high maximum penalties for a reason. It's disingenuous to come back later and try to downplay the real charges with the real prospect of 35 years in jail, even if its real purpose was extortion.
It's easy to say "you need to know what that means and doesn't mean" until you're the one actually facing those penalties and financial ruin. I'm sure reminding you how the game works will be very comforting.
I still find 7 years offensive, but we need to understand the basic facts:
- 6 months is what he would get with plea bargain
- 6-7 years is what he would get if he went to trial and lost
- 35 years was what was in press releases to deter other people from committing the crime
| we believe it was hung over his head to extort a
| plea deal, while remaining a real possibility
That said, if they were telling him behind closed doors that they would seek 6-7 years, I don't think we can claim that they were holding the possible 35 year sentence over his head. As others have said in other discussions, if a judge had ignored the prosecutor and thrown the maximum sentence at him, it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal (max. penalties for a first time offender are almost always overturned on appeal).
I think one of the biggest factors was that he was facing a possible $1+ million trial with no funds to pay for it. Also, 6-7 years in prison isn't anything to laugh at.
When you play Russian Roulette, death for you is the MAXIMUM PENALTY.
So, your two options are to play Russian Roulette, or I'll bargain with you - you can give me $10,000.
"At no time did I ever seek - or even tell you that I intended to seek - death for you."
But your two choices were, to play Russian Roulette, or give me $10,000. I might even have accepted a counter-offer from you, say, $8,000.
Keep in mind, if you play Russian Roulette, it's up to the gun what really happens. You might just hear a loud CLICK. But limiting the maximum penalty to death, rather than for instance killing everyone you know and love, is there to prevent abuses.
I know it's a terrible analogy. I just want to point out that the statement, "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law," that's a way of saying, "He had two choices, one, risk the maximum penalties, or two, bargain with us." That's a strong-arm bargaining tactic. Most people accept the plea bargain, but that doesn't mean the threat of maximum penalties wasn't made.
EDIT: As a prosecutor, her job is to put the gun on the table, load it with as many bullets as she can, and then get you to accept a plea. If Aaron had not accepted the plea, she would have done everything in her power to convict him of everything she could. Back to my analogy, there was more than one bullet in the gun - maybe 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. A reasonable person would probably accept the plea - and that's up for debate, too. But for her to assert that "At no time did this office ever seek... maximum penalties under the law" is really deceptive / a lie.
This is pretty much the reason they say "get a lawyer", and let them work at it.
The field does require a lot of effort and education to get proficient in. Programmers get annoyed when someone tells them "just code this brilliant idea up and we will be rich".
This is similar.
He was an extremely talented rich white kid, associated with a top university who would have had dozens of high profiles vouching for him in court.
I guess his lawyer did a terrible job of telling him not to worry.
source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit...
Let's be specific, are you trying to claim that Aaron stood a small chance at actually be sentenced to 35 years, or are you just talking about jail time at all?
and so they didn't..
I predict that this will be the main area of interest when Abelson's report comes out. Why did MIT insist on jailtime?
> Let's be specific, are you trying to claim that Aaron stood a small chance at actually be sentenced to 35 years,
No.
> or are you just talking about jail time at all?
Yes.
By analogy, imagine a 3-strikes state where the 3rd strike results in life imprisonment. If someone is accused of committing their first felony, is it accurate to say "he faces up to life in prison" when that is not possible given his lack of criminal history?
It's easier to say this when you're not facing prison and financial ruin.
He wasn't being charged with "downloading papers". He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, criminal damage, etc.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...)
> US attorney Carmen Ortiz said: "Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away."
> If convicted Swartz faces maximum jail terms of 35 years and possible fines of up to $1m. Swartz appeared in court on Wednesday and was released on bail of $100,000.
And it'd mind-boggling that we're talking whether 35 years is realistic or not; the fact that prison is considered a suitable punishment for the alleged crime is a disgrace, and something that shames America.
Aaron suffered from depression, which can amplify "worries" to existential crises, which can lead to suicide. Depression, like many mental afflictions, affects the operation of thinking itself. That makes it hard (or impossible) to mentally "step back" and consider things from a different perspective.
A few months ago some pretty damn prominent community members here were telling us how there was no way in hell Aaron would ever serve any jail time. Turns out he was going to even if he accepted the plea bargain.