It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes.
He did a thing, that doesn't mean that thing qualified as a felony, or even a crime. It certainly did not merit 50 years in prison.
> It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes.
It is simply not OK to threaten people with penalties that are well more than an order of magnitude higher than the plea deal.
This isn't the kind of plea deal that furthers justice by obtaining a cooperative witness in a more serious case. This sort of plea deal is offered to advance the Prosecutor's career.
> Swartz was very rich, and well represented.
As the article explains, Swartz was out of money, well into debt, and faced with begging people for money to continue fighting the case.
But as far as this case goes, I’m not sure. The alleged crime is a very technical one. The facts are all recorded and they paint a clear picture. The only question is how they apply to the law and whether or not they raise to the level of a crime.
That’s the job of a jury. They will receive a document with a list of charges, and the prosecution will lay out a very clear roadmap as to how each element of their case maps to the elements of the relevant statutes being charged.
Since this is a very technical crime, most of the evidence would be document-based and very convincing to a jury. It’s hard to create reasonable doubt in such document-heavy cases. So the only question will be how many charges can the prosecutor make the facts fit. That’s where these “50 years” claims come in, by stacking charge after charge in serial.
But importantly, neither the prosecutor nor the jury decide the sentence. That’s the job of the judge under the sentencing guidelines. This is what makes those “50 years” claim of the prosecutor bogus, and what any well-represented individual should understand.
I think Swartz did understand that because he opted to go to trial.
I get that people want there to be a clear moral story here. One perspective is that Swartz was a child prodigy, a beloved activist, someone who challenged the system, and then succumbed to pressure when it bore down on him with the full weight of the federal government.
But it’s not as clean as that. On the other hand he was a well connected, high net worth individual who repeatedly flaunted the system, and thought he would never face consequences. In my opinion, that’s the profile of someone ripe for heavy handed prosecution.
I am sympathetic to both perspectives.
It was a fairly unique and novel application of those laws and some of the charges depended on making arguments about what the intent was with the data. There absolutely was a great deal of prosecutorial discretion and even imagination in coming up with those charges. We will never know if which of those would have stuck.
> the profile of someone ripe for heavy handed prosecution.
It was most certainly a political prosecution.
Others have brought up people like Lori Loughlin. No one would talk about her or any of the college scandal wealthy parents going into debt.
