> It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America.

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.

You really should read up a bit on this. His three lawyers all failed to reach a conclusion to the case that did not include jail time, possibly greatly increased during the actual sentencing (true, the latter was a small chance but a chance anyway).

source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit...

You should read up on this too then. His lawyers did manage to extract a plea deal with no jail time, but then MIT wouldn't sign off on it.

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?

> You should read up on this too then. His lawyers did manage to extract a plea deal with no jail time, but then MIT wouldn't sign off on it.

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.

To what extent is it true to say "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison" if there is a 0% chance he'll face that penalty? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "his alleged crimes are punishable by up to 35 years in prison"? Or was there actually a small but non-zero chance he'd face 35 years?

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?

I am concerned that people think the number of lawyers you hire should affect the outcome. Does that sound like a fair justice system?

> I guess his lawyer did a terrible job of telling him not to worry.

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.

> It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America.

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.