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?