Incidentally according to Aaron's lawyer, the prosecutors were going to be trying to convince a judge of a lot more than 2 years. Whether they would have succeeded in that is an unknown question.

Either way: my understanding is that 35 years is an overt misstatement of how sentencing for repeated counts under CFAA works. I stand by the word "lie", both in its technical and moral senses.

Either way, I assume we agree that the DOJ published the press release knowing full well Swartz would not actually be subject to 35 years.

http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...

Ironically I've eaten at that restaurant. It was quite good before it was shut down. (No, I never had the whale sushi.)

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/sentencing-guidelines/s...

... and in the interpretation most generous to the DoJ I came up with a sentencing grade of 27, which works out to 7 years for a first-time offender.

I think if you read through the guidelines (they're interesting!) you'll see right away that there was no way he could have gotten 35 years. I stand by "the DOJ lied about the sentence in the press release".

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Emanuel Lasker ‘A threat is more powerful than its execution’.

And based upon what evidence?

Now, if these sources of yours had provided their opinions before Aaron's suicide then I'd be more inclined to believe them. That they presumably only developed these opinions after the suicide seems a little convenient to me.

This is in direct contradiction to what Aaron's lawyers have stated. Jail time was required, and if he did not plead guilty then the DOJ would push for a 7 year sentence.