Slashdot Mirror

> And most importantly, don't give anyone a pass/handycap based on race; for that in of itself is racism!

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

https://www.ussc.gov/research/...

Boy, those were easy to find.

The previous guy merely pointed out that the government is enforcing the law the way they're supposed to, rather than ignoring it the way a certain previous administration did.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

Do NOT try to excuse this insanity with a lying-ass letter-of-the-law claim.

The previous guy was arguing that children should be taken away from parents who are simply charged with a crime that is typically punished with a $10 fine and time served. That is NOT "the way they are supposed to." It is vastly disproportionate. We don't take away kids from people charged for possessing a fake Smokey the Bear emblem, or transporting a water hyacinth, all of which are petty misdemeanors of the same level as improper entry.

Furthermore, improper entry is not illegal if it is for the purpose of asylum. People have 1 year after making entry to legally claim asylum. So there is absolutely no legal justification to keep asylum seekers incarcerated, much less separated from their kids.

————————————————————————

“The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”

— Aldous Huxley
The Olive Tree (1936).

If you are too lazy to click on the chart, it shows that the Federal guilty plea rate is 97%. Only 3% go to trial.

So your position is that all the drug dealers, bank robbers, con artists, kidnappers, tax cheats, money launderers, counterfeiters, smugglers, mad bombers, interstate sex traffickers, etc were railroaded because "Indictments don't mean shit if you don't get a jury trial".

It's great to know that you support a cause that has been taken up by liberal advocacy groups all over the county. I know how hard it is to stand up for liberal causes on Slashdot because of all the right wing trolls, and I salute your commitment to freedom.

"I'll show you my link if you show me yours."

Well here are four separate studies that all reach the same conclusion.
https://repository.law.umich.e...
https://www.ussc.gov/research/...
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mu...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

I can probably find more if needed.

Do you have a source for that claim? Or are you just being racist against white people?

Are there sources? We could provide sources for you all day.

https://www.alternet.org/civil...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

https://www.ussc.gov/research/...

Uhh - the USSC? It was in the very quote you copied... Table 9 on this page takes you to it. Illegal immigrants are about 7 times more likely to commit violent crime as compared to citizens.

You act like race riots and political riots don't happen. Or that domestic terrorism doesn't exist.

As far as immigration goes, Miami has a larger percentage of immigrants than San Jose and note that Los Angeles is not very far behind San Jose. And the violent crime rates of Miami and Los Angeles dwarf that of San Jose. San Jose kind of bucks the trends - I think having billions and billions of dollars in "sillycon valley" makes that happen?

Or perhaps it's not the fact they're immigrant, but whether or not those immigrants are here legally? After all, illegal immigrants are about 3.4% of the population but they overwhelmingly commit most of the violent and drug crime in the US.

Or perhaps it has to do with the race of those immigrants? You do realize that 61.4% of all immigrants in San Jose are from Asia, and Asians have some of the lowest crime rates. So maybe the fact your immigrant neighbors are here legally, making big money, and from ethnic backgrounds that for whatever reason have a much lower crime rate, you're in a unique spot and cannot being to extrapolate your experience to nationwide - because it is so different than most of the rest of the US?

But banning him from setting foot in the District of Columbia and talking about YEARS of prison time?

The banishment is part of his conditions of release and will expire whenever the criminal case is concluded. Nothing to see there. As far as "YEARS," well, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines don't have a specific section for this offense, so it falls under the other felony offenses section, which says that 18 U.S. Code 3553 is controlling.

Assuming he has no criminal record, my educated guess would be he stands a decent chance of doing no time. If he gets a prison sentence it will be 366 days, which is SOP is the Federal system because it gives the defendant a chance to earn early release. He'll also be required to forfeit the gyro-copter and any other property used in the commission of the offense, pay court costs, and possibly a fine.

Over the past decade, from FY 1999 through the end of the second quarter of FY 2009, a total of 246 individual offenders were convicted of Sherman Act violations, the vast majority under section 1 and seven under section 3.

That's just for a narrow segment of business law.

The judges do have latitude to sentence. They certainly do not have to give the max sentence and will generally not do so unless there is a reason to or there is a minimum sentence in the statute. If the prosecutor asks for the max sentence, they will frequently not get it, and it isn't the prosecutor's decision at all. The judge is entirely free by law to sentence to the minimum no matter what the prosecution requests, however, that is where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines come in, because those are generated by the a commission made up of some judges, as well as some other government representatives.

After the guideline range is determined, if an atypical aggravating or mitigating
circumstance exists, the court may depart from the guideline range. That is, the judge may
sentence the offender above or below the range. When departing, the judge must state in writing
the reason for the departure.

http://www.ussc.gov/About_the_Commission/Overview_of_the_USSC/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf

Usually, the judge will generally not sentence *over* what the prosecution requests, and that is why getting on the prosecution's good side is useful. Even then, however, judges can even ignore plea deals and give out hard time, although that is very rare because plea deals keep down the case load in a court room and that is in every judge's interests as long as it doesn't represent a completely unjust situation.

A few minor corrections.

After watching US going after Assange...

Uh, the US has not gone after Assange (not yet, anyway). The US went after Bradley Manning, is that who you're thinking of? Sweden is going after Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for questioning on rape charges, and Assange says that he fears that if he goes to Sweden to answer the charges, they will extradite him to the US... but to date, there is no U.S. action against Assange.

...So now 26 Aaron had a choice. Fight for 3-4 yrs in the courts and then spend 15-20 yrs in the slammer or...

Newspapers always like to phrase indictments with words like "up to XX years in prison!" This makes the news story more exciting. However, there are such things as federal sentencing guidelines. Non-violent crime, first offense, no previous convictions, no aggravating factors-- I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with a fine plus time served.

Furthermore, he almost certainly could get a plea bargain-- believe it or not, prosecutors don't want to go to court if they can possibly get a conviction without doing so. Unfortunately, a plea bargain would have required Swartz admitting that he did broke the law, and it looks like he was not the type of person who would do that.

30 months? Two and a half years? Damn, he should have just raped someone instead, he probably would have gotten less time and had a lot more fun in the process. I swear, I'm going to start voting against any politician that runs on being "tough on crime." It seems plenty tough enough as it is.

Talk of rape as fun is stereotypically male and adolescent -

and - equally sterotypically - it always seems to come as a shock to a geek when one of his own is expected to do hard time.

That said:

You do not want to be prosecuted under federal law for a violent crime - for any crime, really.

From Oct 1, 1994 to October 30, 1994 there were 91 sentences in sexual assault cases prosecuted under federal law.

The median sentence for sexual offenses of all types was eight years and for criminal sexual abuse fourteen years. You could realistically expect to do almost all of that time behind bars. Analysis Of Penalties For Federal Rape Cases

Really? Anything that involves interstate commerce can immediately be classified as federal. And it's easy to classify anything has having an effect on commerce.

I did not say "I didn't do anything." I said "I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. " And that is absolutely true. In fact, I filed my own 2255 collateral attack and the judge issued a sua sponte ruling (in violation of Greenlaw) using Gonzalez v Raich, a 9th Circuit medical marijuana case, which states that the Government can regulate noncommercial INTRAstate activity in which it has an interest. (See Wickard v Fillmore.) No "special circumstance.." the Feds just need to have an interest in you.

As for only "robbery with a gun" being an example of a life sentence requirement, that's bollocks. Feds operate on a very strict numerical system, (even though Booker says it's all advisory.) See this table? All you need to do is get up to Offense Level 37 with a few priors and you're gone forever. Or get a few 924(c) counts, the third of which puts you away for life, mandatory. There are white collar guys who are doing life because their dollar amounts are high. Bernie Madoff didn't use a gun, did he? How about Jeff Skilling? A guy who sells small amounts of drugs three times does 20 years, mandatory because of 18 USC 851.

You can do life for conspiracy. If I call you and ask "hey want a pound of blow?" and you simply say yes, you can be indicted on a pound of blow..at least 15 years. No blow needs to exist. Happens every day.

Just cause you have a pal who happens to work for a PD doesn't mean you understand just how unjust the system is. Actually, at the spot I served, I never saw a single inmate who claimed to be innocent.

I'm just suggesting people be very careful.

Are you kidding? I just came through the federal court system, and I highly doubt you understand "the way sentencing is done in the US."

Sure Booker made sentencing guidelines advisory, but judges by and large go by the sentencing tables, and AUSA's will scream blue murder if judges downwardly depart without a damn good reason,. And, Asperger's is not a good reason, only 5K1.1 motions work for them. (e.g being a rat.)

Federal sentencing is very formulaic and due to the insanity of the grand jury farce system, anyone can end up looking at INSANE time for what might seem to you to be an innocuous crime. And the Government has NO issue whatsoever with making up charges, so they can conveniently drop them later in a plea bargain.

Need an example? I was indicted for five life terms, plus 105 years for causing damage to a portable toilet. I am dead serious. I was forced to sign for five years, and did 52 months (good time) in a very unpleasant FCI in Ohio, and am still on home confinement right now.

This guy is probably charged with a violation, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) which refers to US Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligation of the United States) It has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more.

Calculate his (or any) federal sentence here.

It drives me fucking NUTS when people think they understand the US court/justice system because they watch Law and Order.

While we're on the subject of the "law..."

Anyone ever hear of relevant conduct as the feds consider it? Basically it means that your custody can be affected by behavior for which the charges have been dismissed, or even charges for which you were acquitted.

I kid you not. Here's a true scenario:

A man gets caught with five grams of crack. (FIve year mandatory minimum in the feds, until the crack/powder disparity is corrected.) That's five years for about a sugar packet of rock. But when he is arrested,the cop says" hey you look like the guy that hosed down that McDonald's with an AK47, killing 35 schoolkids!"

Of course, you aren't, you go to trial, and after 30 seconds of deliberation, the jury acquits you of the mass murder charge. But you still go away for the crack.

Here's the kicker: when you go to prison, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) considers the murders "relevant conduct" and sends you to a very nasty pen, puts extreme violence on your record, and puts a Public Safety Factor on you, because of the "relevant conduct"...of which you were acquitted. Due process? Hah!!

Don't believe me?

Want the official Government position?

The US justice system is a fucking travesty, and unfortunately, you don't realize that till you're neck deep in it.

Be careful out there.

"Sentencing guidelines - which, by the way, are not mandatory"

Yes they are.

You can check out the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (effective as of November 1, 2006) if you'd like.

Long story short? Possessing less than 5 grams of crack is 8 years, cocaine is 6 years. Any more and you also get intent to distribute.

It all depends on what you mean by life, apparently. It used to be that a judges would set a range when handing down sentences, such as 25 to life or 50 to life. Meaning that a prisoner could serve 25 years and be let out on parole for good behavior, or if they did not behave themselves or make any progress as determined by the parole board, they could be in prison till they die.

However with the new push for truth in sentencing and get tough on crime politicizing, some states have adopted the life means life approach, where the only way out is in a pine box, while other have imposed sentences that are longer than a natural human life, sometime in excess of 200 years. Also in a fit of paradoxical euphoria, some prisoners have been sentenced to consecutive life sentences, leaving me to wonder how will they repay their debt to society?

More info can be found here and the federal sentencing guidelines that most judges use can be seen here.

If you work in management for a telco or a cableco, look for Federal indictments to come to your office before the decade is out.

Yes, because we all know that executives at large companies pay the ultimate price if they swindle the public. I know I'd be very worried given the punishment given in the highest profile example: Enron.

Enron - The Crime: A group that wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans. The Punishment: Lay: No punishment. He had the nerve to die first. Skilling: 24 years, 4 months of prison. Fastow: 6 years. Causey: 5 1/2 years, he will also have to serve two years' probation and pay a $25,000 fine that will be distributed to Enron's victims. Several other executives are serving prison terms of between 18 months and five years.

Skilling was the only one that recieved any kind of major punishment. Now, take a look at the sentencing statistics for the 5th Circuit Court (the court in which Skilling's trial occurred). If you look on page 14, you'll notice the mean number of months people get for fraud nationally (21.3) and in the 5th circuit (24.2) and the medians are significantly lower.

So, the lesson here is that unless it is a high profile case, you are looking at two years or less. Even in high profile cases such as Enron, most people involved will get less than 5 years. Do you think FTTH is really be a high profile case - given most people don't even understand what it means?

More to the point, if you are a c-level executive making millions once your total compensation is calculated, do you think you are really going to worry about a 2 year prison sentence? Also consider that c-level executives tend not to stay at any particular company for long, giving most executives plausible denyability that any fraud was their fault. I don't think this is something that is keeping these folks up at night.

They already did. They are called sentencing guidelines. E.g. The US Sentencing Guidelines (See http://www.ussc.gov/), as well as sentencing guidelines for various states, e.g. Washington.

However, they were largely declared unconstitutional. Not because the "determinative" sentencing was inherently unconstitutional, but rather they required judges to make certain factual determinations to input as parameters into the sentencing equation that largely determined the length of the setnence, instead of juries who are constitutionally dedicated the role of fact-finder (unless waived) under the 6h Amendment. See Blakely v. Washington, US v. Booker & US v. Fanfan.

Acording to http://www.spr.org/ 1 in 5 men and 1 in 4 women are raped while in prision.

I went and looked up the Federal Sentencing Guidelines http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/tabcon04_1.htm Turns out, for a raping another prisioner or even a correctional officer raping prision you get 32 points. (FYI: each crime is weighted on a point scale. Each crime has a base point and then you can get "extra credit" to increase the points based on the actual details of the crime.) If you are first time offendor serving a time for a pervious crime, then you're looking at between 11 and 13 years for a prision rape. If you are serious offendor, then plan somewhere in the neighborhood of about 22 years for raping someone. Federal law, btw, makes prision rape a federal crime.

While everyone is being brutal about the GP for saying that you get 20 years for doing prision rape, according to the sentencing guidelines, which Federal Judges are bound to, then 20 years would sound right. That would be enough for anyone with the hope of getting out not to do it. Also, since it is a sex crime, then the prisioner upon release for committing prision rape would have to register as a sex offendor. Now the idiot that got his jollies on his cell mate won't be able to get a job because he'll be labeled a felon and a pervert.

And that is just on the federal level.

Well, lost potential revenues are one thing, LOSSES are another. And actually, it looks like the federal government redefined "loss" in re: fraud cases, here's the proposal (1998), see Appendix A: http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Lossdefn.pdf (pdf)

The fact of the matter is, though, that the MPAA can use LOSS when discussing these 'ghost' revenues, unless they are on their financial statements and disclosures.

They can claim they "LOST" sales. They can claim they "LOST" revenues. They can even claim that they "LOST $XXX,XXX,XXX in revenues according totheir calculations. They cannot claim they realized a financial LOSS though, unless they did.

The problem is not how they use loss -- the problem is that many people don't understand the difference between financial loss and whatever mumbo-jumbo the **AA are spewing.

Although, semantically, it would be nice if those of us in the know fdid not refer to their phantom revenues as "LOSS" though, since it is a matter of public perception.

No, but posting informative comments peppered with sarcasm might. For instance, did you know a law can be created without discussion these days in America? I certainly didn't. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) has been amended, without published notice of proposed amendments, under the authority of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. If anyone can navigate that maze of spagetti code to see how these new amendments apply, I'm sure you'll find sharing BMG's latest offerings an offense punishable by death. What next? Taxation without representation?

Actually, judges have even more leeway now in certain cases because of recent Supreme Court rulings which make previous guidelines merely advisory. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/national/18sente ncing.html Besides, I think my friend has moved out of the country, so the point is moot :-)

Wrong...this is not a state case, its federal. He will receive a nice chunk of the 15 years. Read the Federal Sentencing Guidlines. Judges usually and typically do not depart due to potential career ramifications. It has been done...but its not usual. However, if a judge truely believes that 15 years is excessive (and hopefully he/she will), they will depart. Cross your fingers for this kid.

What is amazing to see is this kid is facing the possibility of doing more time than your average homicide, rape or sexual assault criminal. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference System (NCJRS), the following sentences are listed as the average:

• Homicide: Average sentence = 149 months.
• Rape: Average sentence = 117 months.
• Kidnapping: Average sentence = 104 months.
• Robbery: Average sentence = 95 months.
• Sexual assault: Average sentence = 72 months.
• Assault: Average sentence = 61 months.

Make note this potential sentence exceeds the averages for violent crime, and exceeds the time given by the Department Of Justice to Andrew Fastow, the CFO of Enron convicted of bilking millions of dollars from employees and investors. This poor kid is looking at 180 months. We have a problem with our criminal justice system.

Yah, that's probbably pretty accurate. His sentence seems to be within the federal sentencing guidelines for criminal trespass. Check it out here
The sentence seems a bit much considering the intent of the crime (stupid attempt at finding DL/UL site), but not really unduly harsh.

Right. I was trying to emphasize the fact that the drug war isn't working. If the price of drugs is not increasing all the time, clearly the drug war, in it's current state, isn't working. So treatment and decriminalization are strategies that I think should be pursued, but I'm still not ready for there to be heroin at the local drugstore.

This report contains some pricing information:
http://www.ussc.gov/crack/CHAP4.HTM

The 5 year and 3 year sentences are maximums set by Congress. A while back, Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission and laws that bound what a judge may do in a given case, based on the Commission's Guidelines. So, although a crime may be a 5 year felony, a judge can only sentence someone to 5 years if he meets the criteria set in the guidelines.

Congress was actually interested in pushing sentences up, because it wanted to appear tough on crime. Therefore, at the same time, it abolished parole for federal crimes. There is no parole for federal offenses, only a small amount of time off for good behavior, calculated through a formula.

The Guidelines end up working like Dungeon & Dragons. The crime has a base offense level, say 6. Then there are "enhancements" for various kinds of conduct. So, if you're caught (somehow) and used an innocent person's computer, you could get +4. If you use the word viagra, +1; if you misspell viagra, +2, etc. [Like, I'm wearing my leather armor, but my armor class is improved by 2 for my dexterity and 4 for my magic ring] See The Fraud Guidlines

A defendant also has a criminal history score, based on how many times he's been convicted before.

There's a table in the guidelines that cross-references offense level and criminal history to give a sentencing range in months. With a criminal history of I (they use roman numerals for the criminal history), you need an offense level of at least 11 to be certain of any actual jail time (because zone B sentences allow a convict to do "home detention"). See The Sentencing Table.

The thing is, I can't find what exactly the Commission has sent to Congress, i.e., the proposed offense levels and enhancements, so its hard to tell what the Commission has actually come up with. From what I can tell, they have decided to incorporate this offense into the the fraud guidelines. (according to this ZDnet story). The fraud guidelines are based on the amount lost and are notoriously squishy--because it is difficult to estimate exactly how much a given scheme cost.

The 5 year and 3 year sentences are maximums set by Congress. A while back, Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission and laws that bound what a judge may do in a given case, based on the Commission's Guidelines. So, although a crime may be a 5 year felony, a judge can only sentence someone to 5 years if he meets the criteria set in the guidelines.

Congress was actually interested in pushing sentences up, because it wanted to appear tough on crime. Therefore, at the same time, it abolished parole for federal crimes. There is no parole for federal offenses, only a small amount of time off for good behavior, calculated through a formula.

The Guidelines end up working like Dungeon & Dragons. The crime has a base offense level, say 6. Then there are "enhancements" for various kinds of conduct. So, if you're caught (somehow) and used an innocent person's computer, you could get +4. If you use the word viagra, +1; if you misspell viagra, +2, etc. [Like, I'm wearing my leather armor, but my armor class is improved by 2 for my dexterity and 4 for my magic ring] See The Fraud Guidlines

A defendant also has a criminal history score, based on how many times he's been convicted before.

There's a table in the guidelines that cross-references offense level and criminal history to give a sentencing range in months. With a criminal history of I (they use roman numerals for the criminal history), you need an offense level of at least 11 to be certain of any actual jail time (because zone B sentences allow a convict to do "home detention"). See The Sentencing Table.

The thing is, I can't find what exactly the Commission has sent to Congress, i.e., the proposed offense levels and enhancements, so its hard to tell what the Commission has actually come up with. From what I can tell, they have decided to incorporate this offense into the the fraud guidelines. (according to this ZDnet story). The fraud guidelines are based on the amount lost and are notoriously squishy--because it is difficult to estimate exactly how much a given scheme cost.

IIRC, these guidelines are set by Congress with input from the United States Sentencing Commission. More info about them here [PDF].

One of the criticisms of the guidelines has been that they offer little flexibility for federal judges when doling out criminal punishment. That's why organizations like this exist. Reform of the laws must be done through Congress - so if you don't like them, write your Senator/Senatrix and Congressperson...

Similar criticisms have been made of the sentencing guidelines with respect to fraud and abuse cases in healthcare, where the scienter bar can often be very low.

IIRC, these guidelines are set by Congress with input from the United States Sentencing Commission. More info about them here [PDF].

One of the criticisms of the guidelines has been that they offer little flexibility for federal judges when doling out criminal punishment. That's why organizations like this exist. Reform of the laws must be done through Congress - so if you don't like them, write your Senator/Senatrix and Congressperson...

Similar criticisms have been made of the sentencing guidelines with respect to fraud and abuse cases in healthcare, where the scienter bar can often be very low.

The PDA version of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Know the time before you do the crime!

Sentencing Guidelines

The poor bloke who decided to revolutionize satellite television could have easily seen with the 2003 updates (not yet available on PDA) that he was threatening the "economic security" of the nation and that he'd be in for some serious smackdown if he kept working on his project.

As the average citizen is beholden to well over 2,000,000 (that's right, two million) laws, the PDA of the future will need massive storage and Google for Legal Documents (too bad "law" is not yet supported as a foreign language).

With all sorts of levels and modifiers, it will become a new game just to figure out what kind of penalty you may be facing for a particular crime.

Future versions of the guidelines will be far more interactive, allowing you to choose the modifiers you want. In the current guidelines, "body armor" moves you way up in the points total.

And at long last, there will be a neutral arbitrator for gangs who are trying to determine the magnitude of a particular crime so that the pecking order in the gang can be set right. The new gold and ice "bling bling" version of the PocketPC (Microsoft is more compatible with gang violence than Palm) will be heavily marketed to gang leaders -- no more intra-gang fights... have the information to be the boss... keep your crew healthy and strong... the real fight is outside, not inside.

Finally, for all people, there it will be, in the palm of your hand, in black and white and living color, the word of The Man.

There was a short article on SecurityFocus a few weeks ago... US lawmakers are requesting input from the community regarding "hacker" sentencing. Hopefully the deadline for submissions hasn't passed yet:

online.securityfocus.com/news/2028

Guidelines here:

www.ussc.gov/FEDREG/fedr1202.htm

Your sentiment is pleasantly honest and common to most people, though maybe not consciously or quite as extreme (for example, to be drawn and quartered after hanging is unnecessary :).

"The punishment should fit the crime." Equally important, someone neutral (not indifferent) should pick the punishment.

*

However, few are aware that the federal judge actually has extremely little discretion in sentencing. In a nonviolent crime against strangers such as destructive hacking, setting aside criminal history, the amount of the losses essentially determines the sentence. Said damages are notoriously difficult to estimate and easy to inflate, as in the cases of Kevin Mitnick or Robert Morris, who were clearly culpable, but for what? State courts remain more flexible, but with the growth of federal law and the wire fraud aspect of computer crime, more cases are swept into federal court where the sentences are typically heavier.

Current federal sentencing guidelines, dating from Reagan era reforms designed to crack down on crime by constraining "soft" judges, and created by the Sentencing Commission, are purposefully wooden and mathematical in their determination of sentences. You literally add and subtract points based on different factors, then consult a chart to find the mandatory sentencing range. (In some cases, I think a minority, defendants do benefit from protection from excessively harsh sentences.) In certain drug cases, mere grams of a substance such as crack can add years to your sentence

At sentencing, the judge is given a presentencing report recommending a sentence plus or minus, say, 5% of a given fine or imprisonment or probation, a range from which it is very difficult to depart without breaking the law. What effectively happens -- and I hope this was foreseen -- is that sentencing authority is passed to prosecutor, whose decisions as to which offenses to charge or to drop, and amenability to plea agreements, set the outcome. If you believe the sentence unfair, it is the prosecutor or Congress, author of the ill-conceived guidelines, that needs influencing. The Guidelines long ago survived constitutional challenege.

I can tell you firsthand that many federal judges don't like the Guidelines, but if they depart from the prescribed sentences they are reversed on appeal.

Your sentiment is pleasantly honest and common to most people, though maybe not consciously or quite as extreme (for example, to be drawn and quartered after hanging is unnecessary :).

"The punishment should fit the crime." Equally important, someone neutral (not indifferent) should pick the punishment.

*

However, few are aware that the federal judge actually has extremely little discretion in sentencing. In a nonviolent crime against strangers such as destructive hacking, setting aside criminal history, the amount of the losses essentially determines the sentence. Said damages are notoriously difficult to estimate and easy to inflate, as in the cases of Kevin Mitnick or Robert Morris, who were clearly culpable, but for what? State courts remain more flexible, but with the growth of federal law and the wire fraud aspect of computer crime, more cases are swept into federal court where the sentences are typically heavier.

Current federal sentencing guidelines, dating from Reagan era reforms designed to crack down on crime by constraining "soft" judges, and created by the Sentencing Commission, are purposefully wooden and mathematical in their determination of sentences. You literally add and subtract points based on different factors, then consult a chart to find the mandatory sentencing range. (In some cases, I think a minority, defendants do benefit from protection from excessively harsh sentences.) In certain drug cases, mere grams of a substance such as crack can add years to your sentence

At sentencing, the judge is given a presentencing report recommending a sentence plus or minus, say, 5% of a given fine or imprisonment or probation, a range from which it is very difficult to depart without breaking the law. What effectively happens -- and I hope this was foreseen -- is that sentencing authority is passed to prosecutor, whose decisions as to which offenses to charge or to drop, and amenability to plea agreements, set the outcome. If you believe the sentence unfair, it is the prosecutor or Congress, author of the ill-conceived guidelines, that needs influencing. The Guidelines long ago survived constitutional challenege.

I can tell you firsthand that many federal judges don't like the Guidelines, but if they depart from the prescribed sentences they are reversed on appeal.

Your sentiment is pleasantly honest and common to most people, though maybe not consciously or quite as extreme (for example, to be drawn and quartered after hanging is unnecessary :).

"The punishment should fit the crime." Equally important, someone neutral (not indifferent) should pick the punishment.

*

However, few are aware that the federal judge actually has extremely little discretion in sentencing. In a nonviolent crime against strangers such as destructive hacking, setting aside criminal history, the amount of the losses essentially determines the sentence. Said damages are notoriously difficult to estimate and easy to inflate, as in the cases of Kevin Mitnick or Robert Morris, who were clearly culpable, but for what? State courts remain more flexible, but with the growth of federal law and the wire fraud aspect of computer crime, more cases are swept into federal court where the sentences are typically heavier.

Current federal sentencing guidelines, dating from Reagan era reforms designed to crack down on crime by constraining "soft" judges, and created by the Sentencing Commission, are purposefully wooden and mathematical in their determination of sentences. You literally add and subtract points based on different factors, then consult a chart to find the mandatory sentencing range. (In some cases, I think a minority, defendants do benefit from protection from excessively harsh sentences.) In certain drug cases, mere grams of a substance such as crack can add years to your sentence

At sentencing, the judge is given a presentencing report recommending a sentence plus or minus, say, 5% of a given fine or imprisonment or probation, a range from which it is very difficult to depart without breaking the law. What effectively happens -- and I hope this was foreseen -- is that sentencing authority is passed to prosecutor, whose decisions as to which offenses to charge or to drop, and amenability to plea agreements, set the outcome. If you believe the sentence unfair, it is the prosecutor or Congress, author of the ill-conceived guidelines, that needs influencing. The Guidelines long ago survived constitutional challenege.

I can tell you firsthand that many federal judges don't like the Guidelines, but if they depart from the prescribed sentences they are reversed on appeal.

Your sentiment is pleasantly honest and common to most people, though maybe not consciously or quite as extreme (for example, to be drawn and quartered after hanging is unnecessary :).

"The punishment should fit the crime." Equally important, someone neutral (not indifferent) should pick the punishment.

*

However, few are aware that the federal judge actually has extremely little discretion in sentencing. In a nonviolent crime against strangers such as destructive hacking, setting aside criminal history, the amount of the losses essentially determines the sentence. Said damages are notoriously difficult to estimate and easy to inflate, as in the cases of Kevin Mitnick or Robert Morris, who were clearly culpable, but for what? State courts remain more flexible, but with the growth of federal law and the wire fraud aspect of computer crime, more cases are swept into federal court where the sentences are typically heavier.

Current federal sentencing guidelines, dating from Reagan era reforms designed to crack down on crime by constraining "soft" judges, and created by the Sentencing Commission, are purposefully wooden and mathematical in their determination of sentences. You literally add and subtract points based on different factors, then consult a chart to find the mandatory sentencing range. (In some cases, I think a minority, defendants do benefit from protection from excessively harsh sentences.) In certain drug cases, mere grams of a substance such as crack can add years to your sentence

At sentencing, the judge is given a presentencing report recommending a sentence plus or minus, say, 5% of a given fine or imprisonment or probation, a range from which it is very difficult to depart without breaking the law. What effectively happens -- and I hope this was foreseen -- is that sentencing authority is passed to prosecutor, whose decisions as to which offenses to charge or to drop, and amenability to plea agreements, set the outcome. If you believe the sentence unfair, it is the prosecutor or Congress, author of the ill-conceived guidelines, that needs influencing. The Guidelines long ago survived constitutional challenege.

I can tell you firsthand that many federal judges don't like the Guidelines, but if they depart from the prescribed sentences they are reversed on appeal.

It's a pretty neat system, but I'd argue with the results.

Average sentence lengths for 1997
Sexual abuse was 68.4 months. Unsurprisingly anti-trust was only 4.8 months.

It's interesting though that his sentence is higher than the mean sentence for Manslaughter, Assault, Burglary/B&E, Auto Theft, Fraud, Embezzlement, Counterfeiting, Bribery, Civil Rights Violations, and a few others.

In 1997 in any case. From a publication of the United States Sentencing Commission.

• To compare video games to things that are really addictive like smoking or crack is silly

Especially as crack cocaine isn't physiologically addicting. Don't take my word for it, ask Uncle Sam.

Actually, you've just provided a very useful demonstration of how easy it is to demonise a substance (or activity) by popular and sustained propaganda, when the problem is binge abuse of it by sad people with no hope or life to start with. It's so tempting to cry "Can't something be done!"... and then take the easy way out by banning the substance or activity and pretending that this solves the problem with the person.

• Jay Parker, a chemical dependency counselor and co-founder of Internet/Computer Addiction Services [says] "The manufacturer of EverQuest purposely made it in such a way that it is more intriguing to the addict," Parker said. "It could be created in a less addictive way, but (that) would be the difference between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine." One client - a 21-year-old college student - stopped going to class within eight weeks after he started playing EverQuest his senior year. After playing the game for 36 hours straight, he had a psychotic break because of sleep deprivation, Parker said. "He thought the characters had come out of the game and were chasing him," Parker said. "He was running through his neighborhood having hallucinations. I can't think of a drug he could have taken where he would have disintegrated in 15 weeks."

Then Jay is a pretty ignorant chemical dependency councellor, because you can fuck yourself up in a lot fewer than 15 weeks by binge abuse of anything. The Government actually says that cocaine isn't actually that big a deal. The problem - as with any addiction - is binge abuse and the associated screwing up of your life and that of those around you. Yes kids, doing anything for 36 hours straight can fuck you up. Cocaine, alcohol, EverQuest, hacking, screwing, car mechanics, drinking water, praying.

At some point we have got to stop making arbitrary decisions to slap "good" and "bad" labels on various substances and activities. Because - with a few noticable exceptions - the problem is generally the abusive behaviour and not the substance or activity being abused.

OK, let's look at the cocaine analogy, because it keeps getting raked up. Cocaine (a non physiologically addicting substance, as used by the President of the United States) was used widely and legally for fifty years by perfectly ordinary average people, until a series of frenzied newspaper stories in the 1910's stirred up an irrational campaign to have it banned because of all the "Negro Cocaine Fiends" running around raping white women (the police also increased the standard caliber of their guns from .32 to .38 because "The cocaine nigger sure is hard to kill," if you want to know where that scene in Alien Nation came from). This, of course, does not form part of standard drug education in schools, because drugs are bad, and we can't give any context that might dilute that message, like "Drugs are bad (when abused by people with abusive personalities)".

Similarly, there is a very real danger of games going the same way. It only takes a few genuine and tragic reports of binge abuse to trigger a frenzy of supposition and speculation that leads to knee jerk legislation that will never, ever be taken off the books, because black markets and Wars on Whatever are great for incumbent governments looking for a long term unwinnable but popular crusade. Remember, circa 1900, the vast majority of the population enjoyed cocaine, in small, dilute quantities, just as now, the vast majority of the population enjoys playing games, computer or otherwise, with no ill effects. If we don't learn the lessons of the past, then in eighty years, we might be in a world where Disney games are the only legal ones and people gather in dirty back rooms to share virus ridden copies of Quake 13 in huge debilitating weekend binges. It's unthinkable? Ask anyone from 1900 about the possibility of cocaine being viewed as more dangerous than a rabid pit bull with a flick-knife, and they'd laugh in your face.

Let's have some consistency. If EverQuest really is dangerous when abused in binges by sad, desperate people with no life or hope, then let's ban it outright, because god knows that's worked in the War on Drugs, right? If not, legalise cocaine and put a warning on it to only buy approved, over the counter non-cut (virussed) versions, and not to binge abuse it, especially if you have a medical condition that makes you very succeptible (like epilepsy or schizophrenia with games).

And while we're at it, if I go on a 36 hour prayer binge and start having hallucinations, do we put a warning label on rosary beads? If not, why not? Because paranoid solipsistic visions are "good" when they feature commands from Baby Jesus, whereas the same messages coming from EverQuest Eric are "bad"? Hmmm.

I guess I shouldn't call bullshit without doing my research first, but interestingly, this story has some details:

In March [1999], Department of Justice computer crime chief Scott Charney regaled a gathering of bankers with the story of a 1997 hacker who crashed a telephone switch, resulting in the landing lights at a Massachusetts airport going black.

Regular readers of this column will recall my conversation with the airport administrator, who assured me that his runway lights never even flickered.

Another report adds :

In other words, the landing lights were not turned out, not least because it happened during the day. The Euro official's statement may not be complete bullshit as I claimed, but it's misleading at least. According to this piece on media hacking, the story is false. Yet this government site repeats the story and even claims that planes were diverted.

Whatever the truth of what really happened, there's clearly large dollops of myth in with the facts and it's no wonder my bullshit detector went off...

• Cocaine IS addicting. PERIOD.

Let me quote you a quote: "Unlike some drugs, cocaine is not physiologically addicting."

Where did I come up with this horrendous subversive lie? http://www.ussc.gov. Let's go on from the same source, shall we?

Examples of drugs that cause physiological dependence include:

• opiates (e.g., heroin, morphine, codeine, and methadone),
• barbiturates (e.g., phenobarbital, secobarbital),
• anxiolytics (e.g., diazepam, meprobromate),
• nicotine (e.g., tobacco products),
• caffeine (e.g., coffee and tea), and
• alcohol. Id.

Cocaine is psychologically addicting, as are most drugs. The big danger with cocaine is that it doesn't limit its intake by inducing nausea like alcohol, nicotine and caffiene, all of which are toxic. However, in dilute form, as in early Coca Cola recipies, the dosage is limited, just as caffiene in coffee is.

Even after having the distinction pointed out to you, you use binge abuse as evidence that the abused substance is inherently dangerous. Alcohol and aspirin are just as dangerous as cocaine when abused to the same degree. Caffiene or nicotine, taken in pure form, would kill you at lower dosages than cocaine.

Please try and understand that the problem isn't the drug, it's the binge abuse, a pattern that is dictated by the illegality. The illegality also causes the inflated cost, which encourages crime.

I accept that this is OT, but I'm happy to burn karma on this one.

...up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines.

Those are the statutory limits on a Class A federal felony. Yes, it is possible for a judge to impose that sentence, but if he did it would almost certainly be overturned.

Federal felonies are sentenced according to some fairly strict guidelines. There's a tidy little table with the offense level vs. the criminal history. You get the offense level from another table (dollar amount of the theft) here. There's also a table for fines. It's almost like playing a role-playing game, isn't it?

For a $40,000 to $70,000 theft, you get a base offense level of 11, which is 8-14 months and a $2,000 to $20,000 fine. If you take the usual plea deal, you drop two offense levels (4-10 months, $1,000-$10,000 fine) and should get the low end of the range. That's 4 months with probably no fine. You'd also pay restitution to the victim for the full amount of the theft. So you could be paying Metallica full price for every MP3 someone downloaded from you. People better hope Napster doesn't keep usage records.

...up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines.

Those are the statutory limits on a Class A federal felony. Yes, it is possible for a judge to impose that sentence, but if he did it would almost certainly be overturned.

Federal felonies are sentenced according to some fairly strict guidelines. There's a tidy little table with the offense level vs. the criminal history. You get the offense level from another table (dollar amount of the theft) here. There's also a table for fines. It's almost like playing a role-playing game, isn't it?

For a $40,000 to $70,000 theft, you get a base offense level of 11, which is 8-14 months and a $2,000 to $20,000 fine. If you take the usual plea deal, you drop two offense levels (4-10 months, $1,000-$10,000 fine) and should get the low end of the range. That's 4 months with probably no fine. You'd also pay restitution to the victim for the full amount of the theft. So you could be paying Metallica full price for every MP3 someone downloaded from you. People better hope Napster doesn't keep usage records.

...up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines.

Those are the statutory limits on a Class A federal felony. Yes, it is possible for a judge to impose that sentence, but if he did it would almost certainly be overturned.

Federal felonies are sentenced according to some fairly strict guidelines. There's a tidy little table with the offense level vs. the criminal history. You get the offense level from another table (dollar amount of the theft) here. There's also a table for fines. It's almost like playing a role-playing game, isn't it?

For a $40,000 to $70,000 theft, you get a base offense level of 11, which is 8-14 months and a $2,000 to $20,000 fine. If you take the usual plea deal, you drop two offense levels (4-10 months, $1,000-$10,000 fine) and should get the low end of the range. That's 4 months with probably no fine. You'd also pay restitution to the victim for the full amount of the theft. So you could be paying Metallica full price for every MP3 someone downloaded from you. People better hope Napster doesn't keep usage records.

...up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines.

Those are the statutory limits on a Class A federal felony. Yes, it is possible for a judge to impose that sentence, but if he did it would almost certainly be overturned.

Federal felonies are sentenced according to some fairly strict guidelines. There's a tidy little table with the offense level vs. the criminal history. You get the offense level from another table (dollar amount of the theft) here. There's also a table for fines. It's almost like playing a role-playing game, isn't it?

For a $40,000 to $70,000 theft, you get a base offense level of 11, which is 8-14 months and a $2,000 to $20,000 fine. If you take the usual plea deal, you drop two offense levels (4-10 months, $1,000-$10,000 fine) and should get the low end of the range. That's 4 months with probably no fine. You'd also pay restitution to the victim for the full amount of the theft. So you could be paying Metallica full price for every MP3 someone downloaded from you. People better hope Napster doesn't keep usage records.

On what basis do you claim that corporations are "exempt from most criminal law"? There is an entire section of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that addresses sentencing of corporations and other institutional defendants under the federal criminal code. Nor am I aware that any state exempts corporations from its criminal laws.