Defending Harsh Sentences for Spammers

BMcWilliams writes "Russell McGuire, one of the government lawyers who prosecuted spammer Jeremy Jaynes, has published an article justifying the tough sentence recommended by a Virginia jury. He writes, 'the defense attorney argued that greed cuts both ways and the victims got what they deserved because they were trying to get rich quick. Needless to say, this did not go over well with the jury.' Still, the eye-popping 9-year sentence has even some ardent anti-spammers wondering whether 'proportionality is becoming a completely forgotten concept.'"

Comments

Death sentence?

[dauthur]

I think they should associate death sentences with spamming. It would definitely help keep those "Buy cheap vi.a.gra now!" emails out of my spam box. Even though they're in my spambox, they're still irritating. Death to spammers and trolls alike (they're on the same page)

Kill them all, I say.

[Kyokugenryu]

I'm not happy until they're hung and quartered.

Re:Punishment fitting the crime?

[ocmeking]

Yes, the violent criminals need new sex-toys to play with or there will be more prison riots. Sounds like a good way for spammers to contribute to society via the rehabilitation of hardened felons.

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the UK, and one area where I admire the US is tougher sentances and things like the three strikes rule. Even if it doesn't deter crime, sentences are also about punishment (that thing you do to the guilty) and show society these people have been punished.

You look at the three-strikes rule, which means that someone can get twenty years without parole for stealing a pizza, and you say "we need that over here"? Fuck you. Please - emigrate. We don't want idiots like you here.