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

Re:Spam equivalent to rape?

[Kombat]

I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.

The sentence wasn't just for spamming. Think of it as a fraud case, not a spam case. The guy was sending his own fraudulent emails, taking peoples' money, and not delivering.

Why can't we just:

1.) Take all the money paid to him for spamming,

Because much of it may be already spent on things you can't get back (traveling, gambling, fancy hotel rooms, meals, liquor), or hidden away in offshore accounts. You can never conclusively determine exactly how much money he scammed off of people.

2.) Fine the companies that paid him to spam,

Because as I said, he wasn't spamming for anyone but himself. He was spamming his own porno websites, and his own fraudulent "get rich quick" scams.

3.) Give him 50 lashes and tell him he's not allowed to use email for 5 years.

Think of him in the same league as the Enron/Worldcom/Tyco/Bre-X execs that defrauded shareholders out of millions of dollars. He's not some little two-bit spammer, he's a fraudster, seeking to routinely rip-off unsuspecting consumers. 9 years is what he deserves, and I hope he serves every last day of it in some federal, PMITA-prison, with no parole.