Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
So, how much did it work out *per spam*? A couple of seconds, if that? If "it takes a second" to hit delete, then that's a reasonable sentence for each spam.
It doesn't need to be said that you can get off with a lighter sentence for killing someone. This just goes to show that we're too quick to lock people in cages these days. Why not have them give back to the community or something constructive?
the amount and cost of the bandwidth they stole, nine years is about right.
12:50 - press return.
Well maybe the victims did deserve everything they got, but two wrongs do not make a right in America. (Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba)
Proportionality be damned. They're out for blood and need to make an example of him. What I have been wondering is why spammers even need to spend time in jail. Wouldn't a large fine be in order and serve the same purpose? Do we really need more non-violent criminals crowding up our jails and costing taxpayers even more money?
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Does the 9-year sentence reduce spam? Keep doubling the sentence until spam stops.
Spam isn't victimless, and it isn't done accidentally. It is professional crime, done on purpose and with pre-meditation.
As someone who has to deal with endless user complaints on the subject, I see nothing wrong with public executions for spammers. That way they won't take up valuable jail space.
Than you can for rape, or causing death by dangerous driving, etc, then there's something wrong with the justice system.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Rape is usually about 5-20 years, isn't it? I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.
The problem with our society is that we can't figure out a better way to punish people than to put them in jail for a decade or so and let them think about what they did. We're not quakers, for the love of God. Why can't we just:
1.) Take all the money paid to him for spamming,
2.) Fine the companies that paid him to spam, give as much of that money back to the gullible suckers as we can, and
3.) Give him 50 lashes and tell him he's not allowed to use email for 5 years.
The spammers in this case comitted many counts of fraud. If they'd been charged with that (which probably would have been a tougher case to make than proving they'd sent emails that hid their identity), they probably would have gotten a much longer sentence. Everyone, the spammers included, should be happy that the prosecuters decided to make an example of them for spamming instead of putting together a solid fraud case with a few thousand consecutive sentences.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Just goes to show the punishment for drunk driving, selling crack and rape are too lenient, not that the punishment for spam is too harsh.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
This a good example of why we probably don't need new laws. If they committed fraud then convict them of fraud, regardless of the mechanism. If they went phishing and stole money right out of accounts, then charge them accordingly. The sentences would then be more in line with expectations. However, one could argue that sentences are too short becuase they obviously aren't deterring enough. :-)
IANAL: Why do people think the different methods of committing a crime require different laws? Is murder by using a knife versus a crowbar defined and treated differently in the law books?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
It was pretty clear from the article that these guys were also guilty of fraud. They had a 30% chargeback rate and from the description of what was involved in the chargebacks, I'm surprised 30% were that persistent.
I'm curious why fraud charges weren't stacked on top of all this.
I'm not complaining. 9 years for spamming. I just hope this guy isn't the last. I really want to see them go after as many of these guys as they can. Going after 1 isn't much of a deterrant. Going after dozens could be. It's not like there are as many big-time spammers as there are file sharers. You don't have to get that many convictions to start scaring them.
sell crack [...] and serve far less (or even any) time
Unlike smoking crack, this crime actually had victims. Real, honest to jebus money-losing victims.
(Admittedly, very stupid victims who would probably have given up money for magic beans.)
Wasn't it obvious? People get charged with jaywalking, conspiracy to jaywalk, purchase of running shoes with intent to jaywalk, reckless jaywalking, disregarding traffic signals with intent to jaywalk, and end up pleading down to "just" a year.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." - Ayn Rand
Not that spammers don't deserve jail time, but realize that we're quickly approaching a stage where everyone is guilty of something.
I have no complaints about spammers selling dodgy things to gullible individuals. The only thing I complain about is them causing hassle to non-gullible individuals in the process. So I don't see the relevance of that argument.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
Damn right, but americans are too squeamish to
deliver 50 lashes.
Fines are unfair. They are nothing to the wealthy,
and the poor simply won't -- can't -- pay.
Jail is unfair. For the poor, it is free food and
housing. Oddly, the rich (see Martha Stewart) seem
to get off pretty easy too. The rich don't have
employment to worry about either.
It's always the middle class that suffers the most
from our current forms of punishment.
At least with lashes, you have to be one of a few
perverts to enjoy the punishment.
BTW, the rapist is kind of special. One could just
remove the offending body parts.
The defense lawyer did a REALLY shabby job. He said "they acted like shitheads only because they were trying to get rich fast"
So yes they got a harsh sentence but if I was a jurror you can bet that would have pushed my "for maximum punishment" trigger finger too.
If a rapist had the defense of "I raped her because I knew it would feel so fucking good" you can be assured they would get the death penalty (in a death penalty state).
While a harsh sentence, I feel no pitty for the defendants. Spam is/should be illegal and those that try to make it a bussiness model should pay dearly for thier actions (which includes paying for a good lawyer).
I miss the Karma Whores.
Yes, I want people who premeditate and execute attacks on millions of people's private property to fill up our prisons. (I'd prefer Abu Ghirab, but prison will do.) Make room by letting out the people convicted of victimless "crimes" (e.g. drug posession).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
With 10 seconds spent downloading and removing each spam message, a spammer having sent one billion messages will have imposed 300 years of wasted time and irritation to his victims. Compared to that, nine years is a very light sentence !
I see a lot of people saying things like "you do more time for rape and muder, so these sentences are disproportional". But the purpose of the criminal justice system is to try and make people comply with the law, not just to punish them for breaking it. Increasing the sentences for already serious crimes like rape and murder won't significantly affect the likelihood of people comitting those crimes, because of the nature of the crimes. On the other hand, if a crime like spamming is seen as a high-profit, low risk option (slap on the wrist and a fine), the law will be widely broken. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to impose hefty jailtime sentences to make sure spamming is not seen as a low-risk crime. Just my 2 cents.
Oh no... it's the future.
Everybody is arguing if 9 years is an appropriate punishment for spam. But remember, these guys are con-men! They were tricking people into giving them money for non-existent/faulty products! It's just like the Nigerian 419 scam, only it netted more people but for less money per victim.
To repeat, 9 year sentence isn't just for spam, but for conning thousands of naive morons out of their money. The jury wouldn't have awarded the same punishment to spam coming from a legitimate online dating service, so don't lump all spam together.
Crime is detered when criminals believe the chances are they will be caught.
This requires long term investment in the police forces.
Crime is not detered by heavy sentancing since if the criminal believes the chances are he will not be caught, the sentance is irrelevent.
Heavy sentancing however can be enacted instantly, by act of law, unlike long term investment in police forces (which is also, of course, expensive and has little immediate effect).
Over the decades, there has been a general failure to invest in police forces because of the cost and lack of immediacy and, due to the consequencial lack of decrease in crime, a general turning towards increasingly heavy sentancing.
This does not work. It also gradually leads to penalities become entirely disproportional to offence, leading to institutionalized injustice.
Such is the current state of affairs.
--
Toby
Just goes to show the punishment for drunk driving, selling crack and rape are too lenient, not that the punishment for spam is too harsh.
the USA already incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation in the world because of sentencing practices harsher than any other industrialized country. If prison actually prevented crime we should have a low crime rate, but no, we have more crime than any develpoed nation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
... is that this is not just unsolicited email, it is FRAUD.
If he was just sending unsolicited email advertising a real product that actually worked, then 9 years would indeed be too harsh. Creating an annoyance, even to many people, should not be punished more harshly than some murders and rapes.
But, he deliberately worked to deceive people in order to steal their money by selling a product that didn't work and that he knew didn't work. This is theft, and when done on such a grand scale ($400K - $700K per month), deserves to be so harshly punished. It could be argued that this is too light, considering the several year sentences typical for car theft.
I'd also be inclined to punish him for stupidity. Having raked in several million dollars in a few months, he should have been long gone sunning himself on a beach in Brazil under a new identity, not sitting around waiting to be busted.
Bullshit. Prison as "rehabilitation" is a relatively recent concept and still unproven. For that matter prison itself is a relatively recent concept - through most of human history somebody who commited a serious crime was either executed or enslaved. There was no third choice.
.... The state comes in and says it, alone, can revenge serious crimes. It sounds brutal but it's actually a stablizing factor as long as the criminal justice system is trusted.
Historically, punishment has been done for two reasons simultaneously. The first is to end the cycle of revenge - if you kill my brother I'll kill you and your cousin will kill me and
The second reason is to act as a big cautionary tale to others thinking of doing the same thing. Money (fines) is just money and suitable for small crimes (misdemeanors), but serious prison time will make others think twice about what they're doing.
Is spamming really a serious crime? I haven't RTFA but I haven't seen spam from a legitimate but clueless company in years. Everything I see is a form of fraud. Some of it is just this side of legal (a "genuinue faux imitation Rolex" is not advertised as a real Rolex), most of it is not. We lock up the guy who hustles hundreds of people on the street corner, so damn straight we can lock up the guy who's hustling millions of people online.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Are we actually to believe your boss makes 100 million people wait through meetings. NO. JUST YOU AND YOU ARE GETTING PAID FOR YUOR TIME. What he is talking about is the collective drain by spammers on society.
ONE SINGLE SPAMMER IN PURSUIT OF $200-$300 COSTS UPWARD OF $100,000 IN LOST TIME AND PRODUCTIVITY.
Life is finite, and I do not need to waste even one second to hear your pitches for third-world vigra or lame-ass fake rolex watches.
There may have been a revenge factor involved. When one picks a jury to try a crime the defense tries very hard to, among other things, make sure that the actual crime victims are not on the jury. Because of the pervasive natureof spam this may not have been possible unless one found the last 12 people in the US who simply do not use the internet. Was this tried to a jury and were the jury members internet users? It might have had a major effect on the trial.
Please do not take any action against these people. Criminals have a right to legal representation. Would you murder a lawyer who represented a murderer? Didn't think so. Why would you therefore spam a lawyer who represented a spammer?