Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Threatened With 44 Felony Charges Escapes With Misdemeanor
An anonymous reader writes: It's no secret that prosecutors usually throw every charge they can at an alleged criminal, but the case of Aaron Swartz brought to light how poorly-written computer abuse laws lend themselves to this practice. Now, another perfect example has resolved itself: a hacker with ties to Anonymous was recently threatened with 44 felony counts of computer fraud and cyberstalking, each with its own 10-year maximum sentence. If the charges stuck, the man was facing multiple lifetimes worth of imprisonment.
But, of course, they didn't. Prosecutors struck a deal to get him to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge, which carried only a $10,000 fine. The man's attorney, Tor Eklund, said, "The more I looked at this, the more it seemed like an archetypal example of the Department of Justice's prosecutorial abuse when it comes to computer crime. It shows how aggressive they are, and how they seek to destroy your reputation in the press even when the charges are complete, fricking garbage."
But, of course, they didn't. Prosecutors struck a deal to get him to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge, which carried only a $10,000 fine. The man's attorney, Tor Eklund, said, "The more I looked at this, the more it seemed like an archetypal example of the Department of Justice's prosecutorial abuse when it comes to computer crime. It shows how aggressive they are, and how they seek to destroy your reputation in the press even when the charges are complete, fricking garbage."
Prosecutors are no longer interested in evenly applying the law in a sane manner.
They're interested in high profile retribution which is intended to send a message which says "don't mess with us, or we'll do this to you".
And, somehow, at the CEO level when there's massive fraud and malfeasance ... absolutely nothing happens.
Because the justice system is dependent on how much money is in your bank account, and who your friends are.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
They wouldn't be doing it, if they — the prosecuting agency(ies) — faced non-trivial monetary loss for every charge, that did not hold up in court...
To keep it harder for entities — both private and governmental — with large legal budgets to initiate frivolous proceedings, the loser must pay winner. There is no such thing currently and even winning a suit can leave one with thousands of dollars in debt. It must become automatic and not require a separate lawsuit by the winner to recoup his legal costs.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This. The "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks so we can negotiate a plea bargain to avoid a real trial" methods of prosecutors in what passes for the modern criminal justice system is just sickening.
Remind me to stay the hell out of that area. I'm a serial criminal according to that fucked up legal system.
A career criminal and a member (actually one of the kingpins) of an international professional crime syndicate.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not just modern. This isn't anything new. Prosecutors don't want justice, they're evaluated based on % of convictions, not the % of accused people receiving fair treatment.
That's the whole point in throwing the boko at someone and then extracting a plea deal.
To get you to admit guilt, even if there is none, to aoid the possibility of spending a lifetime behind bars if you should lose an actual court case.
Our jails arent overstuffed because of trials and convictions, but because of plea deals.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Funny until you're the defendant
BRING BACK THE FUCKING TAGLINE: NEWS FOR NERDS, STUFF THAT MATTERS.
Also, FUCK BETA.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
AND FUCK FILTER ERRORS.