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."
But would YOU want to have a judge who can't operate his cellphone without an accident judge you on the base of laws written by people who don't have much more of a clue concerning the matter in a case where exactly these things play a key role? Supported by 12 douches whose primary concern is to get out of the whole mess as quickly as possible, no matter how.
You sure as hell take the deal, knowing that you have NO chance in hell to a fair trial.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How about not allowing prosecutors to change the charge depending on the plea bargain?
If the prosecutor thinks a person is guilty of X, don't allow them to accept a plea for Y. The most they should be able to offer is a recommendation to the judge of non-maximum sentence.
I don't know if I buy that prosecutors throw *everything* they can at you. I was charged with shoplifting once, and I didn't even get a public defender. Instead had to argue my case with the prosecutor directly, and she herself filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge approved. She said her goal was justice.
Just prior to that (I had to sit in the court room and watch her and other prosecutors argue their case against other defendants until it was my turn) I watched her tell the judge that she wasn't offering any kind of plea deal against the previous defendant and that she wanted to go to trial with him, which I'm guessing in his case she had some pretty clear cut evidence for conviction.
(I went home very relieved that day as I had just gotten done watching the BOOK getting THROWN at people by the judge for similar crimes just prior to the judge smiling at me and telling me my case had been dismissed and I may leave.)
I have been arrested mainly times in my life. I was a no good junkie who supported my habit by shoplifting. During my stupid 15 year drug addiction, I've gotten in to a lot of scrapes legally, some of which I wasn't guilty of, just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Most the shit I was guilty of.
The problem? Because I could no afford to pay bail, or get a decent lawyer, I was always stuck with public defenders. During probably 20 court trials, I have had only 1 good public defender that actually tried to get shit done, rest the time, they didn't give a fuck. And because I didn't want to stay in jail till trial (which would of been at least 6 months of jail time), I'd take guilty pleas so I'd end up staying in jail a week or so.
TL;DR I did bad shit, I went to jail for it. Because I was poor and couldn't ever bail out, I would of spent years in jail waiting on trials for crimes that don't ever carry more then a month in jail. So I plea bargained because otherwise I'd spend more time in jail trying to prove my freedom, then actually taking the guilty plea and time served.
Fucked up system.
Be seeing you...
If the charges stuck, the man was facing multiple lifetimes worth of imprisonment.
Bull****. Federal sentencing guidelines almost never ask for "fully stacked" sentences. Instead, you wind up with X months for the "top count" and a significant "discount" of additional time for each additional count that is either proven or conceded. For a single count, the maximum sentence is almost never handed out unless there are other factors in play. So let's say this guy did admit to all 44 charges and accept a guilty plea on all 44 counts, and that there were no other factors that counted for or against him under the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines would probably recommend that he get a few years for the first count, a year or two more for each of counts 2 and 3, and a month or two for each additional count, likely resulting in a sentence in the 10-15 year range.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.