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.
*sigh* as always, we have this and that said, no citation. Anyone got a LINK to what he actually DID (excuse me, what he was accused of specifically)
Not sure of full details, but I got this much:
18 counts of cyberstalking: filling out a public contact form on the "victim's" website with junk text.
15 counts violating Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: scanning sites for vulnerabilities using commercial available scanning tools.
Not sure what the other 11 counts were.
The only charge he pled guilty to was a violation of the CFAA, downgraded to a misdemeanor, for trying to log in to the Hidalgo County website server 14,000 times, causing a slowdown that prompted them to hire specialists.
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.
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.
Funny until you're the defendant
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.
That systems exists in a lot of European courts. It is very bad because in that situation the defendant almost never has a reason to cooperate. At best they plead no contest. Since you never get a full confession you have no check on whether people did the crime.
But in the current US system you get confessions in about 10% of the cases where we know that people were actually innocent (the innocence project tracks this).
We don't have plea bargains in Sweden and on balance I can't say I look forward to having them. If they were ever introduced I think they should be capped at (say) max 10% or 15% or some such. I.e. none of that "I'm seeking 99 years in prison, but I'll settle for six months" as is currently not uncommon with US prosecutors. By stopping the prosecutor from lowering the sought penalty more than a reasonable percentage, you could balance the system to where it would be both worth to cooperate, but also not possible for the prosecutor to extort the defendant by skewing the risk/reward calculation to the extent that is common today.
P.S. And of course, in Sweden, if the state prosecutes you, they pay for your defence (i.e. the lawyer of your choice, reimbursed at a proper rate), and prosecutors are appointed, not elected. Last place I want a bloody politician...
Stefan Axelsson