7 ms·

I also find the sentence Aaron faced to be excessive. For additional context, David Headley received a 35 year sentence for his active participation in the Mum

by rscale 13y ago

I also find the sentence Aaron faced to be excessive. For additional context, David Headley received a 35 year sentence for his active participation in the Mumbai bombings which killed 160 people.[1] The median sentence for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the US (effective 2000) is 24 years, 3 months.[2] I can't help but find Aaron's prospective punishment to be far more abhorrent than his crimes. It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. [1]: http://www.propublica.org/article/david-headley-homegrown-terrorist http://www.propublica.org/article/david-headley-homegrown-te... [2]: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt

rayiner 13y ago
There is no sensible way in the U.S. to talk about a sentence without reference to the Sentencing Guidelines. Any number not based on the guidelines is effectively fiction. If he got more than the one or two years guideline range they would be in danger of being overturned on appeal. That's still excessive of course. The CFAA is a misdemeanor, and the provision allowing it to be enhanced to a felony in conjunction with another crime is misguided.
pdonis 13y ago
It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. I don't think this is a fair description; it would be fairer to say that MIT failed to use its influence in a helpful manner. (Even then I'm not sure it would have made a difference; it seems to me that the prosecutors were intent on "getting" Swartz and weren't listening to reasonable arguments for backing off.)
- Jormundir 13y ago
  Whether it would have made a difference or not, the institution had the chance to act for what was right, and they did not.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    True, but that's failing to use its influence helpfully; it's not the same as using influence hurtfully.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      No, in this case it's the same. MIT is not average Joe, it's one of the top Universities in the world. I believe people on the board understand repercussions of taking and not taking action and the responsibility that comes along and if they don't they are not suited for the position.
      - simpleigh 13y ago
        I've always thought it a nice feature of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (bear with me here...) that the general confession covers "those things which we ought to have done" before mentioning "those things which we ought not to have done". All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
        pdonis 13y ago
        All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. That still doesn't make doing nothing identical to doing something. You may consider them morally equivalent, but that doesn't make them identical. My point was about how to correctly describe what MIT did. If we start muddying our language because, oh, well, it's all morally equivalent anyway so it doesn't matter how we describe it, we end up not being able to think clearly. And if we can't think clearly, we can't tell good from evil, so we end up doing even more evil.
        Ygg2 13y ago
        If you see a drowning man and do nothing you are guilty of inaction. In this case they knew what was happening and before issuing an informal warning went for the nuclear option.
- ajays 13y ago
  "Evil triumphs when good people do nothing"
  - pdonis 13y ago
    See my response to simpleigh upthread.
    - gress 13y ago
      So you want to avoid muddy language. Fine. Do you think MIT have any moral responsibility for what happened?
      - pdonis 13y ago
        Yes, but the prosecutors have a lot more. Using muddy language obfuscates that.
        gress 13y ago
        No more than pedantically shooting down slightly muddy comments about it does.
mathattack 13y ago
It is tough to comment on MIT, since there may be parts of their side of the story that we don't know. On the surface, it is hard to view 35 years as anything but excessive. It is certainly well above anything that fits the crime, and anything needed as a deterrent.

by rscale 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

There is no sensible way in the U.S. to talk about a sentence without reference to the Sentencing Guidelines. Any number not based on the guidelines is effectively fiction. If he got more than the one or two years guideline range they would be in danger of being overturned on appeal. That's still excessive of course. The CFAA is a misdemeanor, and the provision allowing it to be enhanced to a felony in conjunction with another crime is misguided.

pdonis 13y ago

It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. I don't think this is a fair description; it would be fairer to say that MIT failed to use its influence in a helpful manner. (Even then I'm not sure it would have made a difference; it seems to me that the prosecutors were intent on "getting" Swartz and weren't listening to reasonable arguments for backing off.)

Jormundir 13y ago
Whether it would have made a difference or not, the institution had the chance to act for what was right, and they did not.
- pdonis 13y ago
  True, but that's failing to use its influence helpfully; it's not the same as using influence hurtfully.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    No, in this case it's the same. MIT is not average Joe, it's one of the top Universities in the world. I believe people on the board understand repercussions of taking and not taking action and the responsibility that comes along and if they don't they are not suited for the position.
    - simpleigh 13y ago
      I've always thought it a nice feature of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (bear with me here...) that the general confession covers "those things which we ought to have done" before mentioning "those things which we ought not to have done". All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. That still doesn't make doing nothing identical to doing something. You may consider them morally equivalent, but that doesn't make them identical. My point was about how to correctly describe what MIT did. If we start muddying our language because, oh, well, it's all morally equivalent anyway so it doesn't matter how we describe it, we end up not being able to think clearly. And if we can't think clearly, we can't tell good from evil, so we end up doing even more evil.
        Ygg2 13y ago
        If you see a drowning man and do nothing you are guilty of inaction. In this case they knew what was happening and before issuing an informal warning went for the nuclear option.
ajays 13y ago
"Evil triumphs when good people do nothing"
- pdonis 13y ago
  See my response to simpleigh upthread.
  - gress 13y ago
    So you want to avoid muddy language. Fine. Do you think MIT have any moral responsibility for what happened?
    - pdonis 13y ago
      Yes, but the prosecutors have a lot more. Using muddy language obfuscates that.
      - gress 13y ago
        No more than pedantically shooting down slightly muddy comments about it does.

mathattack 13y ago

It is tough to comment on MIT, since there may be parts of their side of the story that we don't know. On the surface, it is hard to view 35 years as anything but excessive. It is certainly well above anything that fits the crime, and anything needed as a deterrent.