It's not, and they don't. For non-heinous crimes (i.e., crimes that aren't rape or murder) prosecutors threaten the maximum sentence for the "worst" crime charged, and only that number, because any competent defense attorney would immediately let their client know that sentences wouldn't be served consecutively. This is true in most, but not all states as well. (For heinous crimes, the consecutive sentences don't matter; the defendant has already received a life sentence and the additional years are meaningless.)
This is also a legal ethics issue, since a prosecutor who fraudulently claims a higher maximum penalty during plea bargaining can be suspended or disbarred. Cops can lie to you--prosecutor's can't. They have sworn an oath (to the bar) to be honest in their legal representations. Prosecutors have been sanctioned, suspended, and even disbarred for being dishonest about sentencing because such dishonesty indicates moral turpitude that likely extends into other facets of their legal work.
It's the media that throws around the 100-year numbers by adding together all of the potential individual sentences. It turns out that journalists aren't very good at understanding technology, science, or the law.
By all indication anything relating to computers, hacking or security research is considered one of the "worst" crimes in the USA.
Hackers seem to be getting longer sentences then career criminals these days.
"When it comes to computers we must punish severely because it's magical and we don't understand it." is the view all non IT literate politicians and lawyers seem to have.
Yeah, sorry to be 'that guy', but if there ever was a case of 'citation needed', this is it. Please don't get caught up in the bubble of HN/Reddit legal reporting, as it is all very myopic and biased, and a lot of it is plain wrong. Getting your information on legal issues from HN/Reddit is like getting your information on jews from Stormfront.
That's exactly my point - two cases that made the front page on two nerd sites doesn't substantiate the claim that
"By all indication anything relating to computers, hacking or security research is considered one of the "worst" crimes in the USA. Hackers seem to be getting longer sentences then career criminals these days."
The mere fact that there are just two such cases, and that everybody recites the same two cases when making such gross exaggerations as the one above, reinforces my point about living in an echo chamber.
This is only my opinion given there's always some person in the news facing dozens of years in prison for something as simple as sharing a link.
I can't be bothered to search for other similar articles I'm sure you can find them.
Now that quote is the internal monolog I imagine given the actions these people take. It may not be completely accurate or even real but it certainly fits.
If you can come up with a better explanation why the sentences for computer related crimes are so absurdly high I would gladly listen.
I don't really care much for the legal issues the law is just so complex that you can pull off a lot of horrendous shit while perfectly justifying it legally.
If you're a judge that just goes by the letter of the law without applying common sense and morality you have failed.
Can you empathize with how frustrating your posts are to somebody like me who actually knows a thing or two about law? Look, I assume you are generally an intelligent person who is capable of understanding some abstract things, given that you likely know to program since you're on this site. But your argument is Fox News level arguing:
- "my opinion..."
- "can't be bothered to search..."
- "I don't really care much for the legal issues, the law is just so complex..."
You know (by your own admittance) nothing of the underlying issues, yet you have a (somewhat) strong opinion on them based on your "feelings" and what your read left and right, and you have a completely warped view of reality on the facts in these issues. What does it take to convince you otherwise, without me having to spend hours compiling numbers or writing pages and pages of text? Is it enough to mention three-strike laws, which put people away for other offenses for decades for relatively minor property crimes? Or the explanations brought up elsewhere in this thread on the actual sentence in this case? I mean basically you're asking me to argue the 'why' for things that are plain not true.
Hey no taking my statement out of context. You make it sound like I don't understand it however what I'm saying is that it's so complex it's broken.
When you can charge anybody with a crime regardless of what they are doing something is wrong.
The fact that this "exception" and many others like it are allowed to progress this far is quite problematic regardless since not all "exceptions" get reported on by the press this extensively and it takes only one precedent to ruin it for everybody.
I would just like to note that the DOJ prosecutors in their press release for the indictment, have indeed touted the maximums, as well as mandatory two-year sentences on each of the aggravated identity theft counts.
"Upon conviction, however, the trafficking count carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and the access device fraud count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Each of the aggravated identity theft counts, upon conviction, carries a mandatory two-year sentence in addition to any sentence imposed on the trafficking count."
They don't add up the numbers to get 100 years, some reporter did that. They give the maximum penalties for each count, which gives an ides of the maximum he could get depending on which counts he's convicted of. They don't mean for you to add them all together, but to know that e.g. he could get 2 years if convicted only of the least serious offense, but up to 15 if convicted of the most serious.
In this case it is accurate to say he faces up to 45 years for linking, because the statutes that are charged mandate consecutive sentencing. Concurrent sentences are allowed at the court's discretion "only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation" of the same statute.
1028 does not mandate consecutive sentences. Note that 1028 is also the "base" offense, i.e., the actual felony. That means the first 3 charges yield a potential maximum sentence of 45 years, but more likely 3 simultaneous sentences of 15 years.
1028A is the "enhancement" charge, which is why it must be served consecutively to the base offense on which they are levied. However, the enhancements themselves can be served concurrently. This means the potential enhancement sentence is anywhere from 2 years to 18 years.
This may be too complicated to explain in a brief HN comment, but an enhancement to one charge can be served consecutively to another charge because the concurrency prohibition is specific to the underlying offense. (I.e., if he gets 10 years for Count 1, but 8 years concurrently plus a 2 year enhancement for Count 2, he can serve both 10 year terms concurrently because the enhancement doesn't extend the sentence for count 1).
To follow up to ageisp0lis's post (which is apparently now deleted, but linked to http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/adding-105-charges-against-bar...), the reasoning behind the 100-year number is: (1) that is the total maximum possible sentence assuming consecutive terms, and (2) it includes 2 other cases against him, not just the Stratfor case.
My comments on this thread only discuss the Stratfor case, which is the second indictment of the 3 discussed by the DMLP article ageisp0lis linked.
Going to sleep before the response link to your reply goes active, so here's my response:
Is it true to say "no one really knows precisely how much of a threat he's facing"? The justice system is usually precise, so it seems odd that a precise maximum can't readily be found in this case. Do you think the maximum is probably more than 10 years?
Yes, if he is found guilty. No, if he pleads. However, I heartily disagree that the justice system is precise. It's very messy, and two defendants with the exact same facts can get widely disparate sentences. A recent study from 2012 or 2013 revealed that judges were more likely to give harsh sentences after lunch than before lunch (controlling for race, criminal history, and other factors).
1028 imposes a maximum sentence of 15 years for the gravest crime listed in the statute. Assuming he is found (or pleads guilty) this yields a likely maximum sentence of 17 years, or a potential maximum sentence of no more than 33 years.
Does this seem excessive?
Yes since the crime is relatively non-serious compared to something like drug dealing or aggravated assault, and especially since our financial system already protects credit card holders. Hell, even violent robbery with a first-time gun enhancement can have a lower maximum potential sentence than 33 years.
Is it true to say "no one really knows precisely how much of a threat he's facing"? The justice system is usually precise, so it seems odd that a precise maximum can't readily be found in this case. Do you think the maximum is probably more than 10 years?
EDIT: I see you've run the numbers in your other comment, sorry:
1028 imposes a maximum sentence of 15 years for the gravest crime listed in the statute. Assuming he is found (or pleads guilty) this yields a likely maximum sentence of 17 years, or a potential maximum sentence of no more than 33 years.
This is also a legal ethics issue, since a prosecutor who fraudulently claims a higher maximum penalty during plea bargaining can be suspended or disbarred. Cops can lie to you--prosecutor's can't. They have sworn an oath (to the bar) to be honest in their legal representations. Prosecutors have been sanctioned, suspended, and even disbarred for being dishonest about sentencing because such dishonesty indicates moral turpitude that likely extends into other facets of their legal work.
It's the media that throws around the 100-year numbers by adding together all of the potential individual sentences. It turns out that journalists aren't very good at understanding technology, science, or the law.