[TheRealDunkirk]

Overcharging offenses, with the ranges of any possible punishments, is done precisely to pressure people into settling for an outcome the DA finds politically expedient. There is a TERRIBLE amount of uncertainty in EVERY STEP you've outlined, and we see examples EVERY DAY of judges who throw the book at people, especially when they are unknown loners who have offended powerful corporations. PLEASE don't suggest that being accused in this situation wouldn't place someone under ENORMOUS fear and pressure about what could have happened, even if "everyone" thinks those outcomes were unlikely.

[tptacek]

I think you stopped reading before the last paragraph of my comment. Or, really, one of the first ones, because, again: the prosecutors are on the record with the sentence they were actually threatening Swartz with, and, as I said, and Swartz's attorney said, and this New Yorker article said: it was nothing resembling 50 years.

[TheRealDunkirk]

Whether it's 50, 20, or 6, the real number is beside the point. Potential "years" of prison will scare the crap out almost anybody, and our government ALWAYS uses this tactic to coerce people into whatever outcome looks good for their careers.

[tptacek]

I think we can leave this at "I disagree that there's no meaningful distinction between a threat of single-digit years and double-digit years sentence".

[andi999]

So what actual number are we talking here? 20 years? 5 years? Or more like 6 month?

[jcranmer]

> the supposed 80 month sentence they said they'd seek if Swartz went to trial

So 6½ years at most, quoting tptacek's comment.

[tptacek]

It's in the article here. Also, in the comment I just wrote.