[declan]

<tptacek>: Yes, we've been around this circle before, and I don't think we're going to change each other's minds.

As for Aaron Swartz's attorneys, they would have jumped at the chance for probation. They explicitly offered it as a deal to the Feds, who rejected it. Prosecutors held out for a felony plea and prison time: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/aaron-swart...

So because of the combination of federal overcriminalization (thank you, Congress) and prosecutorial overzealousness (thank you, Carmen Ortiz), this is what Aaron had to look forward to:

If he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years... Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-l...

[tptacek]

Did you read her whole post? The hypothetical you're referring to is preceded by a paragraph that ends with "But Aaron could easily have come out to over a year in his guideline calculation" in the case where he went to trial and was found guilty.