> is why this guy [not the hacker] is getting 25 years.
No, he is not getting 25 years. He is being sentenced for a crime whose statutory maximum punishment is 25 years, for an offense which, under the circumstances put forward by the prosecutors, has a base guideline sentence of about 5 years (which is also what prosecutors have said they will seek in sentencing.)
The defense is likely to, in sentencing, challenge the prosecution position on damages, which may result in the guideline range being substantially lower. There is, basically, zero chance of a sentence anywhere close to 25 years here.
> I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years".
Absolutely not. I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties.
This is not an obscure lawyer technicality, this something you see in the papers every day. Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean.
Maximum penalties set an upper bound on sentencing based on the crimes you are charged with, to prevent abuses. The high maximum penalties in this case probably means the laws are overly broad, but say very little about what the actual sentence will be. Moreover, I do not think the items he was charged have a minimum sentence - he could have been found guilty, and still gotten off with a slap on the wrist.
> If he had been German it would have 60 years for those same multiple crimes.
Nope. That's nonsense. Contrary to other countries, prison time isn't added on a per-conviction basis in Germany. There's maximum prison time per crime (in this case: 15 years) and that's that.
> This feels like "a crime" with the gravity and social harm of a non life-threatening misdemeanor (that indeed should be fined), punished with a life-sentence of hard labour.
Where did you get this from? The article says he served 14 months and was released. Maybe 14 months is too much, but its not a life sentence.
> These charges carry a maximum sentence of 110 years.
Didn't HN recently conclude that calculating the 'maximum sentence' as the sum of sentences of the individual convictions is journalistic malpractice? Do better, NYT (they won't).
Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the reader).
>Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article?
Posting child porn and death threats? Yeah, that's worth 18 years.
> the guy will be walking free in another 9 years time.
This is not true. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, but his prison stay can be extended, indefinitely, as long as he is deemed a danger to society.
I would be extremely surprised if Breivik walks at the end of the 21 years.
It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge. In most European countries you would get the highest sentence for the biggest crime, which although wouldn't be "accurate" either, it's a whole lot closer to what the punishment should be than stacking the sentences up.
And please spare me the "but he would never get this sentence anyway!" argument. If you were in his position and the government would tell you you're risking 80 years in prison unless you fully cooperated with it, you'd shit your pants, too, and you'd probably give up any rights you have just to not risk getting anywhere close to that sentence, or you would even settle and plead guilty to avoid that.
In this case, probably not - 20 years is pretty stiff, and the crime implies that typical sentences are much less than that.
But if the maximum sentence was say... 6 months instead; or just a fine. Yeah - I think that would be useful information.
reply