The DOJ lied in the press release. They have a habit of doing that. There was no possibility that Swartz would face 35 years in prison. You can be upset about that, and that's reasonable, but you cannot synthesize from that upset the idea that Swartz actually could have spent 35 years in prison.
The consensus among former prosecutors and defense attorneys writing about this case is that if Swartz had been convicted on all counts, he might have faced as many as 2 years, but that he also might have avoided a custodial sentence even if he was convicted.
The DOJ did not lie. They just made a correct yet misleading statement.
Incidentally according to Aaron's lawyer, the prosecutors were going to be trying to convince a judge of a lot more than 2 years. Whether they would have succeeded in that is an unknown question.
Yes, the nightmare scenario they scared Swartz with was 6-7 years. Which clearly does qualify as a nightmare. Aaron's last lawyer did not believe that was a realistic threat.
Either way: my understanding is that 35 years is an overt misstatement of how sentencing for repeated counts under CFAA works. I stand by the word "lie", both in its technical and moral senses.
I still disagree on the technical sense. 35 years is within the ability of the judge to assign. Of course the judge wouldn't, and if the judge did it would be reduced on appeal. But they claimed that that was the statutory maximum, and if you read the statute you can readily confirm that.
I believe but cannot (due to crappy airplane wireless and the fact that I'm using my phone to read) confirm that there are elements missing from Swartz's offense that would have prevented a maximal sentence.
Either way, I assume we agree that the DOJ published the press release knowing full well Swartz would not actually be subject to 35 years.
... and in the interpretation most generous to the DoJ I came up with a sentencing grade of 27, which works out to 7 years for a first-time offender.
I think if you read through the guidelines (they're interesting!) you'll see right away that there was no way he could have gotten 35 years. I stand by "the DOJ lied about the sentence in the press release".
While they lied in the sense that you are using here, there was clearly a game of intimidation going on: they upped the number of charges from four to 13 late in the game. And as a negotiating technique, the pressure was increased.
I am reminded of a quote attributed to Emanuel Lasker ‘A threat is more powerful than its execution’.
Your claim is that he would have faced a maximum of 2 years, which differs substantially from what Swartz's own defence have claimed.
Now, if these sources of yours had provided their opinions before Aaron's suicide then I'd be more inclined to believe them. That they presumably only developed these opinions after the suicide seems a little convenient to me.
"he might have faced as many as 2 years, but that he also might have avoided a custodial sentence even if he was convicted."
This is in direct contradiction to what Aaron's lawyers have stated. Jail time was required, and if he did not plead guilty then the DOJ would push for a 7 year sentence.
Here you conflate the position of the prosecutors as related by Swartz's counsel with the actual opinion held by that counsel about the outcome of a conviction. The two are obviously not equivalent.
The consensus among former prosecutors and defense attorneys writing about this case is that if Swartz had been convicted on all counts, he might have faced as many as 2 years, but that he also might have avoided a custodial sentence even if he was convicted.