regardless of whether that would have been more prudent, blame for over charging a young man to the point that he's suicidal is the factor I think we're most interested in
> Perhaps with the testimony of JSTOR he would've been acquitted.
Why? There's no rule that says that they need the victim's consent for criminal prosecution; the idea is that you have offended against the state, not a private actor (in which case the remedy would be civil, not criminal).
I didn't say the case would be dismissed; I said he had a decent chance of being acquitted. The victim testifying in the suspect's defense can have a powerful effect on a jury.
Assange, if convicted, is likely to actually get a long sentence.
Swartz's lawyers said that the prosecutors claimed that they thought the judge might go up to 7 years. That would be dependent on the prosecutors proving Swartz causes millions of dollars in damages. Swartz's lawyers thought that the provable damages would be much less, most likely resulting in probation.
Also unlike Assange Swartz had plea bargain offers. According to his lawyers prosecutors offered two deals. In one, Swartz would plead guilty and get a sentence of 4 months. In the other, Swartz would plead guilty, prosecutors would ask for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could ask the judge for a lower sentence (or just probation). The judge would then pick the sentence from the range [probation, 6 months].
Swartz, if convicted, was likely to get a sentence of a few months or just probation. His own lawyers thought probation was the most likely outcome.
See this article for details [1].
The 35 years number bandied about is a press release number. In press releases prosecutors calculate possible sentences using a method that is completely unrealistic unless the person being charged is essentially the Hitler of the part of the crime world they operate in. Here's an article on how such ridiculous numbers come about [2].
Having the infinite resources of the state aimed at you in an attempt to deprive you of your freedom and liberty, lock you in a cage, and forever brand you as a felon is a profound and traumatizing experience. The suggestion that this alone wouldn't be enough to drive someone to suicide, even before a conviction, is absolutely absurd. Its abundantly clear that neither you, or anyone else who downplays the trauma of being prosecuted has ever faced criminal charges or spent a day in jail.
> The 35 years number bandied about is a press release number. In press releases prosecutors calculate possible sentences using a method that is completely unrealistic unless the person being charged is essentially the Hitler of the part of the crime world they operate in.
In press releases, prosecutors calculate the maximum possible sentence using a method that is perfectly accurate: take the maximum sentences for each charge and sum them.
This is often not the probable sentence, but then they don't claim it is. It may not be what either side would argue the Sentencing Guidelines would justify, but:
(1) The facts relevant to sentencing guidelines are legally undecided at the time of press releases, and
(2) The Guidelines, while usually followed, are not mandatory, and both upward and downward departures within legal minimums and maximums are allowed. So assuming at least one charge without a mandatory minimum is charged, the legal outer limit is the only certain thing about the potential sentence.
