Sentences are usually far less than the maximum penalty. Except, you know, when they aren't.
I know people who have received the maximum penalty even though it defied all logic and reason. For a first time offender. That didn't profit a cent. And had already been driven to bankruptcy.
But hey, it doesn't usually happen, so maybe possibly it won't this time as well! I hope you never have to roll the dice.
You should read the article I linked to, or, even better, the sentencing guidelines themselves, which I also linked to. Without the detail of how criminal history and offense level works, the system seems a lot more arbitrary than it is. It is not in fact a roll of the dice between the minimum and maximum sentence; there is no way in the federal sentencing guidelines for a first-time offender who didn't make a dime from the offense to reach the maximum sentence for any one offense, and no way to make the grouping offenses somehow not group.
For whatever it's worth, I think the behavior of the prosecutors in this case was abusive, and the idea of filing federal charges for what Swartz did is as preposterous as the fiction that he faced a 35 year sentence. Don't succumb to the is-ought fallacy. I'm just pointing out how the system works, and how NPR is failing to report it properly. It is better to know than not know.
I'm not sure you understand what guidelines are. They are merely suggestions. Not rules. In fact treating them as rules is unconstitutional [1]. So yes. Most of the time sentences fall within the guidelines. Except for when they don't.
They are, Constitutionally, guidelines. However, a guideline range is required to be calculated and a judge is required to explain any departure from the guidelines. On appeal, a sentence out of the guideline range is much more likely to be overturned as abuse of discretion.
Well without specifics your comment doesn't carry much weight. It's pretty well known that maximum sentences aren't given to first time offenders without a good reason. The burden is on you to show that this isn't the case.
One could, ahem, reasonably argue that reason was thrown out the window when prosecutors chose to prosecute Swartz. Given a lack of reason in prosecutorial discretion it would be unreasonable to expect reasonable sentencing.
The key is that it just doesn't matter what usually happens. Or what's most common. Or how it almost always works. At the end of the day it's a dice roll and the odds may overwhelmingly be in one direction but if there's a chance then there's a chance. It's a terrifying prospect no matter how slim the odds may be.
Much of the fault is upstream. MIT's leadership could have said "This is a trespassing case" and made it very difficult for an overdone federal prosecution to move forward.
But that doesn't excuse Ortiz and Heymann. They destroyed a global treasure, and shouldn't be permitted to continue in their jobs, no matter how protected they are from liability.
94% are settled by pleading. Prosecutors decide whether they will charge you and can pick up charges they like. Chosen charges may make huge difference between years you risk to spend in jail. They can decide to prosecute you in a way that will cost you all your money even if found innocent or in a way that is only costly. The one who holds the most power in criminal proceedings is the prosecutor.
I know people who have received the maximum penalty even though it defied all logic and reason. For a first time offender. That didn't profit a cent. And had already been driven to bankruptcy.
But hey, it doesn't usually happen, so maybe possibly it won't this time as well! I hope you never have to roll the dice.