[SlowToady]

I think my reply did as well. I'll edit accordingly. I'd like to apologize for that.

Also, after thinking about it, and reading your reply, you're quite right in your point, and I'm quite wrong in mine. I see now more clearly what you were actually saying.

Although my initial reply to you is incorrect in its argument, I'm going to leave it, as I'm conceding in this post.

Thank you for a well formed correction to my false premise.

Originally Posted by MRM

My post was intemperant and contained an edge that was not necessary.

My point is that it is a false premise to state that murderers get sentenced to less jail time than spammers based on this case when the guy hasn't even been convicted yet. Moreover, he probably isn't really facing 60 years. He could only get 60 years if sentenced consecutively for each charge. If the crimes arise out of the same transaction or occurance he can only be sentenced once for that transaction or occurance, and he probably would be sentenced to concurrent time on the rest of the charges.

In other words, if the longest individual sentence he is facing is 5 years, he is really facing 5 years in prison; 12 charges that carry five year sentences don't automatically add up to 60 years.

Then, if the top charge carries a 5 year max, he's not likely to do the whole five years unless he has a prior record. The judge is supposed to look at the number of victims, impact of the crime, the use of weapons or violence, etc., etc. At the end, he won't be sentenced to the max, and then he'll get some time off for good behavior.