Defending Harsh Sentences for Spammers

BMcWilliams writes "Russell McGuire, one of the government lawyers who prosecuted spammer Jeremy Jaynes, has published an article justifying the tough sentence recommended by a Virginia jury. He writes, 'the defense attorney argued that greed cuts both ways and the victims got what they deserved because they were trying to get rich quick. Needless to say, this did not go over well with the jury.' Still, the eye-popping 9-year sentence has even some ardent anti-spammers wondering whether 'proportionality is becoming a completely forgotten concept.'"

Re:Proprotionality

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's that.. around 11 days/one million spam messages sent... gives 31 million spams == one year in jail. 31*9 ~= 280 million spams.

So, what were they actually guilty of?

[advocate_one]

Spamming, or fraud. IIRC, they were actually found guilty of committing fraud. The fact that they spammed peoples mailboxes to find "easy marks" is by the by... Fraud is Fraud... and it carries a hefty punishment.

Re:And I say yes! 9+ years is appropriate

[Steve B]

Will he be in for 9?

Yep. The Commonwealth of Virginny doesn't do parole.

Re:Spam equivalent to rape?

[Kombat]

I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.

The sentence wasn't just for spamming. Think of it as a fraud case, not a spam case. The guy was sending his own fraudulent emails, taking peoples' money, and not delivering.

Why can't we just:

1.) Take all the money paid to him for spamming,

Because much of it may be already spent on things you can't get back (traveling, gambling, fancy hotel rooms, meals, liquor), or hidden away in offshore accounts. You can never conclusively determine exactly how much money he scammed off of people.

2.) Fine the companies that paid him to spam,

Because as I said, he wasn't spamming for anyone but himself. He was spamming his own porno websites, and his own fraudulent "get rich quick" scams.

3.) Give him 50 lashes and tell him he's not allowed to use email for 5 years.

Think of him in the same league as the Enron/Worldcom/Tyco/Bre-X execs that defrauded shareholders out of millions of dollars. He's not some little two-bit spammer, he's a fraudster, seeking to routinely rip-off unsuspecting consumers. 9 years is what he deserves, and I hope he serves every last day of it in some federal, PMITA-prison, with no parole.

Re:Proprotionality

[hackstraw]

So, how much did it work out *per spam*? A couple of seconds, if that? If "it takes a second" to hit delete, then that's a reasonable sentence for each spam.

I hate to bust everybody's bubble, but this spammer really didn't get sentenced for spam, but rather for fraud. From TFA:

During my opening statement, I explained to the jury that sending spam by itself is not a crime, but when you masquerade your identity, you violate Virginia's law that took effect in July 2003. Spammers run afoul of the law when they use another's IP or domain address without authority or create a fictitious IP or domain address.

Also, what this guy was "selling" was some UPS work-from-home tracking bs where you were supposedly getting paid a good amount of money for sitting at home. This guy made some 8 or 9 million dollars from scamming people with this crap.

Anyway, my point is that he was not really convicted for spamming, but rather for being a greedy deceptive assmunch, and I think his sentence fits the crime.

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[ratamacue]

Nobody is claiming that drugs don't cause health problems, even death. What I claim is that (1) selling or using drugs is an act of non-aggression, and (2) an act of non-aggression cannot logically be "more evil" than an act of aggression.

Of course, the drug laws you support are the same ones that give rise to black markets and the violent crime that comes with them. Haven't you ever read about alcohol prohibition? Al Capone? The murder rate skyrocketed when alcohol was banned. When prohibition was finally repealed, the murder rate came right back down to the previous level.

Thanks for supporting violent crime.

Re:first post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spammer Jeremy D. Jaynes: Represented by David A. Oblon. E-mail addresses: [e-mail] [mailto], [e-mail] [mailto], and web form [albo-oblon.com]. Source. [sfgate.com]

Spammer Jessica DeGroot: Represented by Thomas V. Mulrine. Unable to locate e-mail address, but web form [martindale.com]. Source. [64.233.167.104]

Spammer Richard Rutkowski: Represented by Leo R. Andrews, Jr. E-mail address: [e-mail] [mailto]. Source. [sfgate.com]

[Attention, Messrs. Olbon, Mulrine, and Andrews: if you discover this posting and decide to try to track down this 'anonymous coward' with revenge in your hearts, please note that your own actions put your e-mail addresses into the public record and onto the Internet, so kindly don't try to blame me for it. Mr. Olbon, you included your e-mail address in numerous Washington Business Journal articles [google.com] you authored, and included your second e-mail address when you registered your firm's website [whois.sc]. Mr. Mulrine, you signed up for the appropriate service with Martindale. And Mr. Andrews, you included your e-mail address in a legal pleading [vsb.org].]