There is significant research into the culpability of minors. There have been significant steps taken by the Supreme Court to limit and restrict the prosecution of minors because of fundamental research into neurological development and youths' ability to make proper judgements.
What those guys did was reprehensible and they should be in jail. No questions asked.
But we have two separate penal systems in this country: one for juveniles and one for adults. The adult penal system uses harsher punishments than the juvenile one.
You simply cannot compare the sentence handed down in both of these cases, because they are happening under two effectively different penal systems.
For ANOTHER thing, the actual sentences handed down by the judge in the Steubenville rape trial where that they are remanded to the state juvenile detention facility for at least one year (for the one who only participated in the rape) and for at least two years (for the one who also sent around the pictures). At most, they will stay in such a facility until they are 21. In addition, these two must also register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, effectively giving them life-long parole.
So, when we are talking about Aaron Swartz, everyone quotes the maximum penalty he could have faced, even though it was almost impossible he ever would have received such a sentence. But in the case of these two rapists, everyone is saying they only got one or two years. The fact is, when you want to say punishment is potentially harsh, you quote the maximum, but when you want to say it is weak, you quote the minimum. Make up your mind.
Again, I'm not trying to defend those two guys. I'm making the point that you cannot compare juvenile and adult sentences. Perhaps question whether or not these two should have been tried as adults, sure, but then there are many who would argue that that is overly aggressive prosecutorial action[1].
What those guys did was reprehensible and they should be in jail. No questions asked.
But we have two separate penal systems in this country: one for juveniles and one for adults. The adult penal system uses harsher punishments than the juvenile one.
You simply cannot compare the sentence handed down in both of these cases, because they are happening under two effectively different penal systems.
For ANOTHER thing, the actual sentences handed down by the judge in the Steubenville rape trial where that they are remanded to the state juvenile detention facility for at least one year (for the one who only participated in the rape) and for at least two years (for the one who also sent around the pictures). At most, they will stay in such a facility until they are 21. In addition, these two must also register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, effectively giving them life-long parole.
So, when we are talking about Aaron Swartz, everyone quotes the maximum penalty he could have faced, even though it was almost impossible he ever would have received such a sentence. But in the case of these two rapists, everyone is saying they only got one or two years. The fact is, when you want to say punishment is potentially harsh, you quote the maximum, but when you want to say it is weak, you quote the minimum. Make up your mind.
Again, I'm not trying to defend those two guys. I'm making the point that you cannot compare juvenile and adult sentences. Perhaps question whether or not these two should have been tried as adults, sure, but then there are many who would argue that that is overly aggressive prosecutorial action[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six