Wednesday, November 3

Spammer sentence fair, or just convenient?

Jeremy Jaynes was sentenced to nine years in prison for sending out spam (unsolicited commercial email). Now, I hate spam as much as the next person and I would certainly like to see spammers held accountable for their actions, but... NINE YEARS? People have been caught with drugs, stolen major sums, and beaten each other half to death without seeing that much jail time. Is this a case where a frustrated public, tired of the shadowy nature of spammers, took out its rage on the one who got caught? Should this guy really do nine years in the big house because he sent a hundred thousand junk emails? His sister, convicted with him, gets a $7,500 fine. In my opinion, this is a crime about money (the spammers have a desire to get rich without working for it) and the punishment should be about money. Take every dollar this guy has, or is likely to make in his lifetime. If he has to spend the rest of his life living in a shelter, asking people at work if they want fries with that burger, I am fine with that. However, I find myself cringing this morning at what certainly appears to be a mob mentality and a thirst for revenge on the part of the jury. Let's see what happens from here.