> These charges carry a maximum sentence of 110 years.
Didn't HN recently conclude that calculating the 'maximum sentence' as the sum of sentences of the individual convictions is journalistic malpractice? Do better, NYT (they won't).
Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the reader).
> Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the reader).
Looks like your logic is 110/7 = ~15, therefore there must be at least one charge with a maximum sentence of at least ~15 years. But why does that imply a minimum sentence of ~15 years? He could get less than the maximum sentence for some or all of the charges.
Yes I assumed he would get the maximum sentence on all charges, which given optimal parallelism would be a minimum of 15 years (less optimal parallelism would mean more). But you're right that it's called a maximum sentence for a reason and that assumption may not be valid; thanks for the correction.
Thanks, I honestly appreciate this reply. I'm always a bit worried I'll come across unpleasantly when making posts like that, and spark a negative reaction.
In terms of what's likely, from a quick search it looks like the maximums are 20 years for some of the charges and 5 for the others, and 10-20 years is a realistic guess for his actual prison time.
Wait, hacker news is a single source that comes to definitive group conclusions? Where can I find these beliefs we all collective hold and adhere to written down?
Didn't HN recently conclude that calculating the 'maximum sentence' as the sum of sentences of the individual convictions is journalistic malpractice? Do better, NYT (they won't).
Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the reader).