DOJ press releases greatly exaggerate the number of years when (1) dealing with multiple related charges, and (2) when dealing with defendants who do not have extensive criminal records.
Federal crimes are divided into groups, and multiple charges within a group are treated like a single charge for sentencing. So if X carries a 5 year sentence if you are convicted of X in isolation, and Y carries a 5 year sentence if you are convicted of Y in isolation, and they are in the same group, then if you are convicted of both X and Y together as the result of one set of facts, you get 5 years.
The press release for an indictment charging you with both X and Y will say 10 years. It ignores the grouping.
Sentencing also depends on factors like prior convictions. If X carries 5 years for a first time offender, but can get you 10 years if you are a repeat offender, the DOJ press release will say 10 years, even if you are first time offender and so cannot get more than 5 years.
For a detailed analysis of Swartz's indictment and what he was ACTUALLY facing, see these two Orin Kerr articles:
I think whoever just down voted you did you an injustice, so I bumped you back up. I may totally disagree with you on the righteousness of the prosecutor's behavior, and the seriousness of what they were trying to charge Aaron with - but I really appreciate the evidence and information you bring to the discussion.
I think the DOJ should issue more realistic press releases when they announce an indictment. They obviously know at that point what charges they are bringing, so should be able to easily take into account grouping.
They also know who they are charging and what facts they are alleging as the basis of those charges, so should be able to take into account things like prior convictions, how much damage was done, and other things that affect the sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Their press releases should be designed to accurately inform the public about the case, not make them look good by making it look like they have indicted someone from the most wanted list.
I think a parent poster summarized it well - with a complete understanding of the facts, federal sentencing guidelines, and the mechanisms of the justice system (which I appreciate you bringing to the table), it might be the case that the prosecutorial system was not completely undeniably insanely evil, and just plain old ordinary evil.
But, nobody will ever convince me that charging a freedom advocate like Aaron with federal felonies, and driving him to financial ruin for scraping academic journals from a data port in a cabling closet on the MIT campus was anything but "evil."
Federal crimes are divided into groups, and multiple charges within a group are treated like a single charge for sentencing. So if X carries a 5 year sentence if you are convicted of X in isolation, and Y carries a 5 year sentence if you are convicted of Y in isolation, and they are in the same group, then if you are convicted of both X and Y together as the result of one set of facts, you get 5 years.
The press release for an indictment charging you with both X and Y will say 10 years. It ignores the grouping.
Sentencing also depends on factors like prior convictions. If X carries 5 years for a first time offender, but can get you 10 years if you are a repeat offender, the DOJ press release will say 10 years, even if you are first time offender and so cannot get more than 5 years.
For a detailed analysis of Swartz's indictment and what he was ACTUALLY facing, see these two Orin Kerr articles:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...