zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
This is a plea deal, no one is going to plea to the maximum, which in this case is 20 years. The punishment can also be a fine [1], which may be fitting if the goal was profit from a YouTube video.

When news articles mention the maximum, especially in headlines, it feels a bit misleading. It seems there's a decent chance there is little or no prison.

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

>>pigbea+77
It's funny when you take a plea you have to say you were not coerced into making the plea even though everyone knows that you were threatened with the 'trial tax' of an extremely high maximum sentence in order to pressure you into taking the plea. That's the whole reason for these max sentences. Think of the 'trial tax' as a threat to 'not dare' exercise your right to trial. And then the plea includes taking away your Constitutional right to appeal later. It's like Constitutional rights are malleable (except of course the good old 2a, then those same people are fine with restricting other rights say Constitutional rights can not be violated). Sad that there are euphemism like 'trial tax' 'diesel therapy' for blatant Constitutional rights violations in the USA.