Case study
Institution affiliation
Student’s name
Date
In the federal court case that mainly involves computer crime, Marcus Barrington, Christopher Jacquette, and Lawrence Secrease are interested in installing a key logger software. The key logger was for FAMU’s internet-based grading system, which recorded keystrokes. They were made by the register, capturing usernames and passwords, which enabled them to change their grading systems and other students. In realization by the scheme professor, he informed relevant authorities where the three were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud using the protected computer—the identity theft where Jacquette and Secrease entered a plea deal, and each sentenced 22 months imprisonment. However, Barrington was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment after Jacquette testified against him.
Barrington was involved in the crime and should have entered the plea deal since his email was used directly thus is a key factor in justifying he was involved. The plea deal could reduce Barrington’s sentence, and on the other end, it could be a lucky escape if there was no evidence other than Jacqutte’s testimony.
The contradictory part in Jacquette’s testimony ethically is that they both were in the scheme that it could benefit both if not being busted. Therefore, she couldn’t step forward to confess about the scheme, but she just couldn’t be convicted after being caught in the scheme, and Barrington walks scot freely. By testifying, she acted ethically so that one who has committed a crime should be punished according to the law. However, he is involved in the crime and at the same time, testifying against a fellow criminal was deceitful.
Seven years imprisonment had enough justification, especially a convicted fellow, justified against an individual. Barrington was directly involved in the scheme, including Jacquette, and that was enough reason to be condemned. Also denying taking a plea deal, the Barrington imprisonment period was therefore warranted due to lack of remorse, false trial testimony, being obstructive during investigations. In addition to that, he tried to cover up evidence and also his arrogance and contempt of court were.
Reference
United states App, Lexis., 2011, united states v. Barrington case study.