You've summed it up.
Twenty fucking years for downloading a few pictures to a computer?
I don't care how vile and disgusting they are or how they could theoretically increase crime against children.
Twenty years, basically for possessing certain information. Absurd.
This shit happens because the authorities at hand here can't be assed to find real, dangerous criminals (like, I don't know, the people who made the images) and want to have a good public image and feel good about capturing a supposed "evil pervert" or some bullshit like that. Gotta love the quotes around "accidental" in the article's title, too. Couldn't they have come up with something a little less accusatory, given that the argument for his innocence is, at the very least, not completely unreasonable?
Also, do those couple sentences of the description seem slightly Orwellian to anyone else?