9 ms·

Carmen Ortiz Has Blood on Her Hands (2013)

293 points by viburnum 5y ago

cletus 5y ago
Ortiz is just another example of two observations I have: 1. It's astounding the mental gymnastics of the ends justify the means politicians and would-be politicians go through for personal gain and when the details eventually come out, it's always wrapped in someone arguing "but we're doing so much good". You saw this with Nixon, the Clintons and a host of others; and 2. Just how fearful and, I would argue, cruel as a result the American people are that this kind of thing has an audience. It's the whole "tough on crime" mantra that so many view as necessary to seek higher ofice. This whole "tough on crime" thing was central in passing Clinton's signature 1994 crime bill that destroyed thousands of lives and really ramped up mass incarceration, often for fairly minor possession crimes of substances that are now legal or decriminalized for at least a third of the US population. Mandatory minimums, three strikes laws, the "are you a felon?" scarlet letter... they all speak to societal cruelty. A more localized example: attempted reform of New York's "gravity knife" law (which has since happened [1]), twice vetoed by former governor Andrew Cuomo [2]. This was a law used by the NYPD to target minorities in particular, meet arrest quotas (why is that even a thing?) and for those with a record in particular, could result in a felony conviction and perhaps years in jail. It's a matter of debate of why Cuomo vetoed it but my theory is that Cuomo still believed then he could be president one day and he was courting the "law and order" vote (eg the Manhattan DA and the NYPD police union both opposed reform). We have prosecutors who often want to be future DAs, US attorneys, judges or politicians who are judged on conviction records, which can lead to juveniles being held for 3 years in an adult prison without a trial, ultimately leading to their own suicide [3]. Why? To extract a guilty plea. These practices are disgusting and those who engage in such political climbing no matter what misery they cause to others--and I include Ortiz in this camp--are reprehensible. [1]: https://stengellaw.com/gravity-knife-possession-law-change-new-york/ https://stengellaw.com/gravity-knife-possession-law-change-n... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/nyregion/gravity-knife-cuomo-veto.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/nyregion/gravity-knife-cu... [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-brief-and-tragic-life-of-kalief-browder/395156/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-bri...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > arrest quotas (why is that even a thing?) Because management wants tangible, easily measured activity metrics (and is far less concerned with how well aligned the metrics are with meaningful goals.)
kingcharles 5y ago
Has anyone ever met a prosecutor who wasn't a really horrible human being? I've known dozens of prosecutors and I can't think of one that I believe is trying to make the world a better place, rather than simply persecuting people to the maximum extent of their abilities for the prestige and career progression.
- kingkawn 5y ago
  Their work is to destroy people. There are some stories that we tell to excuse or justify it, but nonetheless that’s what they do.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    And you're basically immune from the law if you work for the prosecutor's office. If you see a prosecutor commit a crime who do you report it to? Who would prosecute it? I remember one time I witnessed a prosecutor committing clear perjury in a criminal case. I reported it to the prosecutor's office (LOL!). I reported it to the body responsible for handling complaints against lawyers in my state. The prosecutor got himself legal representation to defend himself. He admitted the perjury to the body, but they said he'd confessed it was "accidental perjury" and therefore they would not take any action. (The definition of perjury is knowingly lying under oath). I saw a photo of the man this week, he was opening a courthouse and he is now a state senator.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Until you get to the president, there's always a superior office. If a district attorney committed a crime, the state AG could prosecute them.
  - dqv 5y ago
    The most distressing thing about it is when there is some revelation of their misconduct, they act like it’s no big deal and they do this nonchalant “I was just trying to administer justice” charade. It really rubs me the wrong way.
- 5y ago
knowaveragejoe 5y ago
Matt Bruenig normally shouldn't be taken seriously most subjects, but he's not wrong here.
gamache 5y ago
Carmen Ortiz sucks. Here's a whole lot more words on the topic (2013): https://www.wbur.org/news/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz-investigation https://www.wbur.org/news/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz-investigat...
andrewstuart 5y ago
It seems U.S. voters like politicians who can show they are tough on crime.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Don't judge the entire country by what happens in Massachusetts.
  - gkoberger 5y ago
    I think that statement would indeed apply to a majority of politicians in the US, on both sides.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    Ortiz was a U.S. attorney, not a Massachusetts state attorney.
  - brailsafe 5y ago
    Thankfully enough other states contribute to whatever negative impression someone might get of the entire country.
- jsnk 5y ago
  She's not tough on crime. She's just pro copyright racketeering for big publishers.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Carmen Ortiz has never held an elected office. Her time in politics was appointed.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    She was gunning for political office (governor of Massachusetts). She gunned herself. Unfortunately, taking Aaron Swartz, and others, with her.
- temp8964 5y ago
dmead 5y ago
Carmen sucks.
oh_sigh 5y ago
Aaron Schwartz killed himself because he was suicidal and mentally ill, not because of the prosecution against him. Even if one is somehow a rational actor that thinks that a long prison sentence is worse than a death sentence, you would still wait until the guilty verdict was handed down and the appeals were through to kill yourself.
dvt 5y ago
Why are we going after Carmen Ortiz again? Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all. I get it, it wouldn't get as many clicks as criticizing lobbyists, lawmakers, and deadlocked legislatures throughout the country that literally wrote the laws Ortiz enforced. That's a much more complicated argument and requires nuance. The far right and far left (of which Matt Bruenig is decidedly a part of) are absolute experts in propping up strawmen instead of solving problems. Slacktivism at its finest.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  It's important to not forget people who perform harmful, malicious acts while in power to prevent them (when possible) from obtaining power to do it again during the remainder of their lifetime. Checks and balances, actions have consequences, citizen responsibility, and all that jazz. I didn't take this piece as "going after" Ms. Ortiz, but as "never forget", which seems like a fair approach to a public figure and their actions while in public office.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    Let’s not forget: “On July 11, 2011, he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[15][91]” So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict - because there’s no dispute that he did what he was accused of. “On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury” So a second grand jury thought he should be charged too. “ prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison” So he was offered 4 months of actual time in white collar prison. “Swartz and his lead attorney rejected the deal, opting instead for a trial where prosecutors would be forced to justify their pursuit of him.[98][99]” Uh, no. That’s not how it works. The prosecution doesn’t have to justify the case. They have to prove you committed the crime you are charged with. Whether you or the jury think it’s a waste of time is legally irrelevant. And then Swartz took his life. It’s not fair to pillory Ortiz when 1) 2 grand juries indicted Swartz 2) The prosecutor offered a reasonably fair deal (and there’s no indication it wasn’t up for negotiation) 3) We don’t know what sentence Ortiz would have actually recommended at sentencing. I’m sorry, if Swartz killed himself because of this case - that’s just moronic - and Ortiz doesn’t deserve the blame. As a lawyer, I’d feel a hell of a lot more guilty if I was Swartz’s attorney than I would as Ortiz.
selimthegrim 5y ago
Tarek Mehanna, whose prosecution was her other brainchild, suffered one of the most shameful miscarriages of justice in my lifetime, including Guantanamo. Note: I don’t think he’s a good person or innocent. He would execute me in five seconds flat because of the sect my parents belonged to. But they could have tried him for legitimate incitement to murder, not what they railroaded him on.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  It definitely does seem that prosecutors (at least as portrayed in fiction) make these character judgements that lead them to formulate prosecutions not on the basis of "this person committed this crime, can we get [them] for it", but rather "this person is a bad apple, what can we get them on?"
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    > rather "this person is a bad apple, what can we get them on?" Generally it's "I don't actually care whether this person is bad or not, as long as it gets me lots of headlines to further my career."
the_optimist 5y ago
"Establish some sort of line early that you are not willing to cross. Otherwise you might find yourself one day with blood on your hands, having forgotten that the law is not an end in itself..." Somewhere a prosecutor is mulling over this decision currently, with the beating heart of Mr. Julian Assange. Individuals as diverse as Cornell West, Ai Weiwei, Joe Rogan, Susan Sarandon, Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, and Eric Weinstein support his freedom.[0] [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/AgramSeth/status/1471170511782690820 https://mobile.twitter.com/AgramSeth/status/1471170511782690...
- ourmandave 5y ago
  Every day I get up and ask myself, "What does Tucker Carlson think." Said no one ever.
a-dub 5y ago
it's always been really interesting to me how much power is wrapped up in district attorneys. in terms of a single type of elected seat that has the most discretionary power over the lives of other human beings in the united states, i'm not sure much matches it. combine that with the relatively limited amount of attention the seats get at election time and the whole situation is sort of a weird singularity in american government.
- garbagecoder 5y ago
  At least in some states, public health officers do.
  - garbagecoder 5y ago
    This is literally true and yet downvoted. You do realize Y Combinator is in California, where this is literally true....
    - a-dub 5y ago
      i think it was probably downvoted because it makes reference to an unrelated and broader national political battle. but since we're here, i'll note that i suspect that there was great alignment between ca's executive leadership and recommendations from ca's public health authorities. bringing up public health officer power in california would be relevant, if say, ca public health officers were overriding the ca governor's office. they were not, they were working together.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Historically, the seat has not been wielded at a politically productive scale. More recently, a somewhat cogent policy front has formed. It is now getting a great deal of attention in places like SF, LA, Chicago, Philly, Sacramento, and many counties.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  The type of personality that aims for this position also intrigues me. The number of bodies you need to stand upon to get to the top is horrible.
tiahura 5y ago
“I would write things about stuff I saw at the school — that I thought would irritate people” Ugh. I hate people that like to pretentiously crap over what others give them in order to signal their sanctimoniousness. Also, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  How about "the time should be reasonable and proportionate to the crime actually committed" and "the crime should actually be a crime" and other related concepts.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  > Ugh. I hate people that like to pretentiously crap over what others give them in order to signal their sanctimoniousness. > Also, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. So you are tone policing the author's "sanctimoniousness" but also support Ortiz completely destroying a young man's life over a pretty minor copyright issue? Strange ethics ...
  - tiahura 5y ago
    Spare me. Losing a loved one sucks - we all understand that. Exploiting that grief to generate sanctimonious rage towards Ortiz is unfair. I’m occasionally a criminal defense attorney and a former overly-charged defendant myself. I’d blame his attorney before Ortiz.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  What if they make you do the time and you didn't do any crime? Asking for a friend.
- z3c0 5y ago
  "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is pretty authoritarian, as far as quips go.
SamReidHughes 5y ago
It's not just Tarek Mehanna, she was also behind the Motel Caswell case.
overgard 5y ago
I'm glad this has come up again. I think Carmen should be reminded of this often.
amautertt 5y ago
Aaron Schwartz died for nothing. Ortiz is having an upward legal and political career, while an young and inspiring tech activist died. It didn't even push the envelope on free/open access science journals.
- gorbachev 5y ago
  She's not having an upward legal career, and her political career is dead. https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz...
  - tptacek 5y ago
    For whatever it's worth, that article repeats the false claim that Heymann was pursuing a 35 year sentence for Swartz; they were in fact seeking an order of magnitude less time, and were unlikely to get even that (Swartz's own lawyer, writing after his death, noted that even if convicted --- not itself a certainty --- he might not have faced any custodial time). I write this not to downplay Ortiz and Heymann (I share the common HN sentiment about their behavior and culpability) but as a warning that if an article gets the basic fact that you don't work out sentences by multiplying the statutory maximum for an offense against the number of counts, there's likely other stuff they got wrong too, and this whole article is inside baseball. Who knows where Ortiz and, more importantly, Heymann are headed now. It's worth keeping your eyes open.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      This seems like a motte and bailey. There is the theoretical maximum sentence someone could receive, then there is the much shorter sentence they're likely to receive even if convicted, then there's the even shorter sentence if the prosecution fails to prove the most serious charges or the defendant takes a plea. Prosecutors commonly scare monger using the theoretical maximum in their press releases or when trying to coerce a plea out of a defendant. It isn't any more likely then than it is when a reporter says it, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
beervirus 5y ago
I’m actually pleasantly surprised that these kinds of (deserved) criticisms can be leveled against a female, Hispanic, Obama appointee. They’re usually reserved for white republicans.
nothrowaways 5y ago
"The takeaway lesson here is somewhat narrow: don’t be Ortiz. Establish some sort of line early that you are not willing to cross. Otherwise you might find yourself one day with blood on your hands, having forgotten that the law is not an end in itself, and that there are more important things in life than office."
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Agreed. It's far better to establish personal ethical red lines before you're confronted with a compromising situation. Those situations almost always come with justifications: exceptional circumstances, career impacts, peer pressure, or just lots of money. Better to have already decided something when you weren't unduly influenced, than have to make a hard call while everyone around you is whispering seductive suggestions in your ear.
slg 5y ago
All these things can be true: - Carmen Ortiz overcharged Aaron Swartz. - Carmen Ortiz's action in the Aaron Swartz case show a lack of judgement that should have cost her her legal/political career. - Carmen Ortiz is not responsible for Aaron Swartz's death. - Aaron Swartz is dead because he had a mental illness. You shouldn't blame Swartz's death on Ortiz. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people go to prison each year in the US and don't feel the need to kill themselves. It was Swartz's mental illness, which he had spoken about publicly before his death, that made a bad situation, which was severely worsened by Ortiz, seem much more devastating. However Swartz's response to that is not Ortiz's fault. Imagine a scenario in which someone commits suicide after a breakup. Would we blame that person's ex? If someone commits suicide after being fired, do we blame their old boss? The catalyst for the suicide is not at fault. The fault is with the illness that makes the person think suicide is the only way to respond to that catalyst.
- arcwhite 5y ago
  Yeah, lick that boot! > Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people go to prison each year in the US and don't feel the need to kill themselves Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming) > Would we blame that person's ex? I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would? Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful.
  - slg 5y ago
    >Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming) It is not attempting to be a justification for what happened to him. It is demonstrating that Swartz was not acting rationally. You shouldn't blame someone for triggering an irrational response by another person. And it isn't victim-blaming to say someone is dead because of their mental illness anymore than it is victim-blaming to say someone is dead because they had cancer. >Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful. You are the one being reductive and equating all mental health issues to suicide. I am talking about one specific person with mental health issues. Talking about Swartz's mental health history is important. If he got the help he needed at the right time he might still be alive. Talking about that aspect of the story can help save the lives of people who feel similarly trapped as he felt.
thesausageking 5y ago
It wasn't just Ortiz. Judge Nathaniel Gorton played a huge role: Gorton is well known to the Massachusetts Bar, whose members whisper he rarely meets an indictment he doesn’t like. He’s noted as a hanging judge; prosecutors go out of their way to get high-profile cases assigned to him. After Swartz drew Gorton, his defense lawyers told Heymann the pressure of the case had rendered Swartz suicidal, his attorney later said he told prosecutors. “Fine, we’ll lock him up,” [Judge] Heymann responded. Swartz killed himself shortly thereafter, in January 2013. from https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz...
emodendroket 5y ago
Very simple, avoids hyperbole, but makes a great point. This marks only the first time Matt Bruenig would lose a job for something he posted.
_dh54 5y ago
We need updated laws and moral norms around suicide responsibility. There are thousands of suicides per year where no one is held responsible but the person themselves when in reality their death was a direct result of being intentionally treated maliciously. It should be no different than felony murder. By this more just standard Ortiz is guilty and should be charged with murder. Hopefully one day reform like this will happen.
steve76 5y ago
Suicides are not always out of fear or depression. Out of control mania is a big one. There are no longer any brakes on your actions. You say the first thing in your head. Your thinking is long past rational. The slightest provocation is a sign for you to show "them" that yes you'll put a gun to your head. Drugs are a big reason why this starts. You're guilty. Admit your guilt even if prosecutors won't take a deal. The judge doesn't want to hear why. Say you're guilty. Say you are remorseful, you'll cooperate and meet any demand ask of you but this is the day for your victims not you. Say you got a fair trial and there won't be an appeal. Also everything you own forfeit to the court through your attorney as voluntary compensation to the victims of your crimes. Say you will do everything possible never to commit another crime again. Most of all, and this better be honest, say you are ready and prepared for your sentence. You better be. This ain't the Hallmark Channel. The law is there to reduce violence, to put a cap on it. People want you dead. They will kill you if the law and court was not there. Morality and justice is not the law.
bb88 5y ago
> Energy intensive processes, such as cryptomining operations and data encryption, could require significantly less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint. No. It will just mean more hashes per block are required.
steve76 5y ago
You know who really has blood on their hands? The fools and liars who burnt and looted my country for a year. You see now that the people you championed are animals. They are starting to murder you. Now it's a problem. If you want justice, let Chauvin go. Floyd's drug dealer was in the car. They didn't call the cops because of the counterfeit bill, which is a scam drug dealers do. They addict you, drive you around and make you commit crimes in exchange for drugs. They're really grooming you to be a murderer. Floyd passed out. They thought they were going to be robbed. They called the cops. Floyd's drug dealer, Ellison's star witness, made Floyd eat a whole bag of elephant tranquilizer. Floyd resisted in the back of the cop car when he kicked it like crazy. Floyd got on the ground himself. Floyd resisted on the ground by not following commands. He rolls out in the street, car crash. You boosted that video to win the White House. Now the animals got away from you. Perhaps you have it wrong. Every time "savior civil rights" comes, the leash is loosened, and someone gets bit. "I guess I'm satisfied now." F** you. Punk. Crook. Liar. Cheat. Murderer. Where were you when Floyd was a junkie overdosing and in prison a dozen times over? Remember this. Everything you burnt. Everything you wasted. Remember your wanton hate when you ask why is there no cure for your horrible agonizing disease.

293 points by viburnum 5y ago

Ortiz is just another example of two observations I have: 1. It's astounding the mental gymnastics of the ends justify the means politicians and would-be politicians go through for personal gain and when the details eventually come out, it's always wrapped in someone arguing "but we're doing so much good". You saw this with Nixon, the Clintons and a host of others; and 2. Just how fearful and, I would argue, cruel as a result the American people are that this kind of thing has an audience. It's the whole "tough on crime" mantra that so many view as necessary to seek higher ofice. This whole "tough on crime" thing was central in passing Clinton's signature 1994 crime bill that destroyed thousands of lives and really ramped up mass incarceration, often for fairly minor possession crimes of substances that are now legal or decriminalized for at least a third of the US population. Mandatory minimums, three strikes laws, the "are you a felon?" scarlet letter... they all speak to societal cruelty. A more localized example: attempted reform of New York's "gravity knife" law (which has since happened [1]), twice vetoed by former governor Andrew Cuomo [2]. This was a law used by the NYPD to target minorities in particular, meet arrest quotas (why is that even a thing?) and for those with a record in particular, could result in a felony conviction and perhaps years in jail. It's a matter of debate of why Cuomo vetoed it but my theory is that Cuomo still believed then he could be president one day and he was courting the "law and order" vote (eg the Manhattan DA and the NYPD police union both opposed reform). We have prosecutors who often want to be future DAs, US attorneys, judges or politicians who are judged on conviction records, which can lead to juveniles being held for 3 years in an adult prison without a trial, ultimately leading to their own suicide [3]. Why? To extract a guilty plea. These practices are disgusting and those who engage in such political climbing no matter what misery they cause to others--and I include Ortiz in this camp--are reprehensible. [1]: https://stengellaw.com/gravity-knife-possession-law-change-new-york/ https://stengellaw.com/gravity-knife-possession-law-change-n... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/nyregion/gravity-knife-cuomo-veto.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/nyregion/gravity-knife-cu... [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-brief-and-tragic-life-of-kalief-browder/395156/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-bri...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> arrest quotas (why is that even a thing?) Because management wants tangible, easily measured activity metrics (and is far less concerned with how well aligned the metrics are with meaningful goals.)

kingcharles 5y ago

Has anyone ever met a prosecutor who wasn't a really horrible human being? I've known dozens of prosecutors and I can't think of one that I believe is trying to make the world a better place, rather than simply persecuting people to the maximum extent of their abilities for the prestige and career progression.

kingkawn 5y ago
Their work is to destroy people. There are some stories that we tell to excuse or justify it, but nonetheless that’s what they do.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  And you're basically immune from the law if you work for the prosecutor's office. If you see a prosecutor commit a crime who do you report it to? Who would prosecute it? I remember one time I witnessed a prosecutor committing clear perjury in a criminal case. I reported it to the prosecutor's office (LOL!). I reported it to the body responsible for handling complaints against lawyers in my state. The prosecutor got himself legal representation to defend himself. He admitted the perjury to the body, but they said he'd confessed it was "accidental perjury" and therefore they would not take any action. (The definition of perjury is knowingly lying under oath). I saw a photo of the man this week, he was opening a courthouse and he is now a state senator.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Until you get to the president, there's always a superior office. If a district attorney committed a crime, the state AG could prosecute them.
- dqv 5y ago
  The most distressing thing about it is when there is some revelation of their misconduct, they act like it’s no big deal and they do this nonchalant “I was just trying to administer justice” charade. It really rubs me the wrong way.
5y ago

knowaveragejoe 5y ago

Matt Bruenig normally shouldn't be taken seriously most subjects, but he's not wrong here.

gamache 5y ago

Carmen Ortiz sucks. Here's a whole lot more words on the topic (2013): https://www.wbur.org/news/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz-investigation https://www.wbur.org/news/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz-investigat...

andrewstuart 5y ago

It seems U.S. voters like politicians who can show they are tough on crime.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Don't judge the entire country by what happens in Massachusetts.
- gkoberger 5y ago
  I think that statement would indeed apply to a majority of politicians in the US, on both sides.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Ortiz was a U.S. attorney, not a Massachusetts state attorney.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  Thankfully enough other states contribute to whatever negative impression someone might get of the entire country.
jsnk 5y ago
She's not tough on crime. She's just pro copyright racketeering for big publishers.
Talanes 5y ago
Carmen Ortiz has never held an elected office. Her time in politics was appointed.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  She was gunning for political office (governor of Massachusetts). She gunned herself. Unfortunately, taking Aaron Swartz, and others, with her.
temp8964 5y ago

dmead 5y ago

Carmen sucks.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Aaron Schwartz killed himself because he was suicidal and mentally ill, not because of the prosecution against him. Even if one is somehow a rational actor that thinks that a long prison sentence is worse than a death sentence, you would still wait until the guilty verdict was handed down and the appeals were through to kill yourself.

dvt 5y ago

Why are we going after Carmen Ortiz again? Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all. I get it, it wouldn't get as many clicks as criticizing lobbyists, lawmakers, and deadlocked legislatures throughout the country that literally wrote the laws Ortiz enforced. That's a much more complicated argument and requires nuance. The far right and far left (of which Matt Bruenig is decidedly a part of) are absolute experts in propping up strawmen instead of solving problems. Slacktivism at its finest.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
It's important to not forget people who perform harmful, malicious acts while in power to prevent them (when possible) from obtaining power to do it again during the remainder of their lifetime. Checks and balances, actions have consequences, citizen responsibility, and all that jazz. I didn't take this piece as "going after" Ms. Ortiz, but as "never forget", which seems like a fair approach to a public figure and their actions while in public office.
- tiahura 5y ago
  Let’s not forget: “On July 11, 2011, he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[15][91]” So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict - because there’s no dispute that he did what he was accused of. “On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury” So a second grand jury thought he should be charged too. “ prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison” So he was offered 4 months of actual time in white collar prison. “Swartz and his lead attorney rejected the deal, opting instead for a trial where prosecutors would be forced to justify their pursuit of him.[98][99]” Uh, no. That’s not how it works. The prosecution doesn’t have to justify the case. They have to prove you committed the crime you are charged with. Whether you or the jury think it’s a waste of time is legally irrelevant. And then Swartz took his life. It’s not fair to pillory Ortiz when 1) 2 grand juries indicted Swartz 2) The prosecutor offered a reasonably fair deal (and there’s no indication it wasn’t up for negotiation) 3) We don’t know what sentence Ortiz would have actually recommended at sentencing. I’m sorry, if Swartz killed himself because of this case - that’s just moronic - and Ortiz doesn’t deserve the blame. As a lawyer, I’d feel a hell of a lot more guilty if I was Swartz’s attorney than I would as Ortiz.

selimthegrim 5y ago

Tarek Mehanna, whose prosecution was her other brainchild, suffered one of the most shameful miscarriages of justice in my lifetime, including Guantanamo. Note: I don’t think he’s a good person or innocent. He would execute me in five seconds flat because of the sect my parents belonged to. But they could have tried him for legitimate incitement to murder, not what they railroaded him on.

defterGoose 5y ago
It definitely does seem that prosecutors (at least as portrayed in fiction) make these character judgements that lead them to formulate prosecutions not on the basis of "this person committed this crime, can we get [them] for it", but rather "this person is a bad apple, what can we get them on?"
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > rather "this person is a bad apple, what can we get them on?" Generally it's "I don't actually care whether this person is bad or not, as long as it gets me lots of headlines to further my career."

the_optimist 5y ago

"Establish some sort of line early that you are not willing to cross. Otherwise you might find yourself one day with blood on your hands, having forgotten that the law is not an end in itself..." Somewhere a prosecutor is mulling over this decision currently, with the beating heart of Mr. Julian Assange. Individuals as diverse as Cornell West, Ai Weiwei, Joe Rogan, Susan Sarandon, Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, and Eric Weinstein support his freedom.[0] [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/AgramSeth/status/1471170511782690820 https://mobile.twitter.com/AgramSeth/status/1471170511782690...

ourmandave 5y ago
Every day I get up and ask myself, "What does Tucker Carlson think." Said no one ever.

a-dub 5y ago

it's always been really interesting to me how much power is wrapped up in district attorneys. in terms of a single type of elected seat that has the most discretionary power over the lives of other human beings in the united states, i'm not sure much matches it. combine that with the relatively limited amount of attention the seats get at election time and the whole situation is sort of a weird singularity in american government.

garbagecoder 5y ago
At least in some states, public health officers do.
- garbagecoder 5y ago
  This is literally true and yet downvoted. You do realize Y Combinator is in California, where this is literally true....
  - a-dub 5y ago
    i think it was probably downvoted because it makes reference to an unrelated and broader national political battle. but since we're here, i'll note that i suspect that there was great alignment between ca's executive leadership and recommendations from ca's public health authorities. bringing up public health officer power in california would be relevant, if say, ca public health officers were overriding the ca governor's office. they were not, they were working together.
the_optimist 5y ago
Historically, the seat has not been wielded at a politically productive scale. More recently, a somewhat cogent policy front has formed. It is now getting a great deal of attention in places like SF, LA, Chicago, Philly, Sacramento, and many counties.
kingcharles 5y ago
The type of personality that aims for this position also intrigues me. The number of bodies you need to stand upon to get to the top is horrible.

tiahura 5y ago

“I would write things about stuff I saw at the school — that I thought would irritate people” Ugh. I hate people that like to pretentiously crap over what others give them in order to signal their sanctimoniousness. Also, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

t-writescode 5y ago
How about "the time should be reasonable and proportionate to the crime actually committed" and "the crime should actually be a crime" and other related concepts.
Ensorceled 5y ago
> Ugh. I hate people that like to pretentiously crap over what others give them in order to signal their sanctimoniousness. > Also, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. So you are tone policing the author's "sanctimoniousness" but also support Ortiz completely destroying a young man's life over a pretty minor copyright issue? Strange ethics ...
- tiahura 5y ago
  Spare me. Losing a loved one sucks - we all understand that. Exploiting that grief to generate sanctimonious rage towards Ortiz is unfair. I’m occasionally a criminal defense attorney and a former overly-charged defendant myself. I’d blame his attorney before Ortiz.
kingcharles 5y ago
What if they make you do the time and you didn't do any crime? Asking for a friend.
z3c0 5y ago
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is pretty authoritarian, as far as quips go.

SamReidHughes 5y ago

It's not just Tarek Mehanna, she was also behind the Motel Caswell case.

overgard 5y ago

I'm glad this has come up again. I think Carmen should be reminded of this often.

amautertt 5y ago

Aaron Schwartz died for nothing. Ortiz is having an upward legal and political career, while an young and inspiring tech activist died. It didn't even push the envelope on free/open access science journals.

gorbachev 5y ago
She's not having an upward legal career, and her political career is dead. https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz...
- tptacek 5y ago
  For whatever it's worth, that article repeats the false claim that Heymann was pursuing a 35 year sentence for Swartz; they were in fact seeking an order of magnitude less time, and were unlikely to get even that (Swartz's own lawyer, writing after his death, noted that even if convicted --- not itself a certainty --- he might not have faced any custodial time). I write this not to downplay Ortiz and Heymann (I share the common HN sentiment about their behavior and culpability) but as a warning that if an article gets the basic fact that you don't work out sentences by multiplying the statutory maximum for an offense against the number of counts, there's likely other stuff they got wrong too, and this whole article is inside baseball. Who knows where Ortiz and, more importantly, Heymann are headed now. It's worth keeping your eyes open.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    This seems like a motte and bailey. There is the theoretical maximum sentence someone could receive, then there is the much shorter sentence they're likely to receive even if convicted, then there's the even shorter sentence if the prosecution fails to prove the most serious charges or the defendant takes a plea. Prosecutors commonly scare monger using the theoretical maximum in their press releases or when trying to coerce a plea out of a defendant. It isn't any more likely then than it is when a reporter says it, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

beervirus 5y ago

I’m actually pleasantly surprised that these kinds of (deserved) criticisms can be leveled against a female, Hispanic, Obama appointee. They’re usually reserved for white republicans.

nothrowaways 5y ago

"The takeaway lesson here is somewhat narrow: don’t be Ortiz. Establish some sort of line early that you are not willing to cross. Otherwise you might find yourself one day with blood on your hands, having forgotten that the law is not an end in itself, and that there are more important things in life than office."

ethbr0 5y ago
Agreed. It's far better to establish personal ethical red lines before you're confronted with a compromising situation. Those situations almost always come with justifications: exceptional circumstances, career impacts, peer pressure, or just lots of money. Better to have already decided something when you weren't unduly influenced, than have to make a hard call while everyone around you is whispering seductive suggestions in your ear.

slg 5y ago

All these things can be true: - Carmen Ortiz overcharged Aaron Swartz. - Carmen Ortiz's action in the Aaron Swartz case show a lack of judgement that should have cost her her legal/political career. - Carmen Ortiz is not responsible for Aaron Swartz's death. - Aaron Swartz is dead because he had a mental illness. You shouldn't blame Swartz's death on Ortiz. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people go to prison each year in the US and don't feel the need to kill themselves. It was Swartz's mental illness, which he had spoken about publicly before his death, that made a bad situation, which was severely worsened by Ortiz, seem much more devastating. However Swartz's response to that is not Ortiz's fault. Imagine a scenario in which someone commits suicide after a breakup. Would we blame that person's ex? If someone commits suicide after being fired, do we blame their old boss? The catalyst for the suicide is not at fault. The fault is with the illness that makes the person think suicide is the only way to respond to that catalyst.

arcwhite 5y ago
Yeah, lick that boot! > Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people go to prison each year in the US and don't feel the need to kill themselves Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming) > Would we blame that person's ex? I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would? Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful.
- slg 5y ago
  >Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming) It is not attempting to be a justification for what happened to him. It is demonstrating that Swartz was not acting rationally. You shouldn't blame someone for triggering an irrational response by another person. And it isn't victim-blaming to say someone is dead because of their mental illness anymore than it is victim-blaming to say someone is dead because they had cancer. >Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful. You are the one being reductive and equating all mental health issues to suicide. I am talking about one specific person with mental health issues. Talking about Swartz's mental health history is important. If he got the help he needed at the right time he might still be alive. Talking about that aspect of the story can help save the lives of people who feel similarly trapped as he felt.

thesausageking 5y ago

It wasn't just Ortiz. Judge Nathaniel Gorton played a huge role: Gorton is well known to the Massachusetts Bar, whose members whisper he rarely meets an indictment he doesn’t like. He’s noted as a hanging judge; prosecutors go out of their way to get high-profile cases assigned to him. After Swartz drew Gorton, his defense lawyers told Heymann the pressure of the case had rendered Swartz suicidal, his attorney later said he told prosecutors. “Fine, we’ll lock him up,” [Judge] Heymann responded. Swartz killed himself shortly thereafter, in January 2013. from https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz...

emodendroket 5y ago

Very simple, avoids hyperbole, but makes a great point. This marks only the first time Matt Bruenig would lose a job for something he posted.

_dh54 5y ago

We need updated laws and moral norms around suicide responsibility. There are thousands of suicides per year where no one is held responsible but the person themselves when in reality their death was a direct result of being intentionally treated maliciously. It should be no different than felony murder. By this more just standard Ortiz is guilty and should be charged with murder. Hopefully one day reform like this will happen.

steve76 5y ago

Suicides are not always out of fear or depression. Out of control mania is a big one. There are no longer any brakes on your actions. You say the first thing in your head. Your thinking is long past rational. The slightest provocation is a sign for you to show "them" that yes you'll put a gun to your head. Drugs are a big reason why this starts. You're guilty. Admit your guilt even if prosecutors won't take a deal. The judge doesn't want to hear why. Say you're guilty. Say you are remorseful, you'll cooperate and meet any demand ask of you but this is the day for your victims not you. Say you got a fair trial and there won't be an appeal. Also everything you own forfeit to the court through your attorney as voluntary compensation to the victims of your crimes. Say you will do everything possible never to commit another crime again. Most of all, and this better be honest, say you are ready and prepared for your sentence. You better be. This ain't the Hallmark Channel. The law is there to reduce violence, to put a cap on it. People want you dead. They will kill you if the law and court was not there. Morality and justice is not the law.

bb88 5y ago

> Energy intensive processes, such as cryptomining operations and data encryption, could require significantly less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint. No. It will just mean more hashes per block are required.

steve76 5y ago

You know who really has blood on their hands? The fools and liars who burnt and looted my country for a year. You see now that the people you championed are animals. They are starting to murder you. Now it's a problem. If you want justice, let Chauvin go. Floyd's drug dealer was in the car. They didn't call the cops because of the counterfeit bill, which is a scam drug dealers do. They addict you, drive you around and make you commit crimes in exchange for drugs. They're really grooming you to be a murderer. Floyd passed out. They thought they were going to be robbed. They called the cops. Floyd's drug dealer, Ellison's star witness, made Floyd eat a whole bag of elephant tranquilizer. Floyd resisted in the back of the cop car when he kicked it like crazy. Floyd got on the ground himself. Floyd resisted on the ground by not following commands. He rolls out in the street, car crash. You boosted that video to win the White House. Now the animals got away from you. Perhaps you have it wrong. Every time "savior civil rights" comes, the leash is loosened, and someone gets bit. "I guess I'm satisfied now." F** you. Punk. Crook. Liar. Cheat. Murderer. Where were you when Floyd was a junkie overdosing and in prison a dozen times over? Remember this. Everything you burnt. Everything you wasted. Remember your wanton hate when you ask why is there no cure for your horrible agonizing disease.