5 ms·

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 l

by 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.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    > So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict As the old saying goes, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told them to. Edit: I'm not sure how many are aware of how grand juries work. The prosecutor presents evidence, but the defense is generally not allowed to present any evidence (the defense isn't even allowed to be in the room unless they are explicitly summoned). Grand jury proceedings are secret. If there is an indictment, the defense will not even be allowed to see what evidence was used. Thus, it's not surprising that a manipulative prosecutor can sometimes get a grand jury to issue an indictment based on flimsy evidence, leading to the saying about them being persuaded to "indict a ham sandwich". Most common law countries abolished grand juries long ago, and about half of the U.S. states no longer use them at all (even though they are still technically allowed).
    - tiahura 5y ago
      In most cases grand juries are optional. The prosecutor does not need to use a grand jury to file charges. So, prosecutors use the grand jury as a way to pass the buck. They are not (tv news cycle nuttiness aside)used to railroad the innocent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tofof 5y ago
    We do know what sentence she would've recommended. She and Heymann were pushing for 35 years. More than many killers and rapists get, by decades at that. The prosecution even compared him to a rapist. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-heymann-aaron-swartz_n_3685191 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-heymann-aaron-swartz_... https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz... And let's not forget why he turned down the plea deal: HE WASN'T GUILTY OF ANYTHING. Jstor and MIT both didn't want a prosecution, and "MIT’s site license for JSTOR [allowed] for “unlimited” use of the JSTOR library." The prosecution claimed he was going to release the downloaded materials publically, which might have constituted copyright infringement, but he had not actually done so at the time of his voluntary surrender.
gamache 5y ago
Because she tried to rob Aaron Swartz of his future in order to further her career. Indirectly, it worked. Carmen Ortiz used her authority to suck.
frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
>Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all. I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it. That seems like a really obvious reason to go after her.
- dvt 5y ago
  > I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it. Discretion means that you're permitted to make whatever decision you think is best. Misusing discretion is an oxymoron.
  - landryraccoon 5y ago
    Sorry, are you arguing that the mere fact that something you do isn’t illegal means you can’t be criticized for it? Would it follow that you can’t criticize Joe Biden for any of his decisions as long as they aren’t actually illegal? I seriously can’t make sense of your position. What’s under dispute is not whether the act was legal but whether it was a horrible idea.
  - taeric 5y ago
    But showing someone has poor discretion is the point. As an example, defending someone that had such generally agreed poor discretion is not, generally, showing good discretion either.
    - dvt 5y ago
      You're conflating the colloquial use of the word "discretion" with the legal term.
      - Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Nothing about either use makes her decisions immune to criticism. She is a lawyer, not an official in the medieval church.
      - taeric 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
temp8964 5y ago
It’s not a strawman. She’s the direct cause, not the law. If there’s a different prosecutor, it wouldn’t happen, he wouldn’t die.
Talanes 5y ago
>Why are we going after Carmen Ortiz again? Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all. One doesn't follow the other. If anything, the fact that certain things are left to personal discretion makes it more important for people to speak up when they disagree. In the absence of law to constrain the behavior of the Carmen Ortiz's of the world, social pressure is all we have.
- dvt 5y ago
  > absence of law to constrain the behavior of the Carmen Ortiz's of the world, social pressure is all we have. How about changing the laws? You do realize that we literally pick the law-makers, right? I guess writing blog posts is easier.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    I always wonder why people assume writers are a) not doing anything else to further goal and b) that writing is absolutely, totally useless even though lots of people read it and they, themselves, felt compelled by the writing to respond
    - zeusk 5y ago
      I guess they haven't heard the idiom, "The pen is mightier than sword"
cure 5y ago
> The far right and far left (of which Matt Bruenig is decidedly a part of) Matt Bruenig is not far left, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Policy_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Policy_Project, he's a democratic-socialist, maybe at most a socialist. Far left is quite something else! Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics.
echelon 5y ago
Carmen Ortiz bullied Aaron Swartz into committing suicide. She's worse than the 4chan/kiwifarms trolls, because she used her incredible power and position against him.
goodluckchuck 5y ago
Thanks for complaining about people who are trying to help because they are helping in a way that you believe isn’t as helpful as you choose not to be. /s

by dvt 5y ago

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.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict As the old saying goes, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told them to. Edit: I'm not sure how many are aware of how grand juries work. The prosecutor presents evidence, but the defense is generally not allowed to present any evidence (the defense isn't even allowed to be in the room unless they are explicitly summoned). Grand jury proceedings are secret. If there is an indictment, the defense will not even be allowed to see what evidence was used. Thus, it's not surprising that a manipulative prosecutor can sometimes get a grand jury to issue an indictment based on flimsy evidence, leading to the saying about them being persuaded to "indict a ham sandwich". Most common law countries abolished grand juries long ago, and about half of the U.S. states no longer use them at all (even though they are still technically allowed).
  - tiahura 5y ago
    In most cases grand juries are optional. The prosecutor does not need to use a grand jury to file charges. So, prosecutors use the grand jury as a way to pass the buck. They are not (tv news cycle nuttiness aside)used to railroad the innocent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tofof 5y ago
  We do know what sentence she would've recommended. She and Heymann were pushing for 35 years. More than many killers and rapists get, by decades at that. The prosecution even compared him to a rapist. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-heymann-aaron-swartz_n_3685191 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-heymann-aaron-swartz_... https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz... And let's not forget why he turned down the plea deal: HE WASN'T GUILTY OF ANYTHING. Jstor and MIT both didn't want a prosecution, and "MIT’s site license for JSTOR [allowed] for “unlimited” use of the JSTOR library." The prosecution claimed he was going to release the downloaded materials publically, which might have constituted copyright infringement, but he had not actually done so at the time of his voluntary surrender.

gamache 5y ago

Because she tried to rob Aaron Swartz of his future in order to further her career. Indirectly, it worked. Carmen Ortiz used her authority to suck.

frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago

>Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all. I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it. That seems like a really obvious reason to go after her.

dvt 5y ago
> I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it. Discretion means that you're permitted to make whatever decision you think is best. Misusing discretion is an oxymoron.
- landryraccoon 5y ago
  Sorry, are you arguing that the mere fact that something you do isn’t illegal means you can’t be criticized for it? Would it follow that you can’t criticize Joe Biden for any of his decisions as long as they aren’t actually illegal? I seriously can’t make sense of your position. What’s under dispute is not whether the act was legal but whether it was a horrible idea.
- taeric 5y ago
  But showing someone has poor discretion is the point. As an example, defending someone that had such generally agreed poor discretion is not, generally, showing good discretion either.
  - dvt 5y ago
    You're conflating the colloquial use of the word "discretion" with the legal term.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      Nothing about either use makes her decisions immune to criticism. She is a lawyer, not an official in the medieval church.
    - taeric 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

temp8964 5y ago

It’s not a strawman. She’s the direct cause, not the law. If there’s a different prosecutor, it wouldn’t happen, he wouldn’t die.

Talanes 5y ago

>Why are we going after Carmen Ortiz again? Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all. One doesn't follow the other. If anything, the fact that certain things are left to personal discretion makes it more important for people to speak up when they disagree. In the absence of law to constrain the behavior of the Carmen Ortiz's of the world, social pressure is all we have.

dvt 5y ago
> absence of law to constrain the behavior of the Carmen Ortiz's of the world, social pressure is all we have. How about changing the laws? You do realize that we literally pick the law-makers, right? I guess writing blog posts is easier.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I always wonder why people assume writers are a) not doing anything else to further goal and b) that writing is absolutely, totally useless even though lots of people read it and they, themselves, felt compelled by the writing to respond
  - zeusk 5y ago
    I guess they haven't heard the idiom, "The pen is mightier than sword"

cure 5y ago

> The far right and far left (of which Matt Bruenig is decidedly a part of) Matt Bruenig is not far left, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Policy_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Policy_Project, he's a democratic-socialist, maybe at most a socialist. Far left is quite something else! Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics.

echelon 5y ago

Carmen Ortiz bullied Aaron Swartz into committing suicide. She's worse than the 4chan/kiwifarms trolls, because she used her incredible power and position against him.

goodluckchuck 5y ago

Thanks for complaining about people who are trying to help because they are helping in a way that you believe isn’t as helpful as you choose not to be. /s