4 ms·

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

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.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Swartz had exceptionally good representation. I'm confident they knew how to calculate a guideline sentence. For that matter: you could too; it's not rocket science. You'll be off on some particulars, but you'll get a sense of what the ballpark is. Go look up the federal sentencing guidelines.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Yeah, turns out she miscalculated a bit with this particular offering to Moloch.
- carbocation 5y ago
  From the final paragraph: > Ortiz is now the former prosecutor who is linked to the suicide of a once-in-a-generation talent and who fought Biden’s labor secretary nominee over his labor practices and lost.
causality0 5y ago
It does seem rather premature to kill yourself before being convicted. Perhaps with the testimony of JSTOR he would've been acquitted.
- porlune 5y ago
  regardless of whether that would have been more prudent, blame for over charging a young man to the point that he's suicidal is the factor I think we're most interested in
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  The whole thing was a tragedy. RIP
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  >It does seem rather premature to kill yourself before being convicted. Ask Julian Assange his opinion on that.
  - tzs 5y ago
    Assange, if convicted, is likely to actually get a long sentence. Swartz's lawyers said that the prosecutors claimed that they thought the judge might go up to 7 years. That would be dependent on the prosecutors proving Swartz causes millions of dollars in damages. Swartz's lawyers thought that the provable damages would be much less, most likely resulting in probation. Also unlike Assange Swartz had plea bargain offers. According to his lawyers prosecutors offered two deals. In one, Swartz would plead guilty and get a sentence of 4 months. In the other, Swartz would plead guilty, prosecutors would ask for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could ask the judge for a lower sentence (or just probation). The judge would then pick the sentence from the range [probation, 6 months]. Swartz, if convicted, was likely to get a sentence of a few months or just probation. His own lawyers thought probation was the most likely outcome. See this article for details [1]. The 35 years number bandied about is a press release number. In press releases prosecutors calculate possible sentences using a method that is completely unrealistic unless the person being charged is essentially the Hitler of the part of the crime world they operate in. Here's an article on how such ridiculous numbers come about [2]. [1] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a... [2] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
foolfoolz 5y ago
you could make an argument that most suicides died for nothing
mkl 5y ago
> Aaron Schwartz *Swartz

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.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Swartz had exceptionally good representation. I'm confident they knew how to calculate a guideline sentence. For that matter: you could too; it's not rocket science. You'll be off on some particulars, but you'll get a sense of what the ballpark is. Go look up the federal sentencing guidelines.
emodendroket 5y ago
Yeah, turns out she miscalculated a bit with this particular offering to Moloch.
carbocation 5y ago
From the final paragraph: > Ortiz is now the former prosecutor who is linked to the suicide of a once-in-a-generation talent and who fought Biden’s labor secretary nominee over his labor practices and lost.

causality0 5y ago

It does seem rather premature to kill yourself before being convicted. Perhaps with the testimony of JSTOR he would've been acquitted.

porlune 5y ago
regardless of whether that would have been more prudent, blame for over charging a young man to the point that he's suicidal is the factor I think we're most interested in
unityByFreedom 5y ago
The whole thing was a tragedy. RIP
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>It does seem rather premature to kill yourself before being convicted. Ask Julian Assange his opinion on that.
- tzs 5y ago
  Assange, if convicted, is likely to actually get a long sentence. Swartz's lawyers said that the prosecutors claimed that they thought the judge might go up to 7 years. That would be dependent on the prosecutors proving Swartz causes millions of dollars in damages. Swartz's lawyers thought that the provable damages would be much less, most likely resulting in probation. Also unlike Assange Swartz had plea bargain offers. According to his lawyers prosecutors offered two deals. In one, Swartz would plead guilty and get a sentence of 4 months. In the other, Swartz would plead guilty, prosecutors would ask for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could ask the judge for a lower sentence (or just probation). The judge would then pick the sentence from the range [probation, 6 months]. Swartz, if convicted, was likely to get a sentence of a few months or just probation. His own lawyers thought probation was the most likely outcome. See this article for details [1]. The 35 years number bandied about is a press release number. In press releases prosecutors calculate possible sentences using a method that is completely unrealistic unless the person being charged is essentially the Hitler of the part of the crime world they operate in. Here's an article on how such ridiculous numbers come about [2]. [1] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a... [2] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

foolfoolz 5y ago

you could make an argument that most suicides died for nothing

mkl 5y ago

> Aaron Schwartz *Swartz