5 ms·

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 h

by 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.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Andy Good, Swartz's initial lawyer, told The Boston Globe: "I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk. His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, 'Fine, we'll lock him up.' http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz Multiple prosecutors (Ortiz, Heymann), the judge (Gorton), and institutions (MIT, JSTOR) wantonly pursued an extreme perversion of justice in full knowledge of Swartz's mental state.
    - slg 5y ago
      Funny that you left out the next couple of sentences in that quote: "I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway." But either way, what do you think the response from the legal system should be in this situation? Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? I think that is a huge can of worms. Authorities should certainly work to protect people in their custody to prevent suicide, but I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that they have a responsibility to be more lenient against potentially suicidal defendants.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        Again: given a full warning of the problem, judge and prosecutors expressed extreme indifference. Certainly not judicious exercise of their discretion. All for a victimless crime. And rather than express some modicum of sympathy you point out the humour in the situation. (What humour, I'm not even going to begin to ask.) I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        slg 5y ago
        Not funny as in humor, but definition 2 and 3 of "funny"[1]: >2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way >3: : involving trickery or deception The overall quote agreed with me, but you removed that extra context to make it agree with you. You also did a good job of avoiding giving a definitive answer to my question because you realize your answer sets a difficult precedent. Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? [1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Reads better without the first line. (And yes, I often fight the temptation to insert a line such as that where it's richly deserved. Usually successfully. If I can't, I try to at least be creative and somewhat indirect.)
- t-writescode 5y ago
  > I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would? In fact, we have! https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jessica-haban-domestic-violence-suicide_n_576ab898e4b09926ce5d4a53 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jessica-haban-domestic-violen...
t-writescode 5y ago
When a police officer shoots a kid with their back turned, wearing headphones who couldn't hear the cop say "stop", is the police officer responsible for the kid's death? Where does responsibility stop?
- slg 5y ago
  I am sorry, but that is a ludicrous analogy. Of course I would blame the police in that situation. However Swartz is the one that figuratively pulled the trigger not Ortiz. A proper analogy would be the cop arresting the kid and the kid hanging themselves in their cell. It is hard to blame the police in that situation because no one would expect the kid to hang themselves. And for the record, I am general not of fan of the police. You can dig into my old comments and see various anti-police rhetoric to the extent that it fits into normal HN conversations. But that doesn't mean police or the legal system are responsible for everything bad that happens. Authorities can't be expected to be omniscient and foresee any possible extreme response like committing suicide.
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    Given your repulsion, I'm going to assume that means you do think it would be the cop's fault. Why, though? The cop is within their right to stop someone they find to be doing bad things; and the person ignored requests to comply, so the cop needed to stop the danger they perceived. Maybe the kid's walkman looked like a gun. The cop was doing an extreme, but technically available, option for what they could do. But your own "proper analogy" doesn't match either. What's more accurate would be someone is arrested for stealing an iPod. They did, actually, steal that iPod. They go to jail, and then they're informed, from every angle, that the penalty for stealing the iPod was going to be 200 years in prison and 14 million dollars in fines. They'll also have a felony record, so even if they get let out on early release, they'll never have a job. Their. Life. Is. Over. For iPod theft. Of course, the law on the books says it'd be 1 year in prison, minimum, and $500 fine, minimum; but, this DA threw the book at them, and promised it would all stick. 200 years in prison, 14 million in fines. This person knows, now, that, at best, they're going to have a year or two of their friends coming to see them, maybe once a month, in prison, and then they'll be forgotten about, to live alone forever. Because it was an iPod, they won't be allowed to work any of the technical jobs, because they might break the law again, or something - some other baloney excuse. They've also watched tons and tons of TV that show what prisons do to their gangly selves, and they're not ready for that, either. They know they'll be abused and harmed. So they decide to protect themselves because this DA also has a history of winning cases they bring to the court, at the strength of penalty that the DA requests. How is it not the DA's fault of over-prosecution?
goodluckchuck 5y ago
> Would we blame that person's ex? Yes, if their ex, old boss, etc. was a federal prosecutor that was going to lock them in a cage full of criminals. I mean seriously: Imagine if some college kid was working at Subway and their boss was trying to lock them in the store’s basement, where they were keeping hundreds of criminals, and the kid’s only escape was death. Imagine if your sibling’s spouse forced them into a dungeon and your sibling killed themself. Would you blame your sibling or the wrongdoer?

by slg 5y ago

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.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Andy Good, Swartz's initial lawyer, told The Boston Globe: "I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk. His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, 'Fine, we'll lock him up.' http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz Multiple prosecutors (Ortiz, Heymann), the judge (Gorton), and institutions (MIT, JSTOR) wantonly pursued an extreme perversion of justice in full knowledge of Swartz's mental state.
  - slg 5y ago
    Funny that you left out the next couple of sentences in that quote: "I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway." But either way, what do you think the response from the legal system should be in this situation? Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? I think that is a huge can of worms. Authorities should certainly work to protect people in their custody to prevent suicide, but I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that they have a responsibility to be more lenient against potentially suicidal defendants.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Again: given a full warning of the problem, judge and prosecutors expressed extreme indifference. Certainly not judicious exercise of their discretion. All for a victimless crime. And rather than express some modicum of sympathy you point out the humour in the situation. (What humour, I'm not even going to begin to ask.) I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - slg 5y ago
        Not funny as in humor, but definition 2 and 3 of "funny"[1]: >2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way >3: : involving trickery or deception The overall quote agreed with me, but you removed that extra context to make it agree with you. You also did a good job of avoiding giving a definitive answer to my question because you realize your answer sets a difficult precedent. Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? [1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny
dredmorbius 5y ago
Reads better without the first line. (And yes, I often fight the temptation to insert a line such as that where it's richly deserved. Usually successfully. If I can't, I try to at least be creative and somewhat indirect.)
t-writescode 5y ago
> I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would? In fact, we have! https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jessica-haban-domestic-violence-suicide_n_576ab898e4b09926ce5d4a53 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jessica-haban-domestic-violen...

t-writescode 5y ago

When a police officer shoots a kid with their back turned, wearing headphones who couldn't hear the cop say "stop", is the police officer responsible for the kid's death? Where does responsibility stop?

slg 5y ago
I am sorry, but that is a ludicrous analogy. Of course I would blame the police in that situation. However Swartz is the one that figuratively pulled the trigger not Ortiz. A proper analogy would be the cop arresting the kid and the kid hanging themselves in their cell. It is hard to blame the police in that situation because no one would expect the kid to hang themselves. And for the record, I am general not of fan of the police. You can dig into my old comments and see various anti-police rhetoric to the extent that it fits into normal HN conversations. But that doesn't mean police or the legal system are responsible for everything bad that happens. Authorities can't be expected to be omniscient and foresee any possible extreme response like committing suicide.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  Given your repulsion, I'm going to assume that means you do think it would be the cop's fault. Why, though? The cop is within their right to stop someone they find to be doing bad things; and the person ignored requests to comply, so the cop needed to stop the danger they perceived. Maybe the kid's walkman looked like a gun. The cop was doing an extreme, but technically available, option for what they could do. But your own "proper analogy" doesn't match either. What's more accurate would be someone is arrested for stealing an iPod. They did, actually, steal that iPod. They go to jail, and then they're informed, from every angle, that the penalty for stealing the iPod was going to be 200 years in prison and 14 million dollars in fines. They'll also have a felony record, so even if they get let out on early release, they'll never have a job. Their. Life. Is. Over. For iPod theft. Of course, the law on the books says it'd be 1 year in prison, minimum, and $500 fine, minimum; but, this DA threw the book at them, and promised it would all stick. 200 years in prison, 14 million in fines. This person knows, now, that, at best, they're going to have a year or two of their friends coming to see them, maybe once a month, in prison, and then they'll be forgotten about, to live alone forever. Because it was an iPod, they won't be allowed to work any of the technical jobs, because they might break the law again, or something - some other baloney excuse. They've also watched tons and tons of TV that show what prisons do to their gangly selves, and they're not ready for that, either. They know they'll be abused and harmed. So they decide to protect themselves because this DA also has a history of winning cases they bring to the court, at the strength of penalty that the DA requests. How is it not the DA's fault of over-prosecution?

goodluckchuck 5y ago

> Would we blame that person's ex? Yes, if their ex, old boss, etc. was a federal prosecutor that was going to lock them in a cage full of criminals. I mean seriously: Imagine if some college kid was working at Subway and their boss was trying to lock them in the store’s basement, where they were keeping hundreds of criminals, and the kid’s only escape was death. Imagine if your sibling’s spouse forced them into a dungeon and your sibling killed themself. Would you blame your sibling or the wrongdoer?