7 ms·

The article says they offered a 6 month jail time plea bargain though. It sounds like from his own writing that he was cognizant of the fact he broke the law, b

The article says they offered a 6 month jail time plea bargain though. It sounds like from his own writing that he was cognizant of the fact he broke the law, but didn’t agree the law should have been a law in the first place. It also sounds like he didn’t really expect there would be any consequences whatsoever. Look at this from the prosecutors point of view. They have hard evidence of a crime. They have evidence of consciousness of guilt from the perpetrator. It’s a slam dunk at trial so why should it get to that point? It’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. That’s why the plea deal was so generous compared to the downside of taking it to court. You want to entice them to take a slap on the wrist plea deal so everyone can avoid the cost of forestalling the eventuality of the jury’s verdict. It’s true that prosecutors can be overzealous in their prosecutions, but 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be.

skinnymuch 5y ago
The statement is made by the prosecutor though. They could be saying the truth. It is a very biased person’s word to go off though.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  What statement? You mean they could have been lying about the plea deal?
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    If I recall the prosecutor’s future political ambitions got derailed because of this. That makes it even more likely to not believe anything they are saying without more to go on. So yes. Not just the plea deal and not just this case. In any situation, if the only evidence of something is the word of the state prosecutor, that only means so much.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "The prosecutor, Stephen Heymann, told Swartz’s lawyer, Elliot Peters, that if Swartz pleaded guilty to all counts he would spend six months in jail; if he lost at trial, it would be much worse." The prosecutor made the offer of a 6-month plea deal to Swartz's lawyer. Who presumably discussed it with Swartz, who seems to have decided not to accept it. Possibly, if you accept the analysis above, on the advice of his lawyer.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    The New Yorker doesn’t link to a citation. Rolling Stones does. Which links to a statement by lead prosecutor, Ortiz. Heymann was the assistant prosecutor. My point was how do we know this is an “analysis”. Based off Rolling Stones, this is just the prosecutors words.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-case-lawyer-says-aaron-swartz-was-offered-plea-deal-of-six-months-behind-bars/ https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2013/... How about semi-straight from the horse's mouth? Was his defense attorney working with prosecutors to minimize the threats? Is the Boston Globe in on it? (Conspiracy theories are so much fun! Ever read Foucault's Pendulum?)
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        What is the relevance of conspiracy theories here? Boston Globe in on what? Not sure what minimizing the threat means. Boston Globe link wasn’t here before. Now it is. It changes things. Seems straight forward to me.
mrtranscendence 5y ago
> 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be From the article, it seems that he was concerned about how being a convicted felon would hurt his career prospects. It would reduce his likelihood of being able to save the world. Not that he would have, anyway, but I think that's part of the thought process. Speaking for me personally, six months in federal prison would feel like an almost life-ending scenario. I'd lose my job (obviously) and would have trouble finding another in the field for which I'm educated and trained. My fiancee would not have sufficient income to pay our mortgage so we'd lose our house, and I'm not sure what we'd be able to do for the many pets we love dearly. My situation's much different from Swartz's but I can empathize that a six month sentence could have such dramatic consequences that it wouldn't feel like a slap on the wrist.
cowbellemoo 5y ago
> It’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money? > 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons. Imprisoned persons are frequently subject to physical and sexual violence at the hands of guards and other incarcerated people. These are inhumane conditions to subject anyone to, mass murderer and copyright-infringer alike.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money? Yes, but I think the solution is to make fewer things criminal through the democratic process first. Enforcement of laws is important. It’s one thing to put people in jail who don’t belong there. But according to this article it kinda seems like Swartz did deserve some jail time. He knowingly broke the law and showed no remorse. Instead his view was that the law should not apply to him because he did not agree with it. That’s a dangerous mindset to have for an individual with money and power. It’s important to show remorse and contrition in these circumstances, otherwise we can just assume the behavior will continue. And Swartz had a history of this kind of behavior starting with PACER, so really it should have been expected that failing to prosecute in this instance would have been taken by Swartz as a signal to behave like this with impunity. > I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons. I 100% agree with you, and know all about this topic, but that’s really a different conversation.
  - andreilys 5y ago
    Enforcement of laws is important. Agreed, unfortunately it seems that we selectively enforce laws based on political pressure. Look at the numerous high profile cases targeting white collar criminals, for example with Purdue and the Sackler family. They got away with zero jail time and a slap on the wrist (financially), all because they were able to hire the right political actors who could influence the outcome of legal procedures. I'm sure if Swartz was similarly connected (for example a family who was a Senator), this whole thing would have gone away quietly. Alas, the laws that apply to the commoners do not apply to the elite.
MereInterest 5y ago
A prosecutor choosing to seek a 6-month jail sentence is acceptable. A prosecutor choosing to seek a 50-year jail sentence is also acceptable. A prosecutor who is offering a 6-month jail sentence in exchange for waiving basic human rights, while threatening a 50-year jail sentence if those rights are exercised, has crossed the line into persecution. It's an analogous situation to blackmail. Suppose Alice has found evidence that Bob robbed a bank. Alice is legally allowed to reveal that evidence to the police, but is under no obligation to do so outside of a subpoena. However, even though both choices are legally permissible, Alice is not allowed to make her choice be conditional on receiving payments from Bob, as that would cross the line into blackmail. Plea bargains are a form of extortion, and should not be part of the legal system.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Plea bargains are a form of extortion, and should not be part of the legal system. So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? After all, even if the perpetrator has a 1% chance of winning, there's no reason not to go to trial under that system.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? If the perpetrator is willing to plead guilty, there is no need for a trial. Threatening people with massively larger penalties if they exercise their right to a trial rather than take a plea deal (often time limited before the defense has a chance to see the evidence) is coercive extortion and is morally wrong. There is plenty of evidence of innocent people (especially poor people) taking plea deals due to these prosecutorial tacits of threat and decite.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      While you make very valid points about plea deals in general, I don’t think they apply in this specific case. Swartz was very rich, and well represented. He also actually did the thing in question, and demonstrated consciousness of guilt. It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes.
shkkmo 5y ago
They threatened him with much, much more than 6 months to try to get him to plead guilty as a felon. They drained his financial coffers and drove wedges between him and his support network. If it was a slam dunk at trial and 6 months was a fair sentence, then why is there a need to threaten so much more to avoid granting him his right to a trial? Aaron's case is not unique in this regard and is indicative of the casual brutality and inhumanity inherent in the way that our justice system works. We desperately need to threaten reform how plea bargaining works and the amount of power we give prosecutors.
andreilys 5y ago
There was also the fact that he would be branded a felon, which as the article mentioned would have prevented him from working in the White House or other institutions from where he could continue his work
mcguire 5y ago
Note also that 6 months was the prosecutor's first offer.

skinnymuch 5y ago

The statement is made by the prosecutor though. They could be saying the truth. It is a very biased person’s word to go off though.

ModernMech 5y ago
What statement? You mean they could have been lying about the plea deal?
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  If I recall the prosecutor’s future political ambitions got derailed because of this. That makes it even more likely to not believe anything they are saying without more to go on. So yes. Not just the plea deal and not just this case. In any situation, if the only evidence of something is the word of the state prosecutor, that only means so much.
mcguire 5y ago
"The prosecutor, Stephen Heymann, told Swartz’s lawyer, Elliot Peters, that if Swartz pleaded guilty to all counts he would spend six months in jail; if he lost at trial, it would be much worse." The prosecutor made the offer of a 6-month plea deal to Swartz's lawyer. Who presumably discussed it with Swartz, who seems to have decided not to accept it. Possibly, if you accept the analysis above, on the advice of his lawyer.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  The New Yorker doesn’t link to a citation. Rolling Stones does. Which links to a statement by lead prosecutor, Ortiz. Heymann was the assistant prosecutor. My point was how do we know this is an “analysis”. Based off Rolling Stones, this is just the prosecutors words.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-case-lawyer-says-aaron-swartz-was-offered-plea-deal-of-six-months-behind-bars/ https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2013/... How about semi-straight from the horse's mouth? Was his defense attorney working with prosecutors to minimize the threats? Is the Boston Globe in on it? (Conspiracy theories are so much fun! Ever read Foucault's Pendulum?)
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      What is the relevance of conspiracy theories here? Boston Globe in on what? Not sure what minimizing the threat means. Boston Globe link wasn’t here before. Now it is. It changes things. Seems straight forward to me.

mrtranscendence 5y ago

> 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be From the article, it seems that he was concerned about how being a convicted felon would hurt his career prospects. It would reduce his likelihood of being able to save the world. Not that he would have, anyway, but I think that's part of the thought process. Speaking for me personally, six months in federal prison would feel like an almost life-ending scenario. I'd lose my job (obviously) and would have trouble finding another in the field for which I'm educated and trained. My fiancee would not have sufficient income to pay our mortgage so we'd lose our house, and I'm not sure what we'd be able to do for the many pets we love dearly. My situation's much different from Swartz's but I can empathize that a six month sentence could have such dramatic consequences that it wouldn't feel like a slap on the wrist.

cowbellemoo 5y ago

> It’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money? > 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons. Imprisoned persons are frequently subject to physical and sexual violence at the hands of guards and other incarcerated people. These are inhumane conditions to subject anyone to, mass murderer and copyright-infringer alike.

ModernMech 5y ago
> Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money? Yes, but I think the solution is to make fewer things criminal through the democratic process first. Enforcement of laws is important. It’s one thing to put people in jail who don’t belong there. But according to this article it kinda seems like Swartz did deserve some jail time. He knowingly broke the law and showed no remorse. Instead his view was that the law should not apply to him because he did not agree with it. That’s a dangerous mindset to have for an individual with money and power. It’s important to show remorse and contrition in these circumstances, otherwise we can just assume the behavior will continue. And Swartz had a history of this kind of behavior starting with PACER, so really it should have been expected that failing to prosecute in this instance would have been taken by Swartz as a signal to behave like this with impunity. > I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons. I 100% agree with you, and know all about this topic, but that’s really a different conversation.
- andreilys 5y ago
  Enforcement of laws is important. Agreed, unfortunately it seems that we selectively enforce laws based on political pressure. Look at the numerous high profile cases targeting white collar criminals, for example with Purdue and the Sackler family. They got away with zero jail time and a slap on the wrist (financially), all because they were able to hire the right political actors who could influence the outcome of legal procedures. I'm sure if Swartz was similarly connected (for example a family who was a Senator), this whole thing would have gone away quietly. Alas, the laws that apply to the commoners do not apply to the elite.

MereInterest 5y ago

A prosecutor choosing to seek a 6-month jail sentence is acceptable. A prosecutor choosing to seek a 50-year jail sentence is also acceptable. A prosecutor who is offering a 6-month jail sentence in exchange for waiving basic human rights, while threatening a 50-year jail sentence if those rights are exercised, has crossed the line into persecution. It's an analogous situation to blackmail. Suppose Alice has found evidence that Bob robbed a bank. Alice is legally allowed to reveal that evidence to the police, but is under no obligation to do so outside of a subpoena. However, even though both choices are legally permissible, Alice is not allowed to make her choice be conditional on receiving payments from Bob, as that would cross the line into blackmail. Plea bargains are a form of extortion, and should not be part of the legal system.

gruez 5y ago
>Plea bargains are a form of extortion, and should not be part of the legal system. So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? After all, even if the perpetrator has a 1% chance of winning, there's no reason not to go to trial under that system.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? If the perpetrator is willing to plead guilty, there is no need for a trial. Threatening people with massively larger penalties if they exercise their right to a trial rather than take a plea deal (often time limited before the defense has a chance to see the evidence) is coercive extortion and is morally wrong. There is plenty of evidence of innocent people (especially poor people) taking plea deals due to these prosecutorial tacits of threat and decite.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    While you make very valid points about plea deals in general, I don’t think they apply in this specific case. Swartz was very rich, and well represented. He also actually did the thing in question, and demonstrated consciousness of guilt. It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes.

shkkmo 5y ago

They threatened him with much, much more than 6 months to try to get him to plead guilty as a felon. They drained his financial coffers and drove wedges between him and his support network. If it was a slam dunk at trial and 6 months was a fair sentence, then why is there a need to threaten so much more to avoid granting him his right to a trial? Aaron's case is not unique in this regard and is indicative of the casual brutality and inhumanity inherent in the way that our justice system works. We desperately need to threaten reform how plea bargaining works and the amount of power we give prosecutors.

andreilys 5y ago

There was also the fact that he would be branded a felon, which as the article mentioned would have prevented him from working in the White House or other institutions from where he could continue his work

mcguire 5y ago

Note also that 6 months was the prosecutor's first offer.