10 ms·

From the article: For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar tr

by agwa 14y ago

From the article: For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. Remember, this was on HN just a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003335 Once again we see the true nature of criminal prosecutions: the prosecutor's tactic is to bring outrageous charges that could result in decades in prison, bankrupt the defendant one way or the other (seizing assets or making the case so complex it bleeds him dry), and then use that to coerce a guilty plea. It's no wonder that trials by jury are becoming so vanishingly rare that even the Supreme Court has written that "in today’s criminal justice system, the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant." [1] Do we really want to live in a country where your right to a trial is an empty right? [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-444.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-444.pdf Edited to add: many people in this thread want to name and shame the individual prosecutor in this case. That is seriously misdirected effort that is not going to solve the systemic problems. It may even exasperate them, as it falsely implies that the problem is with individual overstepping prosecutors rather than a system in which it's the norm.

jdminhbg 14y ago
I disagree with your edit. There's definitely a systemic problem, but it's a systemic problem with elected officials. Naming, shaming, and voting them out is the solution.
- agwa 14y ago
  > it's a systemic problem with elected officials Federal prosecutors are appointed, not elected, which makes the effort to name and shame them even more tenuous. Trying to fight the culture of overzealous prosecution as a whole would make it more likely that the elected official who appoints them (the president) does a better job.
  - jdminhbg 14y ago
    You're correct; I misread the article as her being an elected Attorney General, not a US attorney. I still support undermining any effort of hers to get elected to higher office, though.
  - danso 14y ago
    She was considered someone in the running for Mass. governor and may continue a political career later in life.
  - pekk 14y ago
    How do you 'fight the culture of overzealous prosecution as a whole' without ever making reference to individuals or individual cases? You can't.
- andrewtbham 14y ago
  I agree naming and shaming is a good idea. It puts a name and a face to the story... not just some nebulous "the system is broken." People need a narrative to humanize the situation and it can serve as a warning to other prosecutors.
  - danso 14y ago
    Yes...as much as hacker-minded people want to think that it's about the data (which I won't argue that it isn't), things happen because of individual stories. Rosa Parks was not the first person to be denied a seat on a bus. The mishandling of rape cases has been a problem in India for a long time and it took the tragic case of the (so far, anonymous) woman who was brutally gang-raped to spur international furor. And think of the numerous laws named after victims...Megan, and so forth
    - andrewtbham 14y ago
      I was actually thinking about Rosa Parks when I made that comment. The reason that Rosa Parks became a well known civil rights figure was because she was well known and liked, not because she was the first... Just like Aaron
      - danso 14y ago
        Which just adds to the tragedy of all this. I think Aaron is someone the tech and non-tech community could have backed together, for any reasonable civic cause. His name is already attached to Reddit and all of his other accomplishments make him as much a non-consumer-facing media tech darling as you could hope for.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    This The system is supported by people. Someone is responsible. Not naming the people responsible is only good for them and is probably what they want.
temphn 14y ago
Naming and shaming Carmen M. Ortiz for destroying the life of a young man is exactly what is necessary. She brought 13 felony counts against him for downloading articles that should be freely available, after JSTOR itself had dropped the charges. Destroying her career and seeing her fired in disgrace will send a message to all other overzealous prosecutors, in the same way that she surely thought her prosecution of Swartz would have a "deterrent" effect. Seeing her dismissed and disgraced is in fact the only thing that will send such a message to such Javerts, as they have disabled the voice of the people by routing around jury trials and they are appointed rather than subject to elections. Carmen M. Ortiz is running for higher office on the backs of high profile prosecutions, and now on the body of Aaron Swartz. It is incumbent upon us to see that she does not get there, that this behavior is NOT rewarded. Example: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/December/EremianVerdictPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/December/EremianVer... Lyons is the first defendant in the U.S. to be charged and convicted of violating the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The statute was enacted by Congress in 2006 to deter the use of the U.S. banking system to pay Internet gambling debts incurred by U.S. citizens. Unites [sic] States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, “Today’s convictions should serve as a message to those involved with illegal gambling schemes that the government will apply the full weight of its resources to identify, investigate and prosecute individuals who seek to profit from offshore gambling.” ... The defendants face up to 20 years in prison on the RICO charges; five years in prison on the illegal gambling charges; and two years in prison on the wire act charges. Lyons also faces three years in prison on the tax charges, five years in prison on the interstate travel in aid of racketeering and UIGEA charges and 20 years in prison on the money laundering charges.Additionally each count also carries three to five years of supervised release and fines up to $250,000. "Today's convictions should serve as a message" over online gambling, which was just made illegal by fiat in 2006 in a rider tacked on to the Dubai Ports World Bill! This woman is routinely involved in travesties of justice related to online activities and thinks this means sending "a message". The Internet needs to send a message back, and force her resignation in disgrace.
- dmix 14y ago
  How do we go about getting this message across to her and other key people (legally)? I'm interested in helping.
downandout 14y ago
Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under these broad statutes are so absurdly high that no one in their right mind would dare risk a trial. These factors, combined with often merciless prosecutors, add up to a recipe for a potential disaster such as the one we have seen here. The system is very much geared to send to prison anyone that is charged with a crime, based on the system's trust in the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Unfortunately, many prosecutors abuse their discretion, and there is no way to inject uniform sanity into our system as it currently exists. Sadly, the prosecutor in this case likely won't even offer as much as an apology to Aaron's family, as most of them seem to feel justified in their behavior.
- dmix 14y ago
  Wow, do you have a source for the 94%?
- agwa 14y ago
  It's actually 97%, at least as of 2010: http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_S... Unfortunately that's down at the moment but you can use the Google Cache: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESilXv1aaDbX21Km_l4NgARe-6wI_aYmpDvcY9OMNMrayeLIJg-01o2tWEp1GeoYRgZ2pMXg7LkK5OQyI0q4ZDbArNevFiRd-nlp1q7MgMw-LO2C4LwopppI9RyzcLD9sopM3yeB&sig=AHIEtbR4psMUugvn_bV47GYdgak35_JkoQ https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:...
  - downandout 14y ago
    Corrected, thanks. The 94% figure was from 2001 I believe. Apparently it's gone up.
wissler 14y ago
None of these sorts of problems will ever get fixed unless society decides to get back to basics and back to reason and principles. I don't see any evidence of that happening. The problem isn't with government per se, it's with the typical intellectual.
- dvnlgls 14y ago
  I'm reminded of a saying, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Well, "..what they must" is a strong phrase, but you get the idea. The general population isn't bothered about these kind of issues. The best they can do, if they notice an issue, is post their views on internet or express some strong views to their friends. If we need to clean shit, we need to go to the top and change it. Sadly I too don't see this happen anytime soon.
genwin 14y ago
> Edited to add: many people in this thread want to name and shame the individual prosecutor in this case. That is seriously misdirected effort that is not going to solve the systemic problems Disagree. Ostracizing and shaming everyone who supports such tactics is the reasonable way to mitigate this crap. Ostracizing and shaming worked for the civil rights movement, it can work here too.
kirillzubovsky 14y ago
Perhaps it is the system's fault because it is not set to find the truth, but rather as a sports event between the defender and the prosecutor. Each one does their job and at the end, the winner takes all, whether for right or for wrong. I have a friend who is a prosecutor and I had heard him talk about his work before. Everything he said was focused on winning. He was proud that he was able to dig out cases from the past where people went free, and then send them to jail. He was proud how good he was at prosecuting people. For all I know, he kept a score. Is being so driven by the end goal a good thing? Sure it is, when you are prosecuting an actual bad guy. But, as it was my impression from my friend, it didn't really matter to him how bad the guy; all that matters is whether he can win. In that case, the system is at fault for allowing this kind of competition with human lives, but the individuals are at fault for playing the game.
lazyGeneral 14y ago
I can imagine and believe that defending yourself against the US government is costly, what I don't understand is what the breakdown of all expenses would look like. What services do you need to purchase/hire that you wouldn't get in a normal court case? Is it because you spend a lot more time in court or in preparation? Do you need to choose among lawyers with special certification? What type of paperwork do you need to produce? In the Latin America (where I am) I could easily see the biggest expenses being bribes and it is in general what I think of when you need a problem solved. (Not a good thing at all...) P.S. Making an infographic about a case like this vs a regular court case would be an interesting project and could help us make the case for Aaron...anyone want to help by looking for data / making one on your own?
- rprasad 14y ago
  Federal courts vs normal courts are like the difference between the NBA and high school basketball, or the NFL and college football. Most of the rules are the same, but the game is played at a much higher level and the stakes are higher.
tsotha 14y ago
Plea bargains should be illegal. If the state doesn't have the resources to try a crime then they shouldn't bother with an indictment.
edouard1234567 14y ago
I agree, we should be careful not to confuse justice with vengeance and focus on the root cause by improving the framework so that this kind of behavior by prosecutors is simply not possible. “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” MG. What will we say if this prosecutor commits suicide next week?
davidgerard 14y ago
No, I think you're wrong: making an example to encourage the others would be a most productive step to take. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...
michaelochurch 14y ago
unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge This is such a disgusting violation of power it makes me want to vomit blood. Why on earth do judges have the right to prevent people from appealing to the court of public opinion? That's immoral, abusive, and absurd. If people can't disclose what is happening to them, then abuses of power become frequent.
odin1415 14y ago
exacerbate
SEMW 14y ago
> many people in this thread want to name and shame the individual prosecutor in this case. That is seriously misdirected effort that is not going to solve the systemic problems. It may even exasperate them, as it falsely implies that the problem is with individual overstepping prosecutors rather than a system in which it's the norm. There's a good essay on exactly that point, descriptively entitled "Fix the machine, not the person". Written by... Aaron Swartz. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/nummi http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/nummi It's perhaps interesting that, in a thread with dozens of HNers calling for everything from naming and shaming to harrassment, no-one so far has linked to his opinion on this.
neltnerb 14y ago
Yes, I agree with this, having been the subject of unreasonable scrutiny in the past myself and having had friends who have similarly been abused by the "justice" system. This kind of thing is far too common. The prosecution may be allowed to presume guilt, fine. But the law should prevent an overzealous prosecutor from rendering moot the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments (not that I'm a constitutional scholar, just applying the "common sense" rule here). Seizing assets is wrong in 99% of cases, and eliminates the right to mount an effective defense. It is morally bankrupt. "Making an example" of someone is complete garbage. That is not justice, it is cruel and unusual punishment. It seems to more often be used by DA's with political aspirations than for legitimately egregious crimes. This is why I vote against anyone who lists "tough on crime" as a credential. It's not. "Fair on crime" is a virtue, "tough on crime" is bullying and an abrogation of justice. Citizens should have an expectation that punishments for doing something wrong will suit the offense. Anything otherwise is a violation of the 8th amendment. If there is doubt over whether or not an action is even a crime, a DA should be using their discretion to NOT prosecute. When the "victims" of a "crime" don't even want to press charges, you have to question the motives of a DA that pursues the case anyway.

by agwa 14y ago

jdminhbg 14y ago

I disagree with your edit. There's definitely a systemic problem, but it's a systemic problem with elected officials. Naming, shaming, and voting them out is the solution.

agwa 14y ago
> it's a systemic problem with elected officials Federal prosecutors are appointed, not elected, which makes the effort to name and shame them even more tenuous. Trying to fight the culture of overzealous prosecution as a whole would make it more likely that the elected official who appoints them (the president) does a better job.
- jdminhbg 14y ago
  You're correct; I misread the article as her being an elected Attorney General, not a US attorney. I still support undermining any effort of hers to get elected to higher office, though.
- danso 14y ago
  She was considered someone in the running for Mass. governor and may continue a political career later in life.
- pekk 14y ago
  How do you 'fight the culture of overzealous prosecution as a whole' without ever making reference to individuals or individual cases? You can't.
andrewtbham 14y ago
I agree naming and shaming is a good idea. It puts a name and a face to the story... not just some nebulous "the system is broken." People need a narrative to humanize the situation and it can serve as a warning to other prosecutors.
- danso 14y ago
  Yes...as much as hacker-minded people want to think that it's about the data (which I won't argue that it isn't), things happen because of individual stories. Rosa Parks was not the first person to be denied a seat on a bus. The mishandling of rape cases has been a problem in India for a long time and it took the tragic case of the (so far, anonymous) woman who was brutally gang-raped to spur international furor. And think of the numerous laws named after victims...Megan, and so forth
  - andrewtbham 14y ago
    I was actually thinking about Rosa Parks when I made that comment. The reason that Rosa Parks became a well known civil rights figure was because she was well known and liked, not because she was the first... Just like Aaron
    - danso 14y ago
      Which just adds to the tragedy of all this. I think Aaron is someone the tech and non-tech community could have backed together, for any reasonable civic cause. His name is already attached to Reddit and all of his other accomplishments make him as much a non-consumer-facing media tech darling as you could hope for.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  This The system is supported by people. Someone is responsible. Not naming the people responsible is only good for them and is probably what they want.

temphn 14y ago

Naming and shaming Carmen M. Ortiz for destroying the life of a young man is exactly what is necessary. She brought 13 felony counts against him for downloading articles that should be freely available, after JSTOR itself had dropped the charges. Destroying her career and seeing her fired in disgrace will send a message to all other overzealous prosecutors, in the same way that she surely thought her prosecution of Swartz would have a "deterrent" effect. Seeing her dismissed and disgraced is in fact the only thing that will send such a message to such Javerts, as they have disabled the voice of the people by routing around jury trials and they are appointed rather than subject to elections. Carmen M. Ortiz is running for higher office on the backs of high profile prosecutions, and now on the body of Aaron Swartz. It is incumbent upon us to see that she does not get there, that this behavior is NOT rewarded. Example: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/December/EremianVerdictPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/December/EremianVer... Lyons is the first defendant in the U.S. to be charged and convicted of violating the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The statute was enacted by Congress in 2006 to deter the use of the U.S. banking system to pay Internet gambling debts incurred by U.S. citizens. Unites [sic] States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, “Today’s convictions should serve as a message to those involved with illegal gambling schemes that the government will apply the full weight of its resources to identify, investigate and prosecute individuals who seek to profit from offshore gambling.” ... The defendants face up to 20 years in prison on the RICO charges; five years in prison on the illegal gambling charges; and two years in prison on the wire act charges. Lyons also faces three years in prison on the tax charges, five years in prison on the interstate travel in aid of racketeering and UIGEA charges and 20 years in prison on the money laundering charges.Additionally each count also carries three to five years of supervised release and fines up to $250,000. "Today's convictions should serve as a message" over online gambling, which was just made illegal by fiat in 2006 in a rider tacked on to the Dubai Ports World Bill! This woman is routinely involved in travesties of justice related to online activities and thinks this means sending "a message". The Internet needs to send a message back, and force her resignation in disgrace.

dmix 14y ago
How do we go about getting this message across to her and other key people (legally)? I'm interested in helping.

downandout 14y ago

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under these broad statutes are so absurdly high that no one in their right mind would dare risk a trial. These factors, combined with often merciless prosecutors, add up to a recipe for a potential disaster such as the one we have seen here. The system is very much geared to send to prison anyone that is charged with a crime, based on the system's trust in the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Unfortunately, many prosecutors abuse their discretion, and there is no way to inject uniform sanity into our system as it currently exists. Sadly, the prosecutor in this case likely won't even offer as much as an apology to Aaron's family, as most of them seem to feel justified in their behavior.

dmix 14y ago
Wow, do you have a source for the 94%?
agwa 14y ago
It's actually 97%, at least as of 2010: http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_S... Unfortunately that's down at the moment but you can use the Google Cache: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESilXv1aaDbX21Km_l4NgARe-6wI_aYmpDvcY9OMNMrayeLIJg-01o2tWEp1GeoYRgZ2pMXg7LkK5OQyI0q4ZDbArNevFiRd-nlp1q7MgMw-LO2C4LwopppI9RyzcLD9sopM3yeB&sig=AHIEtbR4psMUugvn_bV47GYdgak35_JkoQ https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:...
- downandout 14y ago
  Corrected, thanks. The 94% figure was from 2001 I believe. Apparently it's gone up.

wissler 14y ago

None of these sorts of problems will ever get fixed unless society decides to get back to basics and back to reason and principles. I don't see any evidence of that happening. The problem isn't with government per se, it's with the typical intellectual.

dvnlgls 14y ago
I'm reminded of a saying, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Well, "..what they must" is a strong phrase, but you get the idea. The general population isn't bothered about these kind of issues. The best they can do, if they notice an issue, is post their views on internet or express some strong views to their friends. If we need to clean shit, we need to go to the top and change it. Sadly I too don't see this happen anytime soon.

genwin 14y ago

> Edited to add: many people in this thread want to name and shame the individual prosecutor in this case. That is seriously misdirected effort that is not going to solve the systemic problems Disagree. Ostracizing and shaming everyone who supports such tactics is the reasonable way to mitigate this crap. Ostracizing and shaming worked for the civil rights movement, it can work here too.

kirillzubovsky 14y ago

Perhaps it is the system's fault because it is not set to find the truth, but rather as a sports event between the defender and the prosecutor. Each one does their job and at the end, the winner takes all, whether for right or for wrong. I have a friend who is a prosecutor and I had heard him talk about his work before. Everything he said was focused on winning. He was proud that he was able to dig out cases from the past where people went free, and then send them to jail. He was proud how good he was at prosecuting people. For all I know, he kept a score. Is being so driven by the end goal a good thing? Sure it is, when you are prosecuting an actual bad guy. But, as it was my impression from my friend, it didn't really matter to him how bad the guy; all that matters is whether he can win. In that case, the system is at fault for allowing this kind of competition with human lives, but the individuals are at fault for playing the game.

lazyGeneral 14y ago

I can imagine and believe that defending yourself against the US government is costly, what I don't understand is what the breakdown of all expenses would look like. What services do you need to purchase/hire that you wouldn't get in a normal court case? Is it because you spend a lot more time in court or in preparation? Do you need to choose among lawyers with special certification? What type of paperwork do you need to produce? In the Latin America (where I am) I could easily see the biggest expenses being bribes and it is in general what I think of when you need a problem solved. (Not a good thing at all...) P.S. Making an infographic about a case like this vs a regular court case would be an interesting project and could help us make the case for Aaron...anyone want to help by looking for data / making one on your own?

rprasad 14y ago
Federal courts vs normal courts are like the difference between the NBA and high school basketball, or the NFL and college football. Most of the rules are the same, but the game is played at a much higher level and the stakes are higher.

tsotha 14y ago

Plea bargains should be illegal. If the state doesn't have the resources to try a crime then they shouldn't bother with an indictment.

edouard1234567 14y ago

I agree, we should be careful not to confuse justice with vengeance and focus on the root cause by improving the framework so that this kind of behavior by prosecutors is simply not possible. “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” MG. What will we say if this prosecutor commits suicide next week?

davidgerard 14y ago

No, I think you're wrong: making an example to encourage the others would be a most productive step to take. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...

michaelochurch 14y ago

unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge This is such a disgusting violation of power it makes me want to vomit blood. Why on earth do judges have the right to prevent people from appealing to the court of public opinion? That's immoral, abusive, and absurd. If people can't disclose what is happening to them, then abuses of power become frequent.

odin1415 14y ago

exacerbate

SEMW 14y ago

> many people in this thread want to name and shame the individual prosecutor in this case. That is seriously misdirected effort that is not going to solve the systemic problems. It may even exasperate them, as it falsely implies that the problem is with individual overstepping prosecutors rather than a system in which it's the norm. There's a good essay on exactly that point, descriptively entitled "Fix the machine, not the person". Written by... Aaron Swartz. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/nummi http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/nummi It's perhaps interesting that, in a thread with dozens of HNers calling for everything from naming and shaming to harrassment, no-one so far has linked to his opinion on this.

neltnerb 14y ago

Yes, I agree with this, having been the subject of unreasonable scrutiny in the past myself and having had friends who have similarly been abused by the "justice" system. This kind of thing is far too common. The prosecution may be allowed to presume guilt, fine. But the law should prevent an overzealous prosecutor from rendering moot the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments (not that I'm a constitutional scholar, just applying the "common sense" rule here). Seizing assets is wrong in 99% of cases, and eliminates the right to mount an effective defense. It is morally bankrupt. "Making an example" of someone is complete garbage. That is not justice, it is cruel and unusual punishment. It seems to more often be used by DA's with political aspirations than for legitimately egregious crimes. This is why I vote against anyone who lists "tough on crime" as a credential. It's not. "Fair on crime" is a virtue, "tough on crime" is bullying and an abrogation of justice. Citizens should have an expectation that punishments for doing something wrong will suit the offense. Anything otherwise is a violation of the 8th amendment. If there is doubt over whether or not an action is even a crime, a DA should be using their discretion to NOT prosecute. When the "victims" of a "crime" don't even want to press charges, you have to question the motives of a DA that pursues the case anyway.