5 ms·

From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government r

From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony. But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.

rhizome 14y ago
most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not certainly" or "not definitely" would have been more appropriate.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that. Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      I addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse." > make an example of someone I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence. > evade establishing precedent I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.
andreyf 14y ago
He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.
- emkemp 14y ago
  Then he should have gone to trial.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Even a not-guilty plea would have left him ruined.
    - emkemp 14y ago
      How so? What was preventing him from setting up a legal defense fund and accepting contributions? Hell, what if the judge had thrown out the charges?
      - thenetwork 14y ago
        Federal criminal charges don't get thrown out. That is very rare. The way the laws are written the feds were going to win. Aaron was trying to do something that should be legal, but the feds were going to get their win. The problem is that what they report to the press and what they actually win on at court can vary widely, so Aaron was going to be ruined and he was going to serve hard time in prison. He shouldn't have killed himself though. He could have had a prosperous life after prison, but his public reputation was destroyed forever.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood, did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.
  - 14y ago
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Not to be mean about it but it doesn't seem like you know what the word "felon" means. If you are never convicted of a felony, you are not a felon. There are real legal implications beyond your sentence if you are convicted as a felon. I think you should look into the information, possibly on Wikipedia regarding this; it is very relevant and the fact that you think it's not is confusing to me.

rhizome 14y ago

most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not certainly" or "not definitely" would have been more appropriate.
- rhizome 14y ago
  I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that. Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    I addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse." > make an example of someone I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence. > evade establishing precedent I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.

andreyf 14y ago

He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.

emkemp 14y ago
Then he should have gone to trial.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Even a not-guilty plea would have left him ruined.
  - emkemp 14y ago
    How so? What was preventing him from setting up a legal defense fund and accepting contributions? Hell, what if the judge had thrown out the charges?
    - thenetwork 14y ago
      Federal criminal charges don't get thrown out. That is very rare. The way the laws are written the feds were going to win. Aaron was trying to do something that should be legal, but the feds were going to get their win. The problem is that what they report to the press and what they actually win on at court can vary widely, so Aaron was going to be ruined and he was going to serve hard time in prison. He shouldn't have killed himself though. He could have had a prosperous life after prison, but his public reputation was destroyed forever.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood, did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.
- 14y ago

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

Not to be mean about it but it doesn't seem like you know what the word "felon" means. If you are never convicted of a felony, you are not a felon. There are real legal implications beyond your sentence if you are convicted as a felon. I think you should look into the information, possibly on Wikipedia regarding this; it is very relevant and the fact that you think it's not is confusing to me.