6 ms·

Yes, after all, "an eye for an eye" is a great system of justice. No, they shouldn't be fired for doing their job, regardless of the consequences. It is a tra

Yes, after all, "an eye for an eye" is a great system of justice. No, they shouldn't be fired for doing their job, regardless of the consequences. It is a tragedy that Aaron took his life, but nobody can argue that it was an appropriate response to the challenges posed to him. You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job, just as you can't blame violent video games for Columbine or D&D for kids hurting themselves in the forest with swords. They are all contributing factors, but it is the core mental illness that is at fault.

jlgreco 14y ago
An eye for an eye? Please, we're talking about firing some people, not a dozen+ felonies and decades in prison. >You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to... That is not what we are proposing firing them for. > them doing his job They did a shit job of that, and that is what they need to be fired for.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
yarrel 14y ago
Hounding someone with threats of bankruptcy or of imprisonment for longer than they'd been alive is very different from them playing games. Your comparison of a suicide to a mass killing in order to plead the just world fallacy is ill chosen at best.
downandout 14y ago
> You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job Perhaps they cannot be blamed for his response, but a myriad of evil things have occurred in this world at the hands of people "just doing their jobs". The mere fact that someone is being paid for them doesn't justify vicious, cruel, and/or outrageous actions that have predictably bad outcomes. Further, it could easily be argued that their pursuit of this case went beyond the normal scope of their jobs. While federal criminal cases are technically brought on behalf of the government, in many cases the charges are dropped when the victim expresses disinterest in having the individual prosecuted. In this case, they were attempting to lock someone up for decades in a case where the alleged victims didn't even want the perpetrator prosecuted. Since the victims had no interest in it, the only remaining motivation for such an aggressive prosecution would be to put another notch in the belts of the US Attorney's office prosecuting the case. That is hardly an acceptable use of taxpayer resources. It is an abuse of power aimed at furthering the individual careers of the lawyers involved.
- moccajoghurt 14y ago
  > It is an abuse of power aimed at furthering the individual careers of the lawyers involved. Does this mean that if you win a case where the actual victim doesn't even care anymore still gives you a good reputation?
  - downandout 14y ago
    It means that a high profile conviction such as this would have been a nice boost to their resumes, regardless of the particulars. The legal profession is somewhat unique in that being perceived as an aggressive, cold-hearted, and ruthless individual with the ability to squeeze out a win even when the facts and circumstances don't support a win is a positive thing.
hobbyhacker 14y ago
Nobody called for her imprisonment or hounding her to the point where she's going to hang herself. Just a corrective measure to a system that has clearly spun out of control. A change of career.
chris_wot 14y ago
If the job of the prosecutor is to persecute someone, even after the "victim" resolved their issue with the offender, then they have a shitty job and should just up and quit. There are better jobs out there: ones that don't destroy the lives of good people.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  The job of the prosecutor is indeed to continue the prosecution, even if the victim and the offender have resolved their issues. Think of a case of some victim being coerced to have the charges dropped. Would you prefer the prosecution to stop or would you prefer if the crime was resolved?
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    I'm sorry, was JSTOR coerced into asking for the charges to be dropped?
    - Xylakant 14y ago
      In this case probably not, though public pressure may have been a part of it. And MITs statement was less clear on that matter. However, this is not for the prosecution to decide. The prosecution should treat each case equal. If criminal charges haven been brought forward, they must be prosecuted or dismissed solely based on evidence, not based on the victims actions. Please note that I do not think that the way the prosecution pushed the charges was right.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        If criminal charges haven been brought forward Neither JSTOR nor MIT brought forward criminal charges; that was done by the US Attorneys themselves. So saying "this is not for the prosecution to decide" is wrong--the prosecution decided to bring charges, so it's their responsibility if the charges were way out of proportion.
        14y ago
RHSeeger 14y ago
> You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job We seem perfectly happy blaming bullies when people commit suicide (including incidents where both parties were adults). Given the position of relative power of the two individuals, it's not unreasonable to draw a parallel there.
TruthElixirX 14y ago
>You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job, Their job is to perpetuate violence, rather justified or not.
daniel-cussen 14y ago
This is not an eye for an eye. Aaron's dead, and we're not talking about killing the attorney. But firing her? Absolutely.
alexqgb 14y ago
Sorry, but no, they weren't "just doing their jobs". They were operating way outside the parameters of their jobs, which - as extensions of the Executive Branch - are subject to oversight by the Judicial branch which, in turn, is subject to direct popular oversight in the form of trial by jury. The critical fact is that the Prosecutors were doing everything in their power secure guilty pleas without going in front of a jury, where they were very likely to lose. That's why they were offering a mere 6-8 months in jail on multiple felony confessions vs. 35 years in prison, a $1mm fine and a trial process designed to be financially ruinous. In other words, their "offer" hinged on their ability to place an insurmountable wall between Aaron and a jury. In doing so, they avoided a key provision of the Constitution. The breath-taking abusiveness with which they pursued him only underscores why that provision was made in the first place. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324581504578238692048200404-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwMzExNDMyWj.html http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142412788732458150... Faced with power this unchecked and malicious, most people simply cave, which is why fewer than 10% of Federal crimes end up before a jury. But apparently, Aaron considered life as a convicted felon to be a fate worse than death. As with so many other things, he simply wasn't like most people. While his suicide brought an unusual amount of attention to the abuse that's going on, the abuse itself is far from unusual. Indeed, it's become par for the course. That's the issue. That's why the response is about people regaining control over a terrifyingly out-of-control system. Extending this to the specific individuals is essential, because that - and only that - can reflect the moral dimension of the situation. After all, we're not talking about a busted sewer pipe here, or a faulty traffic light leading to an especially bad traffic accident. The DOJ's standard operating procedure represents a calculated erosion of democratic safeguards. That's what makes their conduct a violation of their oaths and crime against the people. So yes, the public's reassertion of its moral authority over its government should absolutely involve severe punishment for those who have so egregiously betrayed the public trust. Given the context, "career ending" is hardly too high a price for the specific individuals to pay. As any prosecutor will tell you, the law is about deterrence as much as it is about punishment.

jlgreco 14y ago

An eye for an eye? Please, we're talking about firing some people, not a dozen+ felonies and decades in prison. >You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to... That is not what we are proposing firing them for. > them doing his job They did a shit job of that, and that is what they need to be fired for.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

yarrel 14y ago

Hounding someone with threats of bankruptcy or of imprisonment for longer than they'd been alive is very different from them playing games. Your comparison of a suicide to a mass killing in order to plead the just world fallacy is ill chosen at best.

downandout 14y ago

> You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job Perhaps they cannot be blamed for his response, but a myriad of evil things have occurred in this world at the hands of people "just doing their jobs". The mere fact that someone is being paid for them doesn't justify vicious, cruel, and/or outrageous actions that have predictably bad outcomes. Further, it could easily be argued that their pursuit of this case went beyond the normal scope of their jobs. While federal criminal cases are technically brought on behalf of the government, in many cases the charges are dropped when the victim expresses disinterest in having the individual prosecuted. In this case, they were attempting to lock someone up for decades in a case where the alleged victims didn't even want the perpetrator prosecuted. Since the victims had no interest in it, the only remaining motivation for such an aggressive prosecution would be to put another notch in the belts of the US Attorney's office prosecuting the case. That is hardly an acceptable use of taxpayer resources. It is an abuse of power aimed at furthering the individual careers of the lawyers involved.

moccajoghurt 14y ago
> It is an abuse of power aimed at furthering the individual careers of the lawyers involved. Does this mean that if you win a case where the actual victim doesn't even care anymore still gives you a good reputation?
- downandout 14y ago
  It means that a high profile conviction such as this would have been a nice boost to their resumes, regardless of the particulars. The legal profession is somewhat unique in that being perceived as an aggressive, cold-hearted, and ruthless individual with the ability to squeeze out a win even when the facts and circumstances don't support a win is a positive thing.

hobbyhacker 14y ago

Nobody called for her imprisonment or hounding her to the point where she's going to hang herself. Just a corrective measure to a system that has clearly spun out of control. A change of career.

chris_wot 14y ago

If the job of the prosecutor is to persecute someone, even after the "victim" resolved their issue with the offender, then they have a shitty job and should just up and quit. There are better jobs out there: ones that don't destroy the lives of good people.

Xylakant 14y ago
The job of the prosecutor is indeed to continue the prosecution, even if the victim and the offender have resolved their issues. Think of a case of some victim being coerced to have the charges dropped. Would you prefer the prosecution to stop or would you prefer if the crime was resolved?
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I'm sorry, was JSTOR coerced into asking for the charges to be dropped?
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    In this case probably not, though public pressure may have been a part of it. And MITs statement was less clear on that matter. However, this is not for the prosecution to decide. The prosecution should treat each case equal. If criminal charges haven been brought forward, they must be prosecuted or dismissed solely based on evidence, not based on the victims actions. Please note that I do not think that the way the prosecution pushed the charges was right.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      If criminal charges haven been brought forward Neither JSTOR nor MIT brought forward criminal charges; that was done by the US Attorneys themselves. So saying "this is not for the prosecution to decide" is wrong--the prosecution decided to bring charges, so it's their responsibility if the charges were way out of proportion.
      - 14y ago

RHSeeger 14y ago

> You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job We seem perfectly happy blaming bullies when people commit suicide (including incidents where both parties were adults). Given the position of relative power of the two individuals, it's not unreasonable to draw a parallel there.

TruthElixirX 14y ago

>You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job, Their job is to perpetuate violence, rather justified or not.

daniel-cussen 14y ago

This is not an eye for an eye. Aaron's dead, and we're not talking about killing the attorney. But firing her? Absolutely.

alexqgb 14y ago

Sorry, but no, they weren't "just doing their jobs". They were operating way outside the parameters of their jobs, which - as extensions of the Executive Branch - are subject to oversight by the Judicial branch which, in turn, is subject to direct popular oversight in the form of trial by jury. The critical fact is that the Prosecutors were doing everything in their power secure guilty pleas without going in front of a jury, where they were very likely to lose. That's why they were offering a mere 6-8 months in jail on multiple felony confessions vs. 35 years in prison, a $1mm fine and a trial process designed to be financially ruinous. In other words, their "offer" hinged on their ability to place an insurmountable wall between Aaron and a jury. In doing so, they avoided a key provision of the Constitution. The breath-taking abusiveness with which they pursued him only underscores why that provision was made in the first place. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324581504578238692048200404-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwMzExNDMyWj.html http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142412788732458150... Faced with power this unchecked and malicious, most people simply cave, which is why fewer than 10% of Federal crimes end up before a jury. But apparently, Aaron considered life as a convicted felon to be a fate worse than death. As with so many other things, he simply wasn't like most people. While his suicide brought an unusual amount of attention to the abuse that's going on, the abuse itself is far from unusual. Indeed, it's become par for the course. That's the issue. That's why the response is about people regaining control over a terrifyingly out-of-control system. Extending this to the specific individuals is essential, because that - and only that - can reflect the moral dimension of the situation. After all, we're not talking about a busted sewer pipe here, or a faulty traffic light leading to an especially bad traffic accident. The DOJ's standard operating procedure represents a calculated erosion of democratic safeguards. That's what makes their conduct a violation of their oaths and crime against the people. So yes, the public's reassertion of its moral authority over its government should absolutely involve severe punishment for those who have so egregiously betrayed the public trust. Given the context, "career ending" is hardly too high a price for the specific individuals to pay. As any prosecutor will tell you, the law is about deterrence as much as it is about punishment.