8 ms·

Though I'd like to see Oritz fired, and think she's deserving of it, the effort to get her fired is blinding us to a bigger problem and a proper solution. The

by agwa 14y ago

Though I'd like to see Oritz fired, and think she's deserving of it, the effort to get her fired is blinding us to a bigger problem and a proper solution. The system was broken long before Oritz and Swartz, but it wasn't until it affected someone we like that we noticed. But we're in a bubble, and the vast majority of Americans do not care who Aaron Swartz is, will not be affected by this tragedy like we were, and in general think that prosecutors need all the tools they can get to put "bad" people in prison. The American people love tough-on-crime policies, and it's not possible to publicly shame a public official, or get her fired, for doing something that most of the public supports. If we want to make change, we need to move the needle on the public's perception of crime. That's a hard problem, and it's not as easy as signing a petition, but it's a problem we'll never be able to solve if we're blinded by trying to exact vengeance on a prosecutor. Edited to add: if Oritz were likely to be fired, then I agree it would be a great starting point for a larger movement. But my point is that changing public opinion of tough-on-crime policies is a prerequisite for getting Oritz fired. A prosecutor is not going to be fired for engaging in normal conduct that is loved by the public, even if the outcome in this case was tragic.

BenoitEssiambre 14y ago
Even though getting officials fired is not your preferred method to help jumpstart reform there are no reasons for you to discourage others of doing so. If you think you have a better axis of attack on this problem, I beg you, please lead an effort on that axis. If we waited for a consensus on the best manner to proceed before doing anything, noting would ever get done. To make a comparison relevant to this community, imagine that HN was used to shame others starting businesses that don't use the best consensus methods or ideas. How many good startups would never see the day? With startups, more than 90% of attempts fail. I'm pretty sure that attempts at changing the system don't have better odds. If we reduce the efforts to a single attempt, there is 90% chances it will fail. Also, consider that special interests have probably built legal and political walls in the most obvious paths of change. It's worth trying all fronts to find a weakness especially the newer little known ones.
- philh 14y ago
  > Even though getting officials fired is not your preferred method to help jumpstart reform there are no reasons for you to discourage others of doing so. Yes there are, if you think that it's not going to work and that the attempt is discouraging people from looking for solutions that will. You could make the same comment if someone attempted to prove P!=NP, and someone else said "your proof has a mistake here, and by the way, people have been trying your general approach for decades and it's never yielded anything". (I do, however, agree that attempts to get officials fired are more likely to succeed than attempts to prove P!=NP.)
- tquai 14y ago
  Even though getting officials fired is not your preferred method to help jumpstart reform there are no reasons for you to discourage others of doing so. Exactly. Bottom-up action is strongest when supported by a diversity of tactics. Alice may not like Bob's methodology, and Bob may not like Alice's, but when they expend their energy discouraging each other from doing something they believe in, neither have a shot at advancing their shared cause. Gatekeepers are the undeclared allies of power. Put your energy into action you believe in, and let the chips fall where they may.
epoxyhockey 14y ago
You make lots of good points, especially by stating that getting Oritz fired should not be the end-goal. A larger effort will be needed to start swaying the general population's opinion on tough-on-crime policies. There are many ways to approach the problem, but every resolution needs a beginning. That is how I view the Oritz initiative: a beginning. I'm sure that other government workers are taking notice and will likely adjust their behavior in the future, even if we can't quantify it. In that sense we've already made progress. I only wish this effort could have begun under less tragic circumstances.
mcantelon 14y ago
>it's a problem we'll never be able to solve if we're blinded by trying to exact vengeance on a prosecutor The two goals are not mutually exclusive. If she's fired that will help bring attention to prosecutorial abuse.
- rhizome 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure she can only be fired by Obama, but unfortunately I'm not confident "prosecutorial abuse" is a strong enough reason for him to do so.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    Obama could ask her to resign then there would be no need for public justification. I doubt it'll happen though. Doing so wouldn't score enough political points, given it's not a sufficiently mainstream issue, to make it worth Obama's while.
    - gbhn 14y ago
      It's way worse than that. Obama's track record on abusing DoJ power against citizens is well established. Indefinite detention. Whistleblower prosecutions. Bradley Manning. The list is not short. It'd be great to see the president forced to disown Ortiz; perhaps it'd make the rest of the DoJ afraid he wouldn't back them up on their similar adventures. Realistically, though, this is not (yet) a large political threat to Obama.
      - mcantelon 14y ago
        Yeah, Obama's shiny happy image has enabled the Democrats to get through legislation that would have created an uproar had it been pushed through during the Bush admin. Sad.
  - FireBeyond 14y ago
res0nat0r 14y ago
He wasn't going to get 30 years. See the other top HN post right now about he could have plea-bargained for 6 months.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  The crime he committed was not, in any reasonable world, a felony.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  He refused to surrender, so it's fair to go nuclear?
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    He could have either taken 6 months and the charge, or the maximum sentence. Note: This happens every single day for all types of crimes all around the US.
    - throwit1979 14y ago
      You can either hand me your wallet, or I shoot you in the face with this gun. This happens every single day for all types of people in the US. Man, mugging and extortion sounds so much better now that I realize how often it happens. Thanks, res0nat0r!
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        I'm not sure how 6 months of jail time for repeatedly breaking the law is anywhere near "extortion".
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Considering the nature of the "crime" and the nature of prison, I'm not sure how you could possibly not be sure of that.
        14y ago
jacoblyles 14y ago
Culture and rules both effect behavior. By firing Ortiz, we're changing the culture. Hopefully that will help us change the rules.
PrudenceYuris 14y ago
Crowdsourcing the destruction of the career of an out-of-control prosecutor is a repeatable process, and, as Internet forums gain mass, a process that will get easier to apply. In other words, this is the public perception of crime on the move. You can see this in other areas of discourse, like cannabis legalization, getting rid of red light cameras that have been shown to increase collisions, etc.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  Crowds are fickle and fatigue easily. We become indifferent to things which previously affronted us. It is a natural coping mechanism to prevent the monopolization of our limited attention spans. For example, gun violence has been a constant thing in the US. The crowds get tired of hearing about it and the drive for legislation goes no where. However, when something out of the "ordinary" happens, such as the grievous Newtown murders, the attention of the crowd has been once again achieved. Politicians know this and the ones pushing legislation know they need to act fast before fatigue and indifference kick in, and the ones against the legislation know it's a waiting game. My point is that the process of crowds demanding the removal of an out of control prosecutor isn't going to get easier (aka more likely to happen) just because it happened this time. We have a limited window to act based on the attention of the crowd that has resulted form Aaron's suicide. I believe when people say something to the effect of "your missing the point" when removing a specific prosecutor, they are trying to get this point across. In our limited window of action, we can remove someone specific, or find away to address the more general problem of prosecutorial overreach while we still have the mic. Ideally that more general approach would not depend on the continual outrage of the crowds.
  - olefoo 14y ago
    Would that I had more than one upvote to give you. That petition is a flawed and bloody flag that many seem willing to follow for the moment. The question is, is it possible to take the momentary outrage at this one prosecutor and turn it into a forceful pressure for reform of a system that is deeply and badly broken.
- gavinlynch 14y ago
Shorel 14y ago
> the effort to get her fired is blinding us to a bigger problem and a proper solution Small steps, walk before you run, etc. I don't see any blinding here, just a common cause.
moo 14y ago
I agree with what you are saying but I think many who would sign this petition don't want systematic legal changes for human rights, they want law enforcement to have a free hand to pressure with plea bargaining, profiling, torture, oppressing certain minorities, and generally police state powers to protect "us". What they want is preferential protections to better differentiate us vs. them and for "us" not to be caught in an oppressive legal system. Someone might identify with Aaron but not with a Troy Davis, who was executed in Texas based on false evidence. So maybe a petition makes more sense for such people.
mistercow 14y ago
Here's the thing about petitions: they aren't for convincing the people they're addressed to. They're for rallying the signers. Publicly writing your name down next to a cause triggers several psychological reactions resulting in your being more committed to the cause. Studies have shown that getting someone to sign a petition increases the probability that they will later take further action toward the cause in question. So they are quite effective. They're just also a little sneaky.

by agwa 14y ago

BenoitEssiambre 14y ago

Even though getting officials fired is not your preferred method to help jumpstart reform there are no reasons for you to discourage others of doing so. If you think you have a better axis of attack on this problem, I beg you, please lead an effort on that axis. If we waited for a consensus on the best manner to proceed before doing anything, noting would ever get done. To make a comparison relevant to this community, imagine that HN was used to shame others starting businesses that don't use the best consensus methods or ideas. How many good startups would never see the day? With startups, more than 90% of attempts fail. I'm pretty sure that attempts at changing the system don't have better odds. If we reduce the efforts to a single attempt, there is 90% chances it will fail. Also, consider that special interests have probably built legal and political walls in the most obvious paths of change. It's worth trying all fronts to find a weakness especially the newer little known ones.

philh 14y ago
> Even though getting officials fired is not your preferred method to help jumpstart reform there are no reasons for you to discourage others of doing so. Yes there are, if you think that it's not going to work and that the attempt is discouraging people from looking for solutions that will. You could make the same comment if someone attempted to prove P!=NP, and someone else said "your proof has a mistake here, and by the way, people have been trying your general approach for decades and it's never yielded anything". (I do, however, agree that attempts to get officials fired are more likely to succeed than attempts to prove P!=NP.)
tquai 14y ago
Even though getting officials fired is not your preferred method to help jumpstart reform there are no reasons for you to discourage others of doing so. Exactly. Bottom-up action is strongest when supported by a diversity of tactics. Alice may not like Bob's methodology, and Bob may not like Alice's, but when they expend their energy discouraging each other from doing something they believe in, neither have a shot at advancing their shared cause. Gatekeepers are the undeclared allies of power. Put your energy into action you believe in, and let the chips fall where they may.

epoxyhockey 14y ago

You make lots of good points, especially by stating that getting Oritz fired should not be the end-goal. A larger effort will be needed to start swaying the general population's opinion on tough-on-crime policies. There are many ways to approach the problem, but every resolution needs a beginning. That is how I view the Oritz initiative: a beginning. I'm sure that other government workers are taking notice and will likely adjust their behavior in the future, even if we can't quantify it. In that sense we've already made progress. I only wish this effort could have begun under less tragic circumstances.

mcantelon 14y ago

>it's a problem we'll never be able to solve if we're blinded by trying to exact vengeance on a prosecutor The two goals are not mutually exclusive. If she's fired that will help bring attention to prosecutorial abuse.

rhizome 14y ago
I'm pretty sure she can only be fired by Obama, but unfortunately I'm not confident "prosecutorial abuse" is a strong enough reason for him to do so.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mcantelon 14y ago
  Obama could ask her to resign then there would be no need for public justification. I doubt it'll happen though. Doing so wouldn't score enough political points, given it's not a sufficiently mainstream issue, to make it worth Obama's while.
  - gbhn 14y ago
    It's way worse than that. Obama's track record on abusing DoJ power against citizens is well established. Indefinite detention. Whistleblower prosecutions. Bradley Manning. The list is not short. It'd be great to see the president forced to disown Ortiz; perhaps it'd make the rest of the DoJ afraid he wouldn't back them up on their similar adventures. Realistically, though, this is not (yet) a large political threat to Obama.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      Yeah, Obama's shiny happy image has enabled the Democrats to get through legislation that would have created an uproar had it been pushed through during the Bush admin. Sad.
- FireBeyond 14y ago

res0nat0r 14y ago

He wasn't going to get 30 years. See the other top HN post right now about he could have plea-bargained for 6 months.

ScottBurson 14y ago
The crime he committed was not, in any reasonable world, a felony.
jivatmanx 14y ago
He refused to surrender, so it's fair to go nuclear?
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  He could have either taken 6 months and the charge, or the maximum sentence. Note: This happens every single day for all types of crimes all around the US.
  - throwit1979 14y ago
    You can either hand me your wallet, or I shoot you in the face with this gun. This happens every single day for all types of people in the US. Man, mugging and extortion sounds so much better now that I realize how often it happens. Thanks, res0nat0r!
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      I'm not sure how 6 months of jail time for repeatedly breaking the law is anywhere near "extortion".
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Considering the nature of the "crime" and the nature of prison, I'm not sure how you could possibly not be sure of that.
      - 14y ago

jacoblyles 14y ago

Culture and rules both effect behavior. By firing Ortiz, we're changing the culture. Hopefully that will help us change the rules.

PrudenceYuris 14y ago

Crowdsourcing the destruction of the career of an out-of-control prosecutor is a repeatable process, and, as Internet forums gain mass, a process that will get easier to apply. In other words, this is the public perception of crime on the move. You can see this in other areas of discourse, like cannabis legalization, getting rid of red light cameras that have been shown to increase collisions, etc.

DigitalJack 14y ago
Crowds are fickle and fatigue easily. We become indifferent to things which previously affronted us. It is a natural coping mechanism to prevent the monopolization of our limited attention spans. For example, gun violence has been a constant thing in the US. The crowds get tired of hearing about it and the drive for legislation goes no where. However, when something out of the "ordinary" happens, such as the grievous Newtown murders, the attention of the crowd has been once again achieved. Politicians know this and the ones pushing legislation know they need to act fast before fatigue and indifference kick in, and the ones against the legislation know it's a waiting game. My point is that the process of crowds demanding the removal of an out of control prosecutor isn't going to get easier (aka more likely to happen) just because it happened this time. We have a limited window to act based on the attention of the crowd that has resulted form Aaron's suicide. I believe when people say something to the effect of "your missing the point" when removing a specific prosecutor, they are trying to get this point across. In our limited window of action, we can remove someone specific, or find away to address the more general problem of prosecutorial overreach while we still have the mic. Ideally that more general approach would not depend on the continual outrage of the crowds.
- olefoo 14y ago
  Would that I had more than one upvote to give you. That petition is a flawed and bloody flag that many seem willing to follow for the moment. The question is, is it possible to take the momentary outrage at this one prosecutor and turn it into a forceful pressure for reform of a system that is deeply and badly broken.
gavinlynch 14y ago

Shorel 14y ago

> the effort to get her fired is blinding us to a bigger problem and a proper solution Small steps, walk before you run, etc. I don't see any blinding here, just a common cause.

moo 14y ago

I agree with what you are saying but I think many who would sign this petition don't want systematic legal changes for human rights, they want law enforcement to have a free hand to pressure with plea bargaining, profiling, torture, oppressing certain minorities, and generally police state powers to protect "us". What they want is preferential protections to better differentiate us vs. them and for "us" not to be caught in an oppressive legal system. Someone might identify with Aaron but not with a Troy Davis, who was executed in Texas based on false evidence. So maybe a petition makes more sense for such people.

mistercow 14y ago

Here's the thing about petitions: they aren't for convincing the people they're addressed to. They're for rallying the signers. Publicly writing your name down next to a cause triggers several psychological reactions resulting in your being more committed to the cause. Studies have shown that getting someone to sign a petition increases the probability that they will later take further action toward the cause in question. So they are quite effective. They're just also a little sneaky.