5 ms·

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.

by res0nat0r 14y ago

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.
      - jivatmanx 14y ago
        I think you've misunderstood the extortion analogy. The six months is the "Give me your wallet" portion of the analogy.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Ever been in jail?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - mikeash 14y ago
        It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    That's the most terrible thing about it - it happens every day that people are bullied into surrendering their right to fair trial, and nobody cares. With current system, the right for fair trial is mainly for somebody that could afford to spend a million dollar on it or that is famous enough to have public support and donations. For average Joe, once you got charged with a crime, your life is ruined in any case, whatever jury says. And given that prosecutors have much more knowledge of how juries work than you - getting a bargain may be your only chance to be free in next 10 years or so.
  - rosser 14y ago
    That it happens every day makes it somehow okay?
  - askimto 14y ago
    But this wasn't like every other crime was it? It was political. There is NO guarantee that he'd have gotten 6 months. NONE.
throwit1979 14y ago
Yeah. Extortion is fine as long as the government does it.
miahi 14y ago
I don't find the "other top HN post right now" regarding this, but as I understand it [paraphrasing], nobody told him "hey, you'll probably get 6 months", they only told him "hmm, you can reduce it to 25 years. maybe. if you beg."
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  http://betabeat.com/2013/01/tom-dolan-defends-carmen-ortiz-aaron-swartz-twitter/ http://betabeat.com/2013/01/tom-dolan-defends-carmen-ortiz-a...
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Yes, we are all aware of the plea bargain. There have been several discussions about it already; I think most of us are disturbed by the implications of the practice.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    The prosecutor's husband is attacking people online for stating the government's own position? The 35 year figure came from the prosecutors. If they didn't want it circulated, perhaps they shouldn't have trumpeted it to the media. Right here, in their own press release. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz-Aaron-PR.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz... "If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." If they're happy to use the figure when seeking media attention, they have to accept its use when they're in trouble.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      Except he wasn't facing 35 years in prison...If he wanted to take the charge he could have, but he was facing 6 months if he wanted to look out for his best interests. The comments here keep making it seem that he was going to realistically do 30+ years in prison which is obviously incorrect.
tibbon 14y ago
Ever tried to get a job or apartment as a convicted felon? Even if you spent one day in jail- they ruin you.
marshray 14y ago
He could only get the 6 month (rather than 35 years) prison sentence by waiving his right to a fair trial. So exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right would result in a seventy-fold increase in his worst-case outcome. In 2009 fully 96% of criminal cases in our Federal court system resulted in a conviction. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7593302 http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7... This situation would be absurd if it weren't so horrific.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > He could only get the 6 month (rather than 35 years) prison sentence by waiving his right to a fair trial. If he willingly engaged in a jury trial and somehow still got convicted, with a strict judge, and a jury that hates him, and an incompetent defense, he still wouldn't get anything approaching a 35-year sentence. Is it really too much to ask to not use hyperbole for matters as serious as this? You could just as well be saying that the taxpayers are paying for Sandra Fluke to have sex. Please, please, I'm begging you all: By setting up an echo chamber and inventing your own "facts" and then taking action based on that made-up dream world, you're just as wrong as "the other side".
  - marshray 14y ago
    > he still wouldn't get anything approaching a 35-year sentence. You don't know that. As tptacek and an actual computer criminal defense lawyer points out: Granick: Important to remember much lower burden on prosecution at sentencing; “reasonable” loss claims on “preponderance of evidence”. Net-net: If charged with 13 felonies, you can’t lose on ANY, because even if acquitted on 12, they strike back at sentencing. From this I conclude the game-theoretic payoff matrix is the message: don't bet on a fair trial, even if you're completely innocent. Prisoner's Dilemma indeed. ref: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344549601742848 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344549601742848 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344675305037825 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344675305037825 > You could just as well be saying that the taxpayers are paying for Sandra Fluke to have sex. Now who's talking hyperbole again?
    - 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.
    - jivatmanx 14y ago
      I think you've misunderstood the extortion analogy. The six months is the "Give me your wallet" portion of the analogy.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Ever been in jail?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikeash 14y ago
      It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
- smsm42 14y ago
  That's the most terrible thing about it - it happens every day that people are bullied into surrendering their right to fair trial, and nobody cares. With current system, the right for fair trial is mainly for somebody that could afford to spend a million dollar on it or that is famous enough to have public support and donations. For average Joe, once you got charged with a crime, your life is ruined in any case, whatever jury says. And given that prosecutors have much more knowledge of how juries work than you - getting a bargain may be your only chance to be free in next 10 years or so.
- rosser 14y ago
  That it happens every day makes it somehow okay?
- askimto 14y ago
  But this wasn't like every other crime was it? It was political. There is NO guarantee that he'd have gotten 6 months. NONE.

throwit1979 14y ago

Yeah. Extortion is fine as long as the government does it.

miahi 14y ago

I don't find the "other top HN post right now" regarding this, but as I understand it [paraphrasing], nobody told him "hey, you'll probably get 6 months", they only told him "hmm, you can reduce it to 25 years. maybe. if you beg."

res0nat0r 14y ago
http://betabeat.com/2013/01/tom-dolan-defends-carmen-ortiz-aaron-swartz-twitter/ http://betabeat.com/2013/01/tom-dolan-defends-carmen-ortiz-a...
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Yes, we are all aware of the plea bargain. There have been several discussions about it already; I think most of us are disturbed by the implications of the practice.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  The prosecutor's husband is attacking people online for stating the government's own position? The 35 year figure came from the prosecutors. If they didn't want it circulated, perhaps they shouldn't have trumpeted it to the media. Right here, in their own press release. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz-Aaron-PR.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz... "If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." If they're happy to use the figure when seeking media attention, they have to accept its use when they're in trouble.
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    Except he wasn't facing 35 years in prison...If he wanted to take the charge he could have, but he was facing 6 months if he wanted to look out for his best interests. The comments here keep making it seem that he was going to realistically do 30+ years in prison which is obviously incorrect.

tibbon 14y ago

Ever tried to get a job or apartment as a convicted felon? Even if you spent one day in jail- they ruin you.

marshray 14y ago

He could only get the 6 month (rather than 35 years) prison sentence by waiving his right to a fair trial. So exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right would result in a seventy-fold increase in his worst-case outcome. In 2009 fully 96% of criminal cases in our Federal court system resulted in a conviction. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7593302 http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7... This situation would be absurd if it weren't so horrific.

mpyne 14y ago
> He could only get the 6 month (rather than 35 years) prison sentence by waiving his right to a fair trial. If he willingly engaged in a jury trial and somehow still got convicted, with a strict judge, and a jury that hates him, and an incompetent defense, he still wouldn't get anything approaching a 35-year sentence. Is it really too much to ask to not use hyperbole for matters as serious as this? You could just as well be saying that the taxpayers are paying for Sandra Fluke to have sex. Please, please, I'm begging you all: By setting up an echo chamber and inventing your own "facts" and then taking action based on that made-up dream world, you're just as wrong as "the other side".
- marshray 14y ago
  > he still wouldn't get anything approaching a 35-year sentence. You don't know that. As tptacek and an actual computer criminal defense lawyer points out: Granick: Important to remember much lower burden on prosecution at sentencing; “reasonable” loss claims on “preponderance of evidence”. Net-net: If charged with 13 felonies, you can’t lose on ANY, because even if acquitted on 12, they strike back at sentencing. From this I conclude the game-theoretic payoff matrix is the message: don't bet on a fair trial, even if you're completely innocent. Prisoner's Dilemma indeed. ref: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344549601742848 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344549601742848 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344675305037825 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344675305037825 > You could just as well be saying that the taxpayers are paying for Sandra Fluke to have sex. Now who's talking hyperbole again?
  - 14y ago