4 ms·

Why would the DoJ require that MIT "sign off" on the plea deal? As this was a criminal matter, I thought it would have just been between the government and Aar

Why would the DoJ require that MIT "sign off" on the plea deal? As this was a criminal matter, I thought it would have just been between the government and Aaron. Or does the DoJ have to get approval from victims before offering a plea deal? I can't imagine the victim of an assault or rape being terribly happy "signing off" on a plea for their attacker. From a bit of reading it appears that victims have to be informed of any plea bargain and that their needs must be "taken into consideration", but I cannot find anything that states that the plea must be "signed off" by the victim. If this is the case, then this story seems rather flawed.

tptacek 14y ago
Had JSTOR and MIT both agreed that a non-custodial plea deal was acceptable, the government could (obviously) have moved forward with that deal. Without the agreement of one of the injured parties, it was ostensibly materially harder for the prosecution to come to terms with Swartz; the "victim" was, in effect, demanding that the prosecution not be too soft on Swartz.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  My understanding is that victims are generaly allowed to confer with prosecutors on plea bargains, but have no veto power of any kind (much as they might like to, cf. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=mulr_conferences http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...). I'm not even aware that the victims get a hearing with a judge; at most a judge might ask a prosecutor about the outcome of a victim conference. I might be wrong about this, I haven't looked into the rules of criminal procedure in depth.
  - j_baker 14y ago
    On the other hand, if a bully prosecutor wants to cover his ass, saying "The victim wouldn't sign off!" makes it sound more like their hands were tied and there was nothing they could do.
philwelch 14y ago
IANAL, but plea bargaining is complicated, and it's much more likely for a judge to accept a plea bargain if the victims are also behind it.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
danielweber 14y ago
Your understanding goes with mine (which may also be confused). Victims' opinions should matter to the prosecutor, but not be the end of the story. The prosecutor is representing the state, not the (alleged) victim. Roman Polanski is the most obvious example.
- mpyne 14y ago
  It's the same way I understood it as well. In fact, it's the only reason I can see that the prosecution could proceed at all without JSTOR's support, is under the idea that the prosecution is responsible for the state's interests and not only the victim's.
  - erichocean 14y ago
    It proceded with MIT's expressed consent: MIT wanted Aaron punished with jail time and a felony, and explicitly refused lesser sentences.
- erichocean 14y ago
  What does fucking a 13 year old girl in California have to do with Aaron Swartz's JSTOR case? I don't see the connection.
  - TWAndrews 14y ago
    She and her family didn't want to pursue rape charges against Polanski, but the prosecutor brought them anyway.
    - erichocean 14y ago
      But in Aaron's case, MIT explicitly did want to pursue the charges against him. I do see that if you were confused about that, they would seem similar in that respect. Thanks. As for the Polanski case, that's a tough call: should the state prosecute crimes against children when the child (or parent, or both) doesn't want the perpetrator punished? I can see arguments for and against both options. I lean towards going with the wishes of the victims when they are adults, but the fact that the victim is a child brings other considerations into play. Anyway...

tptacek 14y ago

Had JSTOR and MIT both agreed that a non-custodial plea deal was acceptable, the government could (obviously) have moved forward with that deal. Without the agreement of one of the injured parties, it was ostensibly materially harder for the prosecution to come to terms with Swartz; the "victim" was, in effect, demanding that the prosecution not be too soft on Swartz.

anigbrowl 14y ago
My understanding is that victims are generaly allowed to confer with prosecutors on plea bargains, but have no veto power of any kind (much as they might like to, cf. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=mulr_conferences http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...). I'm not even aware that the victims get a hearing with a judge; at most a judge might ask a prosecutor about the outcome of a victim conference. I might be wrong about this, I haven't looked into the rules of criminal procedure in depth.
- j_baker 14y ago
  On the other hand, if a bully prosecutor wants to cover his ass, saying "The victim wouldn't sign off!" makes it sound more like their hands were tied and there was nothing they could do.

philwelch 14y ago

IANAL, but plea bargaining is complicated, and it's much more likely for a judge to accept a plea bargain if the victims are also behind it.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

danielweber 14y ago

Your understanding goes with mine (which may also be confused). Victims' opinions should matter to the prosecutor, but not be the end of the story. The prosecutor is representing the state, not the (alleged) victim. Roman Polanski is the most obvious example.

mpyne 14y ago
It's the same way I understood it as well. In fact, it's the only reason I can see that the prosecution could proceed at all without JSTOR's support, is under the idea that the prosecution is responsible for the state's interests and not only the victim's.
- erichocean 14y ago
  It proceded with MIT's expressed consent: MIT wanted Aaron punished with jail time and a felony, and explicitly refused lesser sentences.
erichocean 14y ago
What does fucking a 13 year old girl in California have to do with Aaron Swartz's JSTOR case? I don't see the connection.
- TWAndrews 14y ago
  She and her family didn't want to pursue rape charges against Polanski, but the prosecutor brought them anyway.
  - erichocean 14y ago
    But in Aaron's case, MIT explicitly did want to pursue the charges against him. I do see that if you were confused about that, they would seem similar in that respect. Thanks. As for the Polanski case, that's a tough call: should the state prosecute crimes against children when the child (or parent, or both) doesn't want the perpetrator punished? I can see arguments for and against both options. I lean towards going with the wishes of the victims when they are adults, but the fact that the victim is a child brings other considerations into play. Anyway...