5 ms·

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 prosecut

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...
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > As for the Polanski case, that's a tough call If he might re-offend it's really not a tough call at all. If everyone is reasonably convinced he won't re-offend is where it gets tough.
  - vacri 14y ago
    And in doing so, continued to harm her and her family, decades after the event. Polanski was another example of a prosecutor seeking a scalp for career furtherance.
    - willvarfar 14y ago
      Is it ok to have underage sex if you get the consent of the parents, then? I think that Polanski and this case are so opposed in their has-a-crime-been-committed angle that they are worth comparing.
      - vacri 14y ago
        Is it ok to have underage sex if you get the consent of the parents, then? How do you get that interpretation from me saying "keeping the memory alive for the victim against her wishes decades later"?
        willvarfar 14y ago
        I meant generally. In an underage sex case, the state should always prosecute if they have evidence, even if the victim and guardians do not wish it. If the victim and guardians in an underage sex case can choose to drop charges, then that effectively means underage sex is legal with consent. With the Polanski case nobody is there any dispute that a true crime occurred?
        vacri 14y ago
        So you believe in doing significantly more harm to the victim just so the Mounties can get their Man? My mother was a victim of sexual abuse as a child, and she was horrified when she heard of this case - the idea of some independent "white knight" (very sarcastic quote marks there) forcing her to endure reliving those memories almost made her physically sick. We're talking about a case that was decades old and whose victim didn't want to go forward. It's not a case that is in any sense 'live'. Child abuse and child sexual abuse is present in every country, in every city. Chasing a 30-year-old crime is pointless feathering of one's own cap - instead those same prosecutors could be out there stopping today's child abusers, and preventing today's children from ongoing abuse. There is so much child abuse out there that planting your flag on any one case and saying "This is the one!" is clearly self-aggrandising. If you are so horrified by the idea of sexual abuse of children, then why be so cavalier with the idea of making victims relive that horror against their mature, expressed consent?

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...
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > As for the Polanski case, that's a tough call If he might re-offend it's really not a tough call at all. If everyone is reasonably convinced he won't re-offend is where it gets tough.
- vacri 14y ago
  And in doing so, continued to harm her and her family, decades after the event. Polanski was another example of a prosecutor seeking a scalp for career furtherance.
  - willvarfar 14y ago
    Is it ok to have underage sex if you get the consent of the parents, then? I think that Polanski and this case are so opposed in their has-a-crime-been-committed angle that they are worth comparing.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Is it ok to have underage sex if you get the consent of the parents, then? How do you get that interpretation from me saying "keeping the memory alive for the victim against her wishes decades later"?
      - willvarfar 14y ago
        I meant generally. In an underage sex case, the state should always prosecute if they have evidence, even if the victim and guardians do not wish it. If the victim and guardians in an underage sex case can choose to drop charges, then that effectively means underage sex is legal with consent. With the Polanski case nobody is there any dispute that a true crime occurred?
        vacri 14y ago
        So you believe in doing significantly more harm to the victim just so the Mounties can get their Man? My mother was a victim of sexual abuse as a child, and she was horrified when she heard of this case - the idea of some independent "white knight" (very sarcastic quote marks there) forcing her to endure reliving those memories almost made her physically sick. We're talking about a case that was decades old and whose victim didn't want to go forward. It's not a case that is in any sense 'live'. Child abuse and child sexual abuse is present in every country, in every city. Chasing a 30-year-old crime is pointless feathering of one's own cap - instead those same prosecutors could be out there stopping today's child abusers, and preventing today's children from ongoing abuse. There is so much child abuse out there that planting your flag on any one case and saying "This is the one!" is clearly self-aggrandising. If you are so horrified by the idea of sexual abuse of children, then why be so cavalier with the idea of making victims relive that horror against their mature, expressed consent?