5 ms·

Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better. Swartz thought that JSTOR was an ille

Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better. Swartz thought that JSTOR was an illegitimate institution and he thought that justified him doing whatever he wanted to them. Why should prosecutors respect his moral judgments in that regard? He thought the law was wrong...so you think prosecutors should assume that everyone who thinks the law is wrong is "trying to make the world better"? I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that? that's why Reason magazine (among others) has endorsed Aaron's law to at least fix one part of this. I believe that "Aaron's law" wouldn't have made any difference in his case at all. I've seen people propose minor tweaks, but none that would have made a real difference for Swartz. And I've seen a lot of incredibly vague proposals that boil down to dramatically weakening prosecutors' power in criminal cases. But these are jokes: they're so vague that no one could ever advocate for them or they're politically impossible (Congressman, I write you today to urge you to make it harder for federal prosecutors to offer plea bargains for less than 1/5 the maximum sentence they're seeking).

vacri 14y ago
A relative of mine embezzled money from her family business, to the tune of high five-figures. If you don't take motivation into account, how should she be sentenced? She was found guilty and sentenced, but before reading further, what do you think should have happened to her? If we take motivation into account (as the court did), does it change how you think she should have been treated by the court to know that she didn't keep a cent of the money herself, but spent it on giving food and clothes to homeless people, organising it herself rather than through a charity? She wasn't preying on the weak, she was misguided and trying to help society rather than get stuff for herself - and the law is supposed to be about protecting society. Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. Besides, his case is a focus point that gives an excellent chance to start looking for reform rather than sweep it under the carpet as 'business as usual' - because prison sentences in the US have exploded ridiculously in the past 20 years.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. I don't think the prosecutors here would disagree. That's why sentences are pushed for (on both sides) based on what the motive behind the crime was. There was a plea bargain on the table for no jail time, which MIT rejected, and then later some number of months in jail. Given that "Swartz faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all charges" was the latest maximum sentence it is very hard indeed to argue that the prosecutors were trying to get the harshest sentence. The thing they were really trying to do was not have the trial, which is something I would expect them to do given the structure of the legal system.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    But that's part of the problem. US Citizens have a right to a trial by jury. It's one of the basic rights. If the prosecutor is abusing their power to deny that right there is something fundamentally wrong. Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Also, bankrupting the defendant and/or freezing/seizing assets in cases where the crime is not related to the assets being frozen is also extortionous. Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach. I can't believe people are willing to sanction and even justify means that avoid justice. The fact that we have one of the greatest rates of incarceration that we have a failed justice system.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Except that a grand jury has to sustain that the charges are at least "better than tenuous". Once the case is resolved one way or the other the defendant can't be tried for it again (Constitutional 'double jeopardy') so the prosecutors have to bring any charges that can hold up (this is why Federal sentencing is wonky as well). > Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach. Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.
darkarmani 14y ago
> I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that? They might want to believe it because JSTOR declined to press charges. Isn't that a compelling reason?

vacri 14y ago

A relative of mine embezzled money from her family business, to the tune of high five-figures. If you don't take motivation into account, how should she be sentenced? She was found guilty and sentenced, but before reading further, what do you think should have happened to her? If we take motivation into account (as the court did), does it change how you think she should have been treated by the court to know that she didn't keep a cent of the money herself, but spent it on giving food and clothes to homeless people, organising it herself rather than through a charity? She wasn't preying on the weak, she was misguided and trying to help society rather than get stuff for herself - and the law is supposed to be about protecting society. Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. Besides, his case is a focus point that gives an excellent chance to start looking for reform rather than sweep it under the carpet as 'business as usual' - because prison sentences in the US have exploded ridiculously in the past 20 years.

mpyne 14y ago
> Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. I don't think the prosecutors here would disagree. That's why sentences are pushed for (on both sides) based on what the motive behind the crime was. There was a plea bargain on the table for no jail time, which MIT rejected, and then later some number of months in jail. Given that "Swartz faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all charges" was the latest maximum sentence it is very hard indeed to argue that the prosecutors were trying to get the harshest sentence. The thing they were really trying to do was not have the trial, which is something I would expect them to do given the structure of the legal system.
- malandrew 14y ago
  But that's part of the problem. US Citizens have a right to a trial by jury. It's one of the basic rights. If the prosecutor is abusing their power to deny that right there is something fundamentally wrong. Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Also, bankrupting the defendant and/or freezing/seizing assets in cases where the crime is not related to the assets being frozen is also extortionous. Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach. I can't believe people are willing to sanction and even justify means that avoid justice. The fact that we have one of the greatest rates of incarceration that we have a failed justice system.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Except that a grand jury has to sustain that the charges are at least "better than tenuous". Once the case is resolved one way or the other the defendant can't be tried for it again (Constitutional 'double jeopardy') so the prosecutors have to bring any charges that can hold up (this is why Federal sentencing is wonky as well). > Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach. Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.

darkarmani 14y ago

> I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that? They might want to believe it because JSTOR declined to press charges. Isn't that a compelling reason?