7 ms·

Heymann saw Aaron as a scalp he could take. He thought he could lock Aaron up, get high-profile press coverage, and win high-fives from his fellow prosecutors i

Heymann saw Aaron as a scalp he could take. He thought he could lock Aaron up, get high-profile press coverage, and win high-fives from his fellow prosecutors in the lunchroom. Aaron was a way of reviving Heymann’s fading career. Heymann had no interest in an honest assessment of whether Aaron deserved any of the hell he was being put through. Is there any evidence for any of this seeming mind reading?

ScottBurson 14y ago
Oh come on. That's like asking "is there any evidence this particular bear shat in these particular woods?" The path to success for prosecutors is successful high-profile prosecutions. Everybody knows that. I don't actually know that Heymann's career had been fading, but the rest of this quote seems pretty reasonable based on what we know.
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  Ah, so the reason why we know this assertion is true is because everyone knows that such assertions are always true?
  - ScottBurson 14y ago
    We, the citizens, have set up a system that rewards this kind of behavior. It would be odd if Heymann didn't respond to the incentives we have placed before him. Taren's quote portrays him as ruthless. I concede that we don't know exactly what went through his mind, but based on the facts in evidence, I think that that appears to be an accurate characterization. I, at least, cannot imagine how anyone with any compassion or principles could have looked at what Swartz did and concluded that it deserved to be treated as a felony worth years in federal prison. Anyway, as I said upthread, the point is not so much what happens to Heymann as it is publicly making the point that Federal prosecutors in general have too much power and inappropriate incentives.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      I think her quote goes a little beyond "ruthless", and now you're claiming he has no compassion and no principles. Seriously, this is getting out of control. I have no idea whether an investigation will turn up evidence of misconduct, but I doubt you do, either.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Hooray for a cultural environment that supports and condones the dehumanization and demonization of entities designated as enemies.
      - n3rdy 14y ago
        Are you talking about the prosecutors or their victims?
        corporalagumbo 14y ago
        I assume the former.
        jamesaguilar 14y ago
        Well HN threads demonize prosecutors, and prosecutors demonize criminals. Or something.
    - corporalagumbo 14y ago
      So basically, you have never met Heymann, have no idea what sort of person he is, how he behaves, how he thinks, what values drive him, etc. etc., but you are comfortable portraying him as a moral caricature and confident that there is little to no need for you to inquire further - because you're proooobably right anyway. Wonderful. I, at least, cannot imagine Try harder. Yeah, maybe they should have sent Aaron off for counselling. He sounds like he was becoming steadily more and more unhinged. Anyway, Aaron was pretty tenacious in his illegal behaviour at MIT. He wouldn't back down, and he got his hand slapped. That happens when you don't back off. Aaron fits into a class of young men who believe that, because they have lofty principles which they are sure are correct, and because they are exercising their skill in a novel domain in which they are experts (computers) they are or should be above the law, and society should bend to their desires. Heymann was a critic of this trend - he wrote legal papers on it - and I assume he saw Aaron as an important case in proving a principle - that headstrong young white men with lofty ideas are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. So, his prosecution would have been primarily driven by the deterrence rationale. Deterrence eh? Seems to be fairly well-established as a prudent rationale for prosecution in law. Lol. Nah, forget that, Heymann was an ego-driven careerist monster! Off with his head! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29
- vor_ 14y ago
  "Everybody knows that" doesn't count as evidence.
scarmig 14y ago
Aaron and his lawyers also interacted with him on a regular basis. Although you can never be absolutely certain of things, it's certainly possible in general to infer people's mental state through their actions. In this particular case, if you think Aaron and his lawyers were disingenuously misrepresenting what was happening, or Taren is lying in a deeply emotional state about what he related to her, just say so. Not cloaked in clucking about mind reading.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I don't think she's lying. That would imply she knows Heymann's motives but is misrepresenting them. I don't think she knows his motives. If I were going to ascribe fairly venal motives to someone, I'd want to have something to back my claim up.
davemel37 14y ago
Did you stop reading after that paragraph? The next paragraph says, "I believe that Heymann is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct on several levels, but I can’t prove it until we have a proper investigation."
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  That is the key to me. I don't know what the truth is, until the facts come out -- and it seems that the facts will never come out unless pressure mounts and people are incentivized or coerced to do so. I'm not sure what the right outcome is, but the issue needs a chance to be fought for; and so I've signed.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
luser001 14y ago
Second sentence of the paragraph that follows the one you pasted.

ScottBurson 14y ago

Oh come on. That's like asking "is there any evidence this particular bear shat in these particular woods?" The path to success for prosecutors is successful high-profile prosecutions. Everybody knows that. I don't actually know that Heymann's career had been fading, but the rest of this quote seems pretty reasonable based on what we know.

corporalagumbo 14y ago
Ah, so the reason why we know this assertion is true is because everyone knows that such assertions are always true?
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  We, the citizens, have set up a system that rewards this kind of behavior. It would be odd if Heymann didn't respond to the incentives we have placed before him. Taren's quote portrays him as ruthless. I concede that we don't know exactly what went through his mind, but based on the facts in evidence, I think that that appears to be an accurate characterization. I, at least, cannot imagine how anyone with any compassion or principles could have looked at what Swartz did and concluded that it deserved to be treated as a felony worth years in federal prison. Anyway, as I said upthread, the point is not so much what happens to Heymann as it is publicly making the point that Federal prosecutors in general have too much power and inappropriate incentives.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I think her quote goes a little beyond "ruthless", and now you're claiming he has no compassion and no principles. Seriously, this is getting out of control. I have no idea whether an investigation will turn up evidence of misconduct, but I doubt you do, either.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Hooray for a cultural environment that supports and condones the dehumanization and demonization of entities designated as enemies.
    - n3rdy 14y ago
      Are you talking about the prosecutors or their victims?
      - corporalagumbo 14y ago
        I assume the former.
      - jamesaguilar 14y ago
        Well HN threads demonize prosecutors, and prosecutors demonize criminals. Or something.
  - corporalagumbo 14y ago
    So basically, you have never met Heymann, have no idea what sort of person he is, how he behaves, how he thinks, what values drive him, etc. etc., but you are comfortable portraying him as a moral caricature and confident that there is little to no need for you to inquire further - because you're proooobably right anyway. Wonderful. I, at least, cannot imagine Try harder. Yeah, maybe they should have sent Aaron off for counselling. He sounds like he was becoming steadily more and more unhinged. Anyway, Aaron was pretty tenacious in his illegal behaviour at MIT. He wouldn't back down, and he got his hand slapped. That happens when you don't back off. Aaron fits into a class of young men who believe that, because they have lofty principles which they are sure are correct, and because they are exercising their skill in a novel domain in which they are experts (computers) they are or should be above the law, and society should bend to their desires. Heymann was a critic of this trend - he wrote legal papers on it - and I assume he saw Aaron as an important case in proving a principle - that headstrong young white men with lofty ideas are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. So, his prosecution would have been primarily driven by the deterrence rationale. Deterrence eh? Seems to be fairly well-established as a prudent rationale for prosecution in law. Lol. Nah, forget that, Heymann was an ego-driven careerist monster! Off with his head! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29
vor_ 14y ago
"Everybody knows that" doesn't count as evidence.

scarmig 14y ago

Aaron and his lawyers also interacted with him on a regular basis. Although you can never be absolutely certain of things, it's certainly possible in general to infer people's mental state through their actions. In this particular case, if you think Aaron and his lawyers were disingenuously misrepresenting what was happening, or Taren is lying in a deeply emotional state about what he related to her, just say so. Not cloaked in clucking about mind reading.

twoodfin 14y ago
I don't think she's lying. That would imply she knows Heymann's motives but is misrepresenting them. I don't think she knows his motives. If I were going to ascribe fairly venal motives to someone, I'd want to have something to back my claim up.

davemel37 14y ago

Did you stop reading after that paragraph? The next paragraph says, "I believe that Heymann is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct on several levels, but I can’t prove it until we have a proper investigation."

hkmurakami 14y ago
That is the key to me. I don't know what the truth is, until the facts come out -- and it seems that the facts will never come out unless pressure mounts and people are incentivized or coerced to do so. I'm not sure what the right outcome is, but the issue needs a chance to be fought for; and so I've signed.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

luser001 14y ago

Second sentence of the paragraph that follows the one you pasted.