3 ms·

The question above: Is a 6 month sentence and no jail time plea bargain considered disproportionate?

chaostheory 13y ago
That was only mentioned AFTER he died. Let's take a look at their press release: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. 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." Gee I wonder why someone would contemplate suicide?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Unless he had the worlds worst lawyer, he would have known that those terms are theoretical maximums which always get trotted out in the news and in press releases. This keeps getting ignored for some reason in this case. Also there are thousands of people every year sentenced to possibly long term jail time who don't kill themselves, therefore I put the blame more on Aaron himself than MIT.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    "Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, is alternately sad and furious. 'The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,' Good told me. 'His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.'" "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests."
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Dropping charges because someone is at risk of hurting themselves is not a good policy law enforcement policy. The charges could proceed as normal, but extended supervision should be the proper response.
      - chaostheory 13y ago
        In this case, you're talking about the enforcement of keeping publicly funded research out of the public's hands. Was any of this necessary?
- danielweber 13y ago
  That was only mentioned AFTER he died Maybe to outsiders, but Aaron and Aaron's lawyers both knew the six-month plea deal was on the table. The DOJ publicly said "up to 35 years," and they deserve what they get for saying that -- -- but Aaron's lawyers didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They knew federal sentencing guidelines. Even if guilty on all counts, there were good odds that Aaron would face 0 days in jail, being a first-time non-violent offender. There was a 0.00% chance of Aaron going to jail for 35 years.
betterunix 13y ago
Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed to no threat, and deprived nobody of anything.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Well, except: On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, grand larceny and unauthorized access to a computer network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#Arrest.2C_charges_and_indictments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#A...
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    So where exactly does it state that Aaron caused damage to systems, posed a threat, and deprived people of something? What you posted is a fancy way of saying that Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials and downloaded publicly funded research papers onto a computer hidden in an MIT supply closet. Who's the victim in his crime?
    - danielweber 13y ago
      > Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials Huh? This is new.
      - chaostheory 13y ago
        Ok correction "Swartz used a Perl computer script running on Amazon cloud servers to download the documents, using credentials belonging to a Sacramento library." Again, who actually got hurt aside from Aaron?

That was only mentioned AFTER he died. Let's take a look at their press release: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. 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." Gee I wonder why someone would contemplate suicide?

res0nat0r 13y ago
Unless he had the worlds worst lawyer, he would have known that those terms are theoretical maximums which always get trotted out in the news and in press releases. This keeps getting ignored for some reason in this case. Also there are thousands of people every year sentenced to possibly long term jail time who don't kill themselves, therefore I put the blame more on Aaron himself than MIT.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  "Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, is alternately sad and furious. 'The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,' Good told me. 'His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.'" "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests."
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Dropping charges because someone is at risk of hurting themselves is not a good policy law enforcement policy. The charges could proceed as normal, but extended supervision should be the proper response.
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      In this case, you're talking about the enforcement of keeping publicly funded research out of the public's hands. Was any of this necessary?
danielweber 13y ago
That was only mentioned AFTER he died Maybe to outsiders, but Aaron and Aaron's lawyers both knew the six-month plea deal was on the table. The DOJ publicly said "up to 35 years," and they deserve what they get for saying that -- -- but Aaron's lawyers didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They knew federal sentencing guidelines. Even if guilty on all counts, there were good odds that Aaron would face 0 days in jail, being a first-time non-violent offender. There was a 0.00% chance of Aaron going to jail for 35 years.

betterunix 13y ago

Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed to no threat, and deprived nobody of anything.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Well, except: On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, grand larceny and unauthorized access to a computer network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#Arrest.2C_charges_and_indictments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#A...
- chaostheory 13y ago
  So where exactly does it state that Aaron caused damage to systems, posed a threat, and deprived people of something? What you posted is a fancy way of saying that Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials and downloaded publicly funded research papers onto a computer hidden in an MIT supply closet. Who's the victim in his crime?
  - danielweber 13y ago
    > Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials Huh? This is new.
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      Ok correction "Swartz used a Perl computer script running on Amazon cloud servers to download the documents, using credentials belonging to a Sacramento library." Again, who actually got hurt aside from Aaron?