6 ms·

"Have you any idea how lucky you are that we got to you before you got on that plane?" The difference in the way he was treated by police and the justice syste

"Have you any idea how lucky you are that we got to you before you got on that plane?" The difference in the way he was treated by police and the justice system (and how different it is than what we've come to expect in America) is what struck me the most about this story.

ekianjo 12y ago
> The difference in the way he was treated by police and the justice system (and how different it is than what we've come to expect in America) is what struck me the most about this story. The fact that they were setting a trap for him was also relatively shocking. Don't they have to follow due process?
- DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
  What part of inviting a criminal you've gathered significant recorded evidence against (eg, their own telephone confession) to a place you can arrest him do you think violates due process?
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Well, lying about your true intent. It's not like he knew he was going to be arrested.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Police in the US don't have to tell you what they're doing up until the point they decide to exercise their power (i.e. searches or arrests) either, last time I checked. They can ask you to go somewhere and you can voluntarily comply or choose not to.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        So you are OK with women police officers dressing up as prostitutes to attract potential costumers and then arresting them on the spot ? That's extremely twisted. There's a reason why in many countries police officers HAVE to wear uniforms.
        talon88 12y ago
        Yes? I'm pretty okay with this. I'm okay with police going undercover, too, to bust up gangs. It turns out that policework is more than just standing in a pretty uniform.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        Which countries are you talking of, may I ask?
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        Why is it twisted?
        ekianjo 12y ago
        Because the police should be busy catching criminals instead of trying to trick innocent people into criminal acts when they are not doing any.
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        There are two points I want to address here: first, let's be clear that if you commit a crime just because somebody asks you to, it's probably better if the police have you on their radar. Second: Let's not forget what you were originally complaining about. "The fact that they were setting a trap for him" is what you said. But it's not really the same sort of trap, is it? In one scenario, you think the police are tricking somebody into committing a crime, so they can be arrested. Sure, that's a valid and interesting discussion to have. But in the other scenario, you're complaining that somebody who has ALREADY committed a crime, and confessed to it on the phone, with no duress, is being tricked into being arrested. That's a very different situation, and I'd be very interested to know why you think that this situation in particular is objectionable. The kid committed a crime; he confessed to it freely. The police got busy catching him; isn't that exactly what you think they should be doing? He's not an innocent person being tricked into a criminal act.
macspoofing 12y ago
Same. They let him grab something to eat and even smoke a cigarette before they brought him in. Then he gets two years of probation. It all feels very reasonable to me. Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing by downloading documents anyone can access just by virtue of connecting to the campus Wifi. There is definitely something really off here.
- tzs 12y ago
  > Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. He was facing, if he went to trail and lost on all charges, and the court decided that he had caused a large amount of monetary damage, around 7 years. If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. Prior discussion with more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640
  - macspoofing 12y ago
    Unbelievable. >Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. You know why people keep using that number? Because that's the number the attorney's office itself used in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's be reasonable here. I'll fix it: >"Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing" There fixed it. Happy?? I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__ going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7. Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The sentencing judge could have made an example out of him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 + . Justice! Of course this raises another relevant question. Why is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office can do those great press releases extolling how tough on crime they are? Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years (here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not charge him for 7 years? >If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the next guy to not be so uppity and force them to cow-tow to prosecutor demands? Ridiculous.
rasz_pl 12y ago
You mean the difference between justice system and revenge system.

ekianjo 12y ago

> The difference in the way he was treated by police and the justice system (and how different it is than what we've come to expect in America) is what struck me the most about this story. The fact that they were setting a trap for him was also relatively shocking. Don't they have to follow due process?

DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
What part of inviting a criminal you've gathered significant recorded evidence against (eg, their own telephone confession) to a place you can arrest him do you think violates due process?
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Well, lying about your true intent. It's not like he knew he was going to be arrested.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Police in the US don't have to tell you what they're doing up until the point they decide to exercise their power (i.e. searches or arrests) either, last time I checked. They can ask you to go somewhere and you can voluntarily comply or choose not to.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      So you are OK with women police officers dressing up as prostitutes to attract potential costumers and then arresting them on the spot ? That's extremely twisted. There's a reason why in many countries police officers HAVE to wear uniforms.
      - talon88 12y ago
        Yes? I'm pretty okay with this. I'm okay with police going undercover, too, to bust up gangs. It turns out that policework is more than just standing in a pretty uniform.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        Which countries are you talking of, may I ask?
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        Why is it twisted?
        ekianjo 12y ago
        Because the police should be busy catching criminals instead of trying to trick innocent people into criminal acts when they are not doing any.
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        There are two points I want to address here: first, let's be clear that if you commit a crime just because somebody asks you to, it's probably better if the police have you on their radar. Second: Let's not forget what you were originally complaining about. "The fact that they were setting a trap for him" is what you said. But it's not really the same sort of trap, is it? In one scenario, you think the police are tricking somebody into committing a crime, so they can be arrested. Sure, that's a valid and interesting discussion to have. But in the other scenario, you're complaining that somebody who has ALREADY committed a crime, and confessed to it on the phone, with no duress, is being tricked into being arrested. That's a very different situation, and I'd be very interested to know why you think that this situation in particular is objectionable. The kid committed a crime; he confessed to it freely. The police got busy catching him; isn't that exactly what you think they should be doing? He's not an innocent person being tricked into a criminal act.

macspoofing 12y ago

Same. They let him grab something to eat and even smoke a cigarette before they brought him in. Then he gets two years of probation. It all feels very reasonable to me. Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing by downloading documents anyone can access just by virtue of connecting to the campus Wifi. There is definitely something really off here.

tzs 12y ago
> Compare that to the $1 million fine, 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. He was facing, if he went to trail and lost on all charges, and the court decided that he had caused a large amount of monetary damage, around 7 years. If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. Prior discussion with more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004640
- macspoofing 12y ago
  Unbelievable. >Swartz was NOT facing anywhere near 35 years in prison. You know why people keep using that number? Because that's the number the attorney's office itself used in its own press release. That's why. But OK, let's be reasonable here. I'll fix it: >"Compare that to the $1 million fine, up to 35 years in prison (followed by 3 years of supervised release) Aaron Swartz was facing" There fixed it. Happy?? I'm sure from your armchair perspective, you can find nuance in saying that he wasn't __likely__ going to get 35 years, instead, he'd get a quick 7. Yet, I think if you're in that position, you may still be looking at that 35 or 50 year number. The sentencing judge could have made an example out of him as well, no? It's not like never happens. And of course, the best outcome is that he's looking at 7 + . Justice! Of course this raises another relevant question. Why is it that prosecutors like to load-up on charges to get their nice maximums? Is it so that their office can do those great press releases extolling how tough on crime they are? Or maybe to bully the defendants into taking whatever deal they cook-up in order to get another notch on their conviction belt? If you think 7 years (here's your nice, reasonable almost-a-decade number, happy?) is what the law calls for, why not charge him for 7 years? >If he had taken the plea bargain that was on the table, he was facing a few months. That's right, he didn't, and then the prosecutor loaded up 35 years of charges and pulled the plea bargain off the table. Because why? To teach the next guy to not be so uppity and force them to cow-tow to prosecutor demands? Ridiculous.

rasz_pl 12y ago

You mean the difference between justice system and revenge system.