6 ms·
One could, ahem, reasonably argue that reason was thrown out the window when prosecutors chose to prosecute Swartz. Given a lack of reason in prosecutorial disc
by forrestthewoods 12y ago
One could, ahem, reasonably argue that reason was thrown out the window when prosecutors chose to prosecute Swartz. Given a lack of reason in prosecutorial discretion it would be unreasonable to expect reasonable sentencing.
The key is that it just doesn't matter what usually happens. Or what's most common. Or how it almost always works. At the end of the day it's a dice roll and the odds may overwhelmingly be in one direction but if there's a chance then there's a chance. It's a terrifying prospect no matter how slim the odds may be.
- tptacek 12y agoProsecutors don't sentence.
- watwut 12y ago94% are settled by pleading. Prosecutors decide whether they will charge you and can pick up charges they like. Chosen charges may make huge difference between years you risk to spend in jail. They can decide to prosecute you in a way that will cost you all your money even if found innocent or in a way that is only costly. The one who holds the most power in criminal proceedings is the prosecutor.
- Zigurd 12y agoMuch of the fault is upstream. MIT's leadership could have said "This is a trespassing case" and made it very difficult for an overdone federal prosecution to move forward. But that doesn't excuse Ortiz and Heymann. They destroyed a global treasure, and shouldn't be permitted to continue in their jobs, no matter how protected they are from liability.