3 ms·

Aaron was a good friend of mine, I know quite a bit about this case. a) No he wasn't, this is a common misconception by people who don't understand how the US

by jdong 12y ago

Aaron was a good friend of mine, I know quite a bit about this case. a) No he wasn't, this is a common misconception by people who don't understand how the US court system works. b) Aaron had a good deal, the indisputable breaking-and-entering charge would probably have gotten him more than 6 months. (Clarification: Aarons state charges were dropped to make way for the more serious federal charges, so in the end he didn't even get charged for the breaking-and-entering.) c) Again, read up on the US court system. You're disrespecting his memory by using him as a weapon for your misguided crusade. Here's a good article written by Orin Kerr regarding Aarons charges http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

mindslight 12y ago
a) Even if we want to bicker about the exact time, can we agree that he was facing a possible 5 years? That's ten times longer than what the prosecutors thought an appropriate punishment (the 6 month offered plea). b) Not for a college-class first time offender into an unlocked network closet, especially given the institution. That would have been handled at the local level, and would have most likely ended up in probation. c) Yes, this case was business as usual for the US "justice" system. That doesn't make it right. If Aaron was a good friend of yours, then you probably do have some different insight. Please share it here instead of repeating the same tired he-got-what-he-deserved FUD.
- jdong 12y ago
  a) Sure, he was facing a possible "5 years" (most likely much less) and was well aware of that. b) Debatable, a prison sentence of a few years definitely wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary c) You make it sound like there's something wrong with deals by prosecution, I don't think so. The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out. Aaron knew what he was doing, he made a conscious decision to do it. I believe Aaron also knew that he'd get in trouble for doing this, what he was doing was civil disobedience. Orin Kerr describes this fairly well in his article http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
  - gaadd33 12y ago
    A few years in prison for breaking and entering a maintenance closet on a college campus for a first time offender is ordinary? Wow, I guess the hacks that happen at MIT do carry quite the risk then. I can only imagine how many decades people would have gotten if they were caught putting the Lunar Module on the Great Dome.
  - javajosh 12y ago
    > most likely much less And with that, you lose a great deal of credibility. It goes against your claim to have a great deal of knowledge about this case. > The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out With this, you lose a great deal of reputation you might have as a moral person, since you seem to think that extortionate behavior is acceptable, particularly from those with overwhelming power, such as the USG prosecutors. True, you are in good company, as the US justice system largely agrees with you that they have the right to extort; but that doesn't justify your position so much as emphasize that theirs, and yours, is evil.
  - swift 12y ago
    > The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out. Plea bargaining is a system that leads the state to extort guilty pleas out of innocent people. If you think it doesn't hurt anybody, quite frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd like to learn more, here's a well-known paper on the subject: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1546&context=fss_papers http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
    - tptacek 12y ago
      What appears to me to be simple logic: If sentencing guidelines were ratcheted sharply downwards, plea bargaining wouldn't have an extortative effect, because prosecutors wouldn't have the latitude to pursue outlandish sentences. However, if plea bargaining was outlawed but sentencing guidelines remained as they are now, sentencing and criminal procedure would remain unjust for the majority of defendants, who are ultimately guilty but don't deserve outlandish sentences. Both policy changes are very unlikely, but for different reasons. Plea bargaining won't be outlawed or curtailed because doing so would require allocating a huge amount of money to the court system, which is already overtaxed. Preempting an argument nobody has made: that's not "their problem, not ours", because what we'd really be talking about is years and years of delayed trials during which people will be held in confinement anyways. Look at China for an example of a system that has that problem in a big way. Sentences won't be ratcheted down because there's never a political upside for doing that. That's obviously tragic.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Aaron's attorney at the time of his suicide wrote a summary of the case shortly after Aaron died. His attorney believed that given the nature of the crime (particularly: nonremunerative) and Aaron's first-time offender status, he was unlikely to serve a custodial sentence even if he was convicted. You can reach a similar conclusion by looking at the federal sentencing guidelines and seeing where the probation cutoff is. This isn't bickering; the C.W. about Swartz is indeed that he was facing decades in prison. He was not. I agree with the overwhelming majority of everyone that a custodial sentence for Swartz' actions would have been a miscarriage of justice. But the distinctions being made in this thread are not minor ones.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    The prosecution thought he would get well over six months in prison, so beliefs clearly differ. From a security mindset, you must surely know that if something can happen, then you must consider it. The statistical "expected outcome" of the sentence is irrelevant when it's the variance that's so crushing. I'll give you that "decades" is an emotional exaggeration the other way. But unless you can bound that maximum at less than three years, then I would still call it "bickering". Anything in that range is life altering, and distinguishing between personality-ending and life-ending isn't particularly meaningful when they have a similar effect on the defendant.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      You can look at sentences for comparable crimes with remunerative intent. For instance: Stephen Watt got 2 years for being instrumental to a massive credit card theft operation. Another question you could ask is, is there an expert in criminal law who has made a case for Swartz actually facing 3+ years in prison?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
badubu 12y ago
Based on your account, "Aaron was a good friend of mine" requires substantial bonafides to bring you out of the realm of Astroturf.

by jdong 12y ago

mindslight 12y ago

a) Even if we want to bicker about the exact time, can we agree that he was facing a possible 5 years? That's ten times longer than what the prosecutors thought an appropriate punishment (the 6 month offered plea). b) Not for a college-class first time offender into an unlocked network closet, especially given the institution. That would have been handled at the local level, and would have most likely ended up in probation. c) Yes, this case was business as usual for the US "justice" system. That doesn't make it right. If Aaron was a good friend of yours, then you probably do have some different insight. Please share it here instead of repeating the same tired he-got-what-he-deserved FUD.

jdong 12y ago
a) Sure, he was facing a possible "5 years" (most likely much less) and was well aware of that. b) Debatable, a prison sentence of a few years definitely wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary c) You make it sound like there's something wrong with deals by prosecution, I don't think so. The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out. Aaron knew what he was doing, he made a conscious decision to do it. I believe Aaron also knew that he'd get in trouble for doing this, what he was doing was civil disobedience. Orin Kerr describes this fairly well in his article http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
- gaadd33 12y ago
  A few years in prison for breaking and entering a maintenance closet on a college campus for a first time offender is ordinary? Wow, I guess the hacks that happen at MIT do carry quite the risk then. I can only imagine how many decades people would have gotten if they were caught putting the Lunar Module on the Great Dome.
- javajosh 12y ago
  > most likely much less And with that, you lose a great deal of credibility. It goes against your claim to have a great deal of knowledge about this case. > The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out With this, you lose a great deal of reputation you might have as a moral person, since you seem to think that extortionate behavior is acceptable, particularly from those with overwhelming power, such as the USG prosecutors. True, you are in good company, as the US justice system largely agrees with you that they have the right to extort; but that doesn't justify your position so much as emphasize that theirs, and yours, is evil.
- swift 12y ago
  > The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out. Plea bargaining is a system that leads the state to extort guilty pleas out of innocent people. If you think it doesn't hurt anybody, quite frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd like to learn more, here's a well-known paper on the subject: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1546&context=fss_papers http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    What appears to me to be simple logic: If sentencing guidelines were ratcheted sharply downwards, plea bargaining wouldn't have an extortative effect, because prosecutors wouldn't have the latitude to pursue outlandish sentences. However, if plea bargaining was outlawed but sentencing guidelines remained as they are now, sentencing and criminal procedure would remain unjust for the majority of defendants, who are ultimately guilty but don't deserve outlandish sentences. Both policy changes are very unlikely, but for different reasons. Plea bargaining won't be outlawed or curtailed because doing so would require allocating a huge amount of money to the court system, which is already overtaxed. Preempting an argument nobody has made: that's not "their problem, not ours", because what we'd really be talking about is years and years of delayed trials during which people will be held in confinement anyways. Look at China for an example of a system that has that problem in a big way. Sentences won't be ratcheted down because there's never a political upside for doing that. That's obviously tragic.
tptacek 12y ago
Aaron's attorney at the time of his suicide wrote a summary of the case shortly after Aaron died. His attorney believed that given the nature of the crime (particularly: nonremunerative) and Aaron's first-time offender status, he was unlikely to serve a custodial sentence even if he was convicted. You can reach a similar conclusion by looking at the federal sentencing guidelines and seeing where the probation cutoff is. This isn't bickering; the C.W. about Swartz is indeed that he was facing decades in prison. He was not. I agree with the overwhelming majority of everyone that a custodial sentence for Swartz' actions would have been a miscarriage of justice. But the distinctions being made in this thread are not minor ones.
- mindslight 12y ago
  The prosecution thought he would get well over six months in prison, so beliefs clearly differ. From a security mindset, you must surely know that if something can happen, then you must consider it. The statistical "expected outcome" of the sentence is irrelevant when it's the variance that's so crushing. I'll give you that "decades" is an emotional exaggeration the other way. But unless you can bound that maximum at less than three years, then I would still call it "bickering". Anything in that range is life altering, and distinguishing between personality-ending and life-ending isn't particularly meaningful when they have a similar effect on the defendant.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    You can look at sentences for comparable crimes with remunerative intent. For instance: Stephen Watt got 2 years for being instrumental to a massive credit card theft operation. Another question you could ask is, is there an expert in criminal law who has made a case for Swartz actually facing 3+ years in prison?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

badubu 12y ago

Based on your account, "Aaron was a good friend of mine" requires substantial bonafides to bring you out of the realm of Astroturf.