3 ms·

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 would

by 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.
ScottBurson 12y ago
I replied to your top-level comment, but I'll just emphasize here, that Kerr himself does not agree with your assessment that "there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here". He also doesn't agree with your opinion that there's nothing wrong with the way prosecutors use plea bargaining. He does argue that Aaron knowingly broke the law and should have faced some consequences, but probably not felony charges. Really, you should read Kerr more carefully before linking to him.
scotty79 12y ago
> The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out. What is wrong with some of you Americans? How can you have as a part of justice system a deal where you can say "Ok. Let's pretend that I did this thing and you don't have to actually prove it and you won't try to convince anyone that I did this other more horrid thing you accuse me of. And who cares about the truth?"
- tptacek 12y ago
  Plea bargaining exists in Germany as well (under the rubric of "confession agreements"). I think plea bargaining is a red herring. Plea bargains are a necessity: jarring as it is for us to consider this, most felony† defendants are in fact guilty, as a simple consequence of how policing works. It doesn't appear that way to us intuitively, because we only hear about the interesting cases. That's not a defense of US criminal procedure! We have a terrible, back-breaking policy flaw: sentences are much too onerous, as a result of several decades of "war on crime" legislation from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. † The word "felony" there is important.
  - McDoku 12y ago
    Even if the numbers make guilt look more likely, we cannot create policy with the assumption of guilt. We subscribe to a principle of innocent until proven guilty, plain and simple. This principle is an essential safeguard, critical for the preservation of order in a democracy. As I have said before in this thread. Don't rob Peter to pay Paul. It is simply illogical and counter productive. No doubt a functioning court system is also extremely critical. We just need to think about it like a bug in the software. In the end it is up to social innovators to correct this deficiency. There is a solution to this problem. EXTRA -- There is the argument that this does not apply to illegal combatants or immediate threats to national security. Obviously that is another problematic and complicated position that my have policy bleeding into this case. P.S. > the nuance of your position is clear
- McDoku 12y ago
  It is also a budget thing. Trails are not free. It is an unfortunate problem with the current judiciary system. Pleas do avoid trail and as I understand it when things go to trail the penalties are substantially harsher. So in many ways it can become the best bet... even for an innocent person.

by jdong 12y ago

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.

ScottBurson 12y ago

I replied to your top-level comment, but I'll just emphasize here, that Kerr himself does not agree with your assessment that "there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here". He also doesn't agree with your opinion that there's nothing wrong with the way prosecutors use plea bargaining. He does argue that Aaron knowingly broke the law and should have faced some consequences, but probably not felony charges. Really, you should read Kerr more carefully before linking to him.

scotty79 12y ago

> The deals don't hurt anybody and offer an easy way out. What is wrong with some of you Americans? How can you have as a part of justice system a deal where you can say "Ok. Let's pretend that I did this thing and you don't have to actually prove it and you won't try to convince anyone that I did this other more horrid thing you accuse me of. And who cares about the truth?"

tptacek 12y ago
Plea bargaining exists in Germany as well (under the rubric of "confession agreements"). I think plea bargaining is a red herring. Plea bargains are a necessity: jarring as it is for us to consider this, most felony† defendants are in fact guilty, as a simple consequence of how policing works. It doesn't appear that way to us intuitively, because we only hear about the interesting cases. That's not a defense of US criminal procedure! We have a terrible, back-breaking policy flaw: sentences are much too onerous, as a result of several decades of "war on crime" legislation from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. † The word "felony" there is important.
- McDoku 12y ago
  Even if the numbers make guilt look more likely, we cannot create policy with the assumption of guilt. We subscribe to a principle of innocent until proven guilty, plain and simple. This principle is an essential safeguard, critical for the preservation of order in a democracy. As I have said before in this thread. Don't rob Peter to pay Paul. It is simply illogical and counter productive. No doubt a functioning court system is also extremely critical. We just need to think about it like a bug in the software. In the end it is up to social innovators to correct this deficiency. There is a solution to this problem. EXTRA -- There is the argument that this does not apply to illegal combatants or immediate threats to national security. Obviously that is another problematic and complicated position that my have policy bleeding into this case. P.S. > the nuance of your position is clear
McDoku 12y ago
It is also a budget thing. Trails are not free. It is an unfortunate problem with the current judiciary system. Pleas do avoid trail and as I understand it when things go to trail the penalties are substantially harsher. So in many ways it can become the best bet... even for an innocent person.