Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prosecutor as bully

lessig.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 277 posts

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#91

Post by [deleted] »

agwa wrote: post #60
downandout wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under…

It's actually 97%, at least as of 2010: http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_S... Unfortunately that's down at the moment but you can use the Google Cache: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:...

[deleted]

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#92

Post by revelation »

rprasad wrote: post #24
miles wrote: post #3

if what the government alleged was true — and I say “if” because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong. Morally wrong to download taxpayer-funded research? I'm sorry Larry, you lost me. More on the academic publishing "industry": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/22/academic-pu...

The problem is not that Aaron accessed the information; it is that he abused the public resources used to maintain the store of information, and further that he did so in such an egregious matter. He would not have been prosecuted if he had just downloaded a dozen articles, but he downloaded 4 million .

We talked about this on previous threads (when he was still alive). Distributing static content is a very much solved problem. Even then, if you don't want someone to download 4 million articles, don't enable them to do so. Every time I ask JSTOR for an article, their servers vet the request and then fulfill it (or not).

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#94

Post by AnthonyMouse »

andrewtbham wrote: post #68
dmix wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we go about getting this message across to her and other key people (legally)? I'm interested in helping.

I think we need to start lobbying for a bill that decriminalizes copyright infringement and makes it purely a civil matter.

I don't think that would really do it here. The problem is not (just, or even primarily) the laws against criminal copyright infringement. The problem is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Wire Act, RICO and the complete set of federal laws passed during the heyday of organized crime that are so broad and with such disproportionately insane penalties that they can be used to put just about any arbitrary subject of Her Majesty the Queen Prosecutor in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

Fixing one statute isn't going to cut it; they'll just keep on at it with the ones remaining. The fix has to be systemic or it's nothing but a band aid on a gunshot wound.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#95

Post by anon3456 »

downandout wrote: post #51
agwa wrote: post #18

From the article: For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. Remember, this was on HN just a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?…

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under…

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness...

No, it actually isn't. You have to look at convictions, acquittals, and dismissals to form an accurate assessment of the outcome of criminal prosecutions. When you factor in dismissals, the conviction rate, whether by a plea of guilty or no contest, or as a result of a trial, drops to 90-91%.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#96

Post by agwa »

olefoo wrote: post #50
agwa wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is business as usual. Naming the prosecutor isn't going to accomplish anything - the whole system needs fixing. Just a week ago this was on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003335 I don't think they seized Swartz' assets in this case but they didn't need to - they made his defense as expensive as possible and bled him dry.

Make no mistake, this means she will always be facing serious opposition should she choose to run for public office. And since she was appointed by President Obama, it is entirely appropriate for those of us who feel strongly that she misused her position; to ask him to remove her from office for failing to exercise her discretion appropriately.

> Make no mistake, this means she will always be facing serious opposition should she choose to run for public office.

Beware, given the people's love of tough-on-crime politicians, drawing any attention to her career as a prosecutor, even if negative, might only help her. Most people outside of HN probably see Aaron Swartz as a criminal and this tragedy isn't going to have serious sway. Consider that factually innocent people get convicted because of prosecutorial aggression and there are no public scandals.

The public's attitude towards crime needs to change before naming and shaming prosecutors will be effective. We should try to change it - quote figures to show that people needn't fear being victims of serious crime, appeal to the American founding and the ideals of innocent until proven guilty, make economic arguments that locking people up for disproportionate amounts of time is costly and pointless. This approach will move the needle on the public's attitude and will slowly fix the system which did this to Aaron Swartz. It's more nebulous and less satisfying than trying to destroy the career of a bad prosecutor, but it won't be wasted effort.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#97

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anon3456 wrote: post #95
downandout wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under…

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness... No, it actually isn't. You have to look at convictions, acquittals, and dismissals to form an accurate assessment of the outcome of criminal prosecutions. When you factor in dismissals, the conviction rate, whether by a plea of guilty or no contest, or as a result of a trial, drops to 90-91%.

So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason?

Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#98

Post by dmix »

temphn wrote: post #72
dmix wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we go about getting this message across to her and other key people (legally)? I'm interested in helping.

It's obviously very important to stay on the bright white side of legal here, as we are dealing with a prosecutorial bully. Emailing her directly is unlikely to produce results and likely to get your name on some kind of terrorist watch list. But going to her superiors and the Boston media to call for her resignation in disgrace over an overzealous prosecution is the right tactic. 0) Start with background: http://www…

Excellent comment. Thanks.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#99

Post by andrewtbham »

temphn wrote: post #72
dmix wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we go about getting this message across to her and other key people (legally)? I'm interested in helping.

It's obviously very important to stay on the bright white side of legal here, as we are dealing with a prosecutorial bully. Emailing her directly is unlikely to produce results and likely to get your name on some kind of terrorist watch list. But going to her superiors and the Boston media to call for her resignation in disgrace over an overzealous prosecution is the right tactic. 0) Start with background: http://www…

I do like these tactics and... I am in favor of naming and shaming. I think she should be made the poster child for overzealous prosecution of a outdated law.

However, it is a story that could serve a larger purpose than just ruining this woman's career. I would like to this effort put into something more constructive like the decriminalization of copyright infringement. It could be relegated to a civil issue, especially online (versus manufactured goods).

There will be other overzealous prosecutors to replace her, but if the law is changed. It could serve a greater purpose.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#100

Post by downandout »

anon3456 wrote: post #95
downandout wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under…

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness... No, it actually isn't. You have to look at convictions, acquittals, and dismissals to form an accurate assessment of the outcome of criminal prosecutions. When you factor in dismissals, the conviction rate, whether by a plea of guilty or no contest, or as a result of a trial, drops to 90-91%.

Including dismissals, I suppose you are in the ballpark. However, are you saying that a 90-91% conviction rate, in a system that publicly claims to offer so many protections to those within its grasp, is a positive thing? Many of our federal courthouses have inscriptions of Blackstone's formulation ("better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"). That is hardly the case in practice in our courts today.
Post reply on HN