151–160 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or, you know, you could just call your local Congressperson and complain. Almost certainly zero impact for this. Easily ignored. The prosecutor in this case, however, probably could not easily ignore her friends and family dumping her.
Do you really think your internet activism will cause her family and friends to "dump" her?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"after JSTOR itself had dropped the charges" From a practical matter a prosecutor might decline to prosecute if they can't get the cooperation of someone (needed to testify or provide evidence) but this should have no bearing on whether to prosecute or not. You could have a crime committed and the crime is worthy of prosection. The fact that someone believes (as an extreme example) that a person who committed assault…
>but this should have no bearing on whether to prosecute or not. "We were just following orders" and "We were just doing our jobs" and "We were doing what the law told us to do" aren't the indefensible moral positions you seem to think they are. Laws are written by men and enforced by men. Just the idea that all prosecutors are slaves to these laws is so incredibly naive I almost don't know what to say to you, but I'…
Careful; that's a double-edged sword. Would you prefer that individual prosecutors have the authority to ignore the law? That didn't work too well in the pre-civil-rights South, when lynchings went unprosecuted.
It's far better to have a government of laws and not a government of men; then you can assign responsibility where it belongs, with the people who write the laws.
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?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in power need to take responsibility for what they do. Claiming they're "just doing their job" is how the worst stuff that ever happens to humanity by other humans goes down. For more, check out The Lucifer Effect . Doing evil in the name of your "job" is a bug in the human psyche. We need to do everything we can to mitigate its effects, and that starts by not staying stupid shit like "Hate the game, not the p…
Laws are meant to be beneficial to society as a whole. In the US, laws must be passed by a democratically elected body. The judicial system is one of the few areas where "just doing your job", no matter how 'evil' it may seem, is morally right. Even the most heinous and obviously guilty defendant deserves the best defence available. And similarly, is a prosecutor enforcing a law that society chose to enact inherently…
That's not what happened here: society did not enact laws that made his actions illegal, and certainly did not inact punishments to the extent of a felony and 35 years in prison.
This is perhaps the clearest case I've even seen for prosecutorial abuse (excepting situation where the prosecutions literally fabricates evidence). More info here: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...
Bottom line: in this case, society is not to blame and no, the prosecutors weren't just "doing their job".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or, you know, you could just call your local Congressperson and complain. Almost certainly zero impact for this. Easily ignored. The prosecutor in this case, however, probably could not easily ignore her friends and family dumping her.
Do you really think your internet activism will cause her family and friends to "dump" her?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naming and shaming Carmen M. Ortiz for destroying the life of a young man is exactly what is necessary. She brought 13 felony counts against him for downloading articles that should be freely available, after JSTOR itself had dropped the charges. Destroying her career and seeing her fired in disgrace will send a message to all other overzealous prosecutors, in the same way that she surely thought her prosecution of S…
The trouble is, if Obama hasn't shut down Guantanomo, let Bradley Manning be held in conditions amounting to torture, et bloody cetera, what in hell makes you think he's going to fire and shame one of his best US Attorneys over a tragic death that she contributed to? It's probably more likely (though not very) that she will resign of her own volition.
Then do something about it. This prosecutor is quite the collector and displayer of awards: http://www.necc.mass.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Carmen-O... She is a PR asset to this university: http://www.pr.com/press-release/366324 Evidently some people want her to run for higher office: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/01/... Governor Ortiz? Make sure it isn't: http://www.bostonglobe.com/met…
This is quite possibly the worst idea ever. Let's not just go after one person, let's go after everyone she ever knows, even if they have no involvement in this particular incident? Are you going to suggest we tar, feather, and lynch them too? Make this an exercise in how to correct these injustices, and make her an example to other prosecutors. You do this by airing ads against her if she ever runs for office or see…
"Restrict your protest to the appropriate democratic channels" is the rallying cry of those who wish to suppress dissident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, especi…
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 have a feeling Anonymous will get on this case. Sadly enough this is not one of those cases where a few messages is going to "send the message."
This type of behavior makes me wonder what the incentive structure is (both financially and socially) for these prosecutors? IMO that's what needs to change if we are going to have any sort of real justice in the future. Going after individuals might make us feel better for a little while, but it won't save the next Aaron Schwartz from the same fate.