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

How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

susiebright.blogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#71

Post by tzs »

jlgreco wrote: post #50
tzs wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony Felonies can be expunged. See Randall Schwartz's case, for example.

Oh yeah, I guess a felony is no big deal then. How foolish of Aaron.

I guess I wasn't clear.

They seemed to have a pretty strong case against him, which means ending up with a felony label was pretty much a foregone conclusion if it went to trial.

A felony on your record is indeed a big deal. However, when you have the connections he did, and the reputation he did, a felony is not necessarily a "destroy your future" type big deal. Plenty of tech companies would have still jumped at the chance to hire him, for instance.

He was going to almost certainly end up with the felony tag regardless of whether or not he took the plea. Taking the plea gets him out and lets him get right to building his life back, and working on getting his record expunged.

Going to jail for, say, 10 years, not only delays all that by 10 years, but also makes it much harder. 10 years is a long time in the world of internet fame. Connections and reputations fade.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#72

Post by codewright »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #6

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…

maxim

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#73

Post by DavidSJ »

wissler wrote: post #20
_delirium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually, causally, the reason for the U.S.'s rather harsh justice system? I mean, postmodernism is not exactly popular in the US. Are law-and-order populist politicians pushing "tough on crime" agendas and long sentences all secretly fans of French philosophers? If anything, the problem is that they are too sure of their own values, and willing to enforce them with imprisonment.

It's uncertainty about the right values that permits the false ones to prevail.

Certainty about the wrong values has caused its share of bad values prevailing.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#74

Post by benblack »

Yaa101 wrote: post #21
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

Asserting all members of a group of people are subhuman sure does sound like something that happened in Europe in the 30s and 40s. What point were you trying to make?

Immanentize your personal eschaton,

Lil 'B

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#75

Post by rms »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #63
jlgreco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also hurts employment (not just if you want to be a lawyer...) and even housing prospects. Being a felon very effectively makes you a second class citizen. Even ignoring all of that, there is the factor of being forced to submit before an unjust power. The "felon" assignment did not represent just a label, but also total submission. Just summing this up as a problem with his "ego" may seem a good way to marginaliz…

Ah, thanks for explaining. Is the "moving internationally" issue a question of travel or permanent residency? I get how a felony conviction might be a big deal for someone with a GED and no money and no connections. But Swartz had lots of connections and lots of money and was widely respected in professional circles. I really can't see any startup that he wanted to work for rejecting him over his felony conviction. A…

>Is the "moving internationally" issue a question of travel or permanent residency?

Both

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#76

Post by javajosh »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8
jamesaguilar wrote: post #6

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

>literally everyone except newborns would be in prison.

Actually, no. Newborns can (and therefore, should, apparently) be arrested for "disturbing the peace."

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#77

Post by [deleted] »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #69
newman314 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please. If you are accused of being a child molester, does it mean that we should all consider you guilty? But we should not quibble about such technicalities as you so blithely claim. "Innocent until proven guilty". That's how the law works (and should)

If I had openly admitted the facts and several reliable parties had corroborated them? Feel free to call me a child molester before my conviction in that case. Don't throw me in jail before proving it, of course, but you needn't qualify every single thing you say with "alleged." If the facts aren't pretty well established, then of course it is wise to be more judicious.

[deleted]

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#78

Post by nitrogen »

tzs wrote: post #71
jlgreco wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, I guess a felony is no big deal then. How foolish of Aaron.

I guess I wasn't clear. They seemed to have a pretty strong case against him, which means ending up with a felony label was pretty much a foregone conclusion if it went to trial. A felony on your record is indeed a big deal. However, when you have the connections he did, and the reputation he did, a felony is not necessarily a "destroy your future" type big deal. Plenty of tech companies would have still jumped at th…

I was under the impression that the offered plea bargain still included an excessive amount of prison time and pleading guilty on all counts.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#79

Post by regnum »

pasbesoin wrote: post #15

A worthy lasting legacy would be for Mr. Swartz's story to shed an undeniable and transforming light upon the farce that our "adversarial" justice system has become. It is all too seldom about "justice" and all too often about "career". And... these prosecutors are public employees. Our employees. We cannot and should not divorce ourselves from their malicious malfeasance, when and as it occurs. Nor can we nor should…

Check out Errol Morris' documentary The Thin Blue Line. It really makes evident the "career" climbers in the justice system and how they can spoil freedom for those who they target.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Thin_Blue_Line/6003493...

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#80

Post by nkassis »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #69
newman314 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please. If you are accused of being a child molester, does it mean that we should all consider you guilty? But we should not quibble about such technicalities as you so blithely claim. "Innocent until proven guilty". That's how the law works (and should)

If I had openly admitted the facts and several reliable parties had corroborated them? Feel free to call me a child molester before my conviction in that case. Don't throw me in jail before proving it, of course, but you needn't qualify every single thing you say with "alleged." If the facts aren't pretty well established, then of course it is wise to be more judicious.

No one is denying that he did download those documents. What is mostly likely getting you downvoted is your assumption that his acts are felonies and that he would have been found guilty. That is debatable and why it would require a trial. That's why I would suggest not labeling someone a felon when no jury has had a chance to decide.
Post reply on HN