The presence of a quota system that requires that the government bring a certain number of cases and provides bonuses and rewards connected to "bringing more cases" means that honorable and honest prosecutors fall behind and cannot compete and dirty and heartless prosecutors are able to meet their goals and get ahead. It is not possible to fight the federal government, only a man of enormous strength and enormous balls can successfully do this. Most capitulate, the others lose because the government burden of proof is a joke.
How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
121–130 of 130 posts
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even a not-guilty plea would have left him ruined.
How so? What was preventing him from setting up a legal defense fund and accepting contributions? Hell, what if the judge had thrown out the charges?
Federal criminal charges don't get thrown out. That is very rare. The way the laws are written the feds were going to win. Aaron was trying to do something that should be legal, but the feds were going to get their win. The problem is that what they report to the press and what they actually win on at court can vary widely, so Aaron was going to be ruined and he was going to serve hard time in prison. He shouldn't have killed himself though. He could have had a prosperous life after prison, but his public reputation was destroyed forever.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.
There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood , did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.
No I disagree with your statement entirely. He was trying to download scientific and court documents that were paid for with taxpayer money that are supposed to be FREE to the public. The controlled distribution of these free documents to private companies is a scam by the US government to generate revenues for friends of the government. Yes the government was going to win their case because Aaron had to break the law in order to try and make these documents available. However, what he could have done, was brought action against the government and continued to violate the law in order to bring attention to it. But he was too young and too scared by the weight of the prosecutorial charges. They weren't going to get 30 years agains the poor kid for trying to right a government wrong. They were going to get house arrest and probation. Aaron should have stuck in there but having been falsely acused of a federal crime once in my life I know that the desire to commit suicide is strong.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> your assumption that his acts are felonies and that he would have been found guilty I understand that that is debatable. I don't view these things as foregone conclusions, only as highly likely outcomes. I'm not aware of any serious observers of the case who disagree, but if they exist it would be helpful to know about them.
You're talking out of your butt.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” 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…
> 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.
No. Not federal felonies. Only state and under certain circumstances such as a person who is under 18.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
With respect, was there any problem with the felony besides his ego? I mean, I know people whose lifelong dream is to be a defense attorney. For those folks, a felony would be a huge problem since it would keep them from gaining admission to the bar. Did Swartz have a similar issue? Or was he unable to bear the thought of being called names by that paragon of moral legitimacy known as the US government?
Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.
Not really. Only for a crime like murder.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.
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…
Look, the bigger problem is spending 10 years in jail and coming back to a society that has called you a con artist in national newspapers after the DOJ gets to talk with the press. He went from being a respected and loved person who have a big career opportunity to being despised. I went through this and you know that it is almost impossible to find a girl to date after getting in this kind of trouble. They Google your name and say "Fraud" no way. He was facing 20 years in jail and feds do get sentences this long (probably would not have in this case) but Aaron was still a kid and doesn't understand that the government is not going to get 20 years on him. 20 years means no family, no children, probably no marriage, no work prospect, a life of shame. It's like having leprosy its awful.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
He had no money left, was already bankrupt after defending himself to this point...Besides, this is the wrong question - on what earth should it even be possible for a prosecutor to threaten thirty five years and a felony conviction for this sort of thing? That kind of sentence is for attempted murder, it is a few years short of life in prison. This was wrong, this was not right. Prosecutions like these mean that we…
Congress wrote the law making those acts a crime and imposing sentencing guidelines, not the USDOJ.
The DOJ lobbied for these laws and they routinely lobby to make sentencing more severe. They make the recommendations and congress implements.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.
I'm sure "thinking persons" would have considered this, but just in case: "Never forget". Godwin's Law wants you to. Worse still his "law" encourages the mocking of those who want say if they think something is getting a bit Nazi. Which you have done by implying a disconnect between his comment, thinking persons, seriousness and understanding. Why? Perhaps so no one dares point it out if it looks like its happening a…
This is a sentiment that I have shared for a while now, but I have never been able to express it so clearly. I am glad that I am not the only one deeply bothered by Godwin's "Law".
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't think that. If you think that I do based on so little evidence, then you're clearly out of touch with reality, a lot.
But you're not making any sense.
To you. Ergo you ask questions, you don't insert your premises where you fail to comprehend mine.