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

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

lofgren.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#141

Post by michaelfeathers »

rayiner wrote: post #109
lwat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing: Getting rid of pea bargaining will mean every case must go to court. Since the courts are unable to deal with that many cases the prosecutors will be MUCH more selective when deciding which cases to take on. Fewer people will get charged and fewer people will go to jail.

That's not necessarily better. The purpose of plea bargaining is to work the huge mass of petty criminals through the system. The legal presumption of innocence notwithstanding, these people all did the crime, and it's generally a legit crime. Getting rid of plea bargaining means that prosecutors will focus on the big fish, but also means that lower level crimes (shoplifting, pick pocketing, etc) essentially become u…

Yes, that's an issue, but allowing prosecutors to force any conviction that they want to by escalating charges is too far from just by any standard. It completely sidesteps fairness.

Beyond that, one could argue that the federal government should not be addressing petty crime at all.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#142

Post by mapt »

kyboren wrote: post #34
michaelfeathers wrote: post #6

It's a nice narrow fix and I hope it passes, but the real elephant in the room is 'plea bargaining.' That needs reform at the federal level.

Federal prosecutors' primary tactics mirror those of the medieval siege. They do their best to fling arrows at the castle by generating enormous amounts of discovery material They starve defendants with insanely over-broad civil asset forfeiture laws. They charge crimes on the prosecutor's whims: HSBC bankers get away with laundering hundreds of billions for Iran, but go after Aaron Swartz with utter malice. Of cours…

I quite like this proposal.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#143

Post by smosher »

jmvoodoo wrote: post #72
jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the Granick piece. One thing that strikes me as completely absurd is that the plea deal is for a substantially lower sentence and that if the plea deal is rejected the prosecution will go for a much higher punishment, sometimes as much as 10 times as much as offered in the deal. It would seem to me that if you offer a guilty plea that is 10% of what you intend to seek that if such an offer is on the record tha…

This. The law should be rewritten to prohibit prosecutors from entering into plea deals of less than X% of the maximum sentence they are prosecuting someone for, with the exception of plea/immunity deals that include providing incriminating evidence in another case or against another person. Not sure what X% should really be, but it should be sufficiently high as to prevent prosecutors from using the large delta betw…

There may be a problem, no matter which side you approach it from.

Suppose the prosecution makes an offer, they're willing to go lower, but only if they think the defense will accept. The defense then rejects the offer, perhaps with the implication they might accept a lower offer. If a lower offer is made, the defense can reject it but now they have less risk—since the offer was made the prosecution is bound to x% beyond that.

Some people might view that as gaming the system and I'm not sure it could be tuned to avoid that. On the other hand it might improve honesty on both sides of the table. The ratchet effect may keep the defense from being intimidated. The net effect should promote not guilty pleas among the innocent, but ideally it should not have that effect on the guilty.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#144

Post by edanm »

tptacek wrote: post #7

Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized. If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; t…

"If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; they're often more about PR than about well-thought-out policy changes."

What's Reason?

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#145

Post by kyboren »

rayiner wrote: post #111
kyboren wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal prosecutors' primary tactics mirror those of the medieval siege. They do their best to fling arrows at the castle by generating enormous amounts of discovery material They starve defendants with insanely over-broad civil asset forfeiture laws. They charge crimes on the prosecutor's whims: HSBC bankers get away with laundering hundreds of billions for Iran, but go after Aaron Swartz with utter malice. Of cours…

This would basically mean you could never get a large company or criminal organization for anything. If you're trying to uncover e.g. systematic FCPA violations, you can't help but make the case complex.

Fine, and so the case is complex and expensive. If the accused truly are guilty, then they will be afforded due process of law and then convicted. The case may cost twice as much for the government to prosecute, but the large company will forfeit any profits derived from that criminal activity.

Besides, the DoJ consumes an absurdly low proportion of the Federal budget [1]. Even if this law doubled the DoJ's budget (impossible; they still have to pay for facilities, support staff, etc.), it is a worthy price to pay for a safeguard of the liberties we've enjoyed for nearly a millennia.

1: http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2012/section3.pdf#... -- page III-18. Total appropriations received: ~$27 billion, $18 billion of which went to supporting the goal, "Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American People, and Enforce Federal Law". The total of Federal expenditures for FY12 was $3,538.3 billion (http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2012/finhigh.pdf).

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#146

Post by RobAley »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
nullc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, coercive plea deals are the norm in the US, especially in Federal cases. It's the same most places, but it doesn't have to be that way: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

See also http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674051751

For reference, here in the UK people (typically) get 33% off their sentence if they plead guilty. There was a push in 2011 to make it 50%, but that was rejected.

However the people being prosecuted don't know in advance what sentence they will receive exactly. Sentencing is carried out after the verdict (sometime quite a while after if "pre-sentence reports" need to be compiled). There are sentencing guidelines, so they have a reasonable idea or starting point, but there is much variation in these due to many different mitigation or aggravating factors.

Particularly at the "low" end, a person may not know whether they will be getting 33% off a community order or 33% off a jail sentence.

Still, there are very, very few occasions where it is reported that innocent people plead guilty due to the reduction in risk. That may also be due to the reasonable lengths of the starting sentences.

The majority that go through the courts, that is those who are actually guilty, plead guilty. They get a small "reward" for not tying up the courts unnecessarily.

My personal opinion is that in an ideal world we wouldn't offer any plea deals, but we don't live in that world. Yet.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#147

Post by MrJagil »

Bud wrote: post #91
mindslight wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you do, make sure you spend some time reading the analysis here and on reddit, and come to a solid conclusion whether this proposed change actually would have helped Aaron, or whether it's a feel good attempt to use his name for political gain.

I think it's possible for the bill to be a good idea even if it would not have helped Aaron, and also possible for it to be suitable memorial even if it would not have helped in his particular case. The fact that it could help prevent some other similar cases would be good enough for me, for instance. If you have any analyses you think are particularly valuable, feel free to recommend; I'm reading dozens of things pe…

I just wonder why she didn't act earlier, like, before Aaron killed himself. Maybe it's too much to ask, but she was well aware of his case, so i find it sad that actual action requires death as motivation.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#149

Post by spinlocked »

Lets just sit back and revel in the irony of programmers discussing broad fixes to federal laws, based on insights from reddit comments.

To all the armchair legal experts of HN, here's a challenge: draft legislation that fixes what you propose and post it here.If you can't do that, you are not qualified to comment on the matter.

The EFF has addressed the technology aspects of this. You have ascended into general purpose prosecutorial reform. The legal profession has a vast number of incredibly intelligent people and the legal process has vast nuances, and to think you are an expert in the subject is downright arrogant.

You solve this problem by momentum and visibility, not tossing out arbitrary criticisms.

In the meanwhile, vote up the comment that urges readers to help get this passed.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#150

Post by smogzer »

Aarows laws:

1) Thou shall not harm those weaker than you. See too big to fail for names to go after.

2) Thou shall protect and let them have freedom of choice and experimentation and broad access to knowledge.

3) If thou cannot avoid being bureaucratic in the age of information, take into account that time waiting for decisions is painful. See 1).

4) Thou shall avoid giving money and encouraging practices that lead to 1) either in your country or in other countries. A living creature is the same everywhere.

Post reply on HN