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

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 300 posts

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#171

Post by danenania »

roguecoder wrote: post #125
rolux wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone here seriously believe that she's going to be fired? And that Carmen Ortiz is such an exceptional case? There are hundreds of prosecutors in the US who routinely - even though against predominantly non-white and non-prominent defendants - seek much harsher sentences for much lesser "crimes", often with much more dubious evidence, and much lower chances for defendants to ever have their personal situation…

2% of American men are currently in jail. Among black men 30 to 34, 7% are currently in jail. We just don't notice the vast injustice of our justice system until we think it might affect us. Attacking a single prosecutor who was doing her job and obeying the law won't change anything. Attacking the laws she enforced will.

More awareness and potential for backlash from the public absolutely will change something.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#172

Post by offshoreguy19 »

I know from personal experience that the US Attorney's Office always states in their press releases the maximum penalty possible that the defendant is facing. Each charge has a maximum number of years and they state the number of possible consecutive years possible.

Had Aaron Swartz been found guilty, there is no way he was going to face the maximum penalty. There is a high probability that the penalties associated with the charges would have been run concurrently.

Once found guilty, US Probation writes a Pre-Sentencing Report which calculates the time the defendant is facing. This calculation is based upon numerous details, including but not limited to actual damages, criminal history, and offense level with points that range from from 1 to 43.

If a defendant agrees with the government that he or she is guilty and pleads accordingly, he or she will generally get fewer points for offense level. If a defendant contests the charges and exercises his or her constitutional right to have his or her case heard by a jury and is found guilty, US Probation will increase the number of points. (Imagine that. The government gives you more prison time for exercising your right to a trial under the Constitution). The more points calculated, the more time a defendant is facing.

Good time is applied to a sentence by the federal prison. An inmate is supposed to do 85% of their time if he or she has no infractions, but since the federal prison system has an interest in keeping people imprisoned, the bureaucracy has found a way to deliberately mis-read the good time statute and apply it in a way so that a defendant actually does 86.2% of their time. A sentence of one year or less will not have good time applied. Anything above one year and the good time calculation is applied.

The biggest risk in taking a case to trial are the members of the jury. The government educational system has done a great job of dumbing people down so that they follow the government's bidding. ie., "If he's on trial, he must be guilty." Few people actually think for themselves and question what is told to them by an authority figure.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#173

Post by toyg »

tptacek wrote: post #145
toyg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kerr does a textbook analysis of the facts, ignoring the particularities of this case. Not one but three (!) lawyers picked up Aaron's case, and all three failed to reach a plea bargain -- clearly the prosecution was more "motivated" than usual. Given this fact, the fact that in these circumstances a bargain is not actually binding for the judge, and the other fact that there was no interest in keeping Swartz happy p…

Kerr, who has both prosecuted these kinds of cases and defended them, ignores none of what you're saying. He comes about as close as someone who might in the future need to deal with these specific prosecutors can come to saying that the prosecutors were exceptionally aggressive. Further, while it is possible that circumstances could arise in which a 4 month plea from Swartz could be ignored by the judge, those circu…

those circumstances are extremely unlikely

Yeah well, lots of things were unlikely here, and yet.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#174

Post by chernevik »

honzzz wrote: post #131
chernevik wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hur…

> One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. This becomes very tricky when you have the power to enforce your opinions on other people. I think that knowing the letter of the law is not enough and people who work as judges or prosecutors should also have profound sense of justice - without it, any law can be twisted and tortured into unjust persecutio…

I'm making a tricky point. I certainly don't mean we should concede someone's opinion. We can and should disagree and argue and seek to persuade.

But there is a huge difference between "you are wrong because x, y and z", and "you simply shouldn't think that in the first place."

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#175

Post by offshoreguy19 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #49

"...we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. ...his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge" Little known fact here. When you accept a plea bargain you do not accept a sentence as part of that. Often times you agree to plea to lesser chargers which have a lower maximum penalty but you st…

You are correct. The recommended sentence is not a part of the plea deal. The judge is not bound to accept what the US Attorney's Office recommends.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#176

Post by toyg »

chmike wrote: post #141
newbie12 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ortiz is an Obama Administration appointee who wants to run for the Massachusetts governorship. She's making this argument to try to salvage her political career...it isn't a courtroom argument and it will be easy for her to trip up, she doesn't understand the dynamics of this firestorm.

As a foreigner (French) I'm surprised that Americans apparently don't get that mixing a career in politic with a career in justice is the open door to abuse, demagogy or conflicts of interests. This should not be allowed or even possible.

Note that the UK government is currently in the process of adopting such policies. If they're successful, look for this sort of arrangement to be proposed in other European countries as "reforms".

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#177

Post by fleitz »

tptacek wrote: post #128
chernevik wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hur…

So might makes right?

In the philosophic sense, no!

In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely.

The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along.

The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US is not a signatory to the ICC but can recommend other non-signatories to be prosecuted by the ICC while at the same time denying the ICC rules apply to the US.

Might absolutely makes right because those with out might are unable to enforce their decisions. Ortiz lives by politics she can die by politics, I'm sure she's experienced enough to realize the realpolitik ways of the world. She's no innocent bystander in the corruption of the American justice system.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#178

Post by jacquesm »

chernevik wrote: post #112
jacquesm wrote: post #7

> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hur…

> If you think an attorney able to rise to the position US Attorney will be caught in a "falsifiable claim" on a matter of this prominence then you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

Some choice samples: Nixon: I'm not a crook. Oliver North lying to congress and many many others besides.

Officials at all levels make falsifiable claims all the time and sometimes they trip themselves up. Ortiz is under extreme pressure at the moment and very likely to trip herself up.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#180

Post by jskonhovd »

binarymax wrote: post #22

Before this statement was issued, I didn't think we should be chasing them down to make an example of them[1]. Now that she is dishonest and trying to brush everything aside as 'business as usual', I am changing my stance. She needs to go. Not to make an example of her, but because we should not tolerate such dishonesty and smugness in our federal court system. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5053980

Completely agree. There's no place for people like her in our society. I hope this kills her career, but I doubt it. Even if he gets fired she still will be corrupting the system in some capacity with her influence. But at least she won't end up with a job like Marsha Blackburn.
Post reply on HN