191–200 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See Jonathan Pollard for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard#Sentencing_and...
For some naive reason I never thought someone would get a life sentence for spying on one of their closest allies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does some other body write laws? It's 100% justified to criticize congress if you actually want to change things; a prosecutor can only prosecute for violations of the law.
Prosecutors routinely use their own discretion in both deciding what to prosecute, and how severe of a sentence they will pursue. To say "Hey, the law is the law, I'm just doing my job by enforcing it" denies this reality, and serves to remove her own agency from her actions.
I'm guessing this is a very carefully worded statement.
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.
That's definitely wrong.
Prosecutors go after crimes like this in a public way partly to deter others. The theory is that if they make a clear example of one transgressor, it will scare others into line.
If that theory is good enough for hackers, who aren't particularly good at responding to social pressure, I'm sure it's good enough for career federal employees, who are notoriously risk averse. And the government will certainly fire people who have attracted sufficient negative media attention; Shirley Sherrod is a clear example.
I'm with you on fixing the other injustices as well, but that's no reason not to go for a win with Ortiz. Indeed, getting a win here means you'll have a bunch of people feeling victorious who can be motivated to move to something bigger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases." Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.
Does some other body write laws? It's 100% justified to criticize congress if you actually want to change things; a prosecutor can only prosecute for violations of the law.
"Actually changing things" may involve "criticizing congress" but I expect it to be rather more complicated. I think that all of the players in this case should have exercised discretion. The fact that so many people (including the citizens of America) allowed this situation to occur is the tragedy.
I think that the Aaron Swartz tragedy is not an example of an acute failure in America's legal system that we can blame on any specific element: the prosecutor, the congress that passed the law, or the court system that allowed this legal case to proceed as long as it did. I think the legal case is an example of a complete breakdown of America's legal system. In America we have 3 general wings of government that all have a hand in the legal system:
Legislative (e.g. Congress) that writes the laws.
Executive (e.g. prosecutor) that prosecutes potential violations of the laws
Judicial (e.g. the court and judge) that decides whether potential violations of the law are actual violations
I think we can justifiably criticize Ortiz and congress and the judge and Aaron and The American People for their roles in this mess, and I expect that all of them will need to improve before the situation does.
All of the players had opportunities to exercise good judgement and they all failed when presented these opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prosecutors routinely use their own discretion in both deciding what to prosecute, and how severe of a sentence they will pursue. To say "Hey, the law is the law, I'm just doing my job by enforcing it" denies this reality, and serves to remove her own agency from her actions.
Six months in a minimum security jail seems perfectly reasonable to me for repeatedly breaking the law and in no way some sort of "overreach" or "witch hunt". Her job was to find a settlement acceptable to both parties.
Prosecutors (and lawyers in general) are all about drama and story. Everything is amplified. Reality is distorted. It's worse than cable television. Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer. She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullibl…
That is an idiotic thing to say, and it only raises doubt about all of your other statements.
Aaron was chronically depressed for years. People who are chronically depressed tend to kill themselves, or at least try to. Their external circumstances are rarely the cause of their suicide. It's up to you to prove that this lawsuit caused him to commit suicide, and he wouldn't have otherwise.
For example, why did David Foster Wallace kill himself? He was at the top of his career, critically acclaimed author, had a loving partner, and yet he still took his own life.
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.
She should get fired for doing exactly what she was put in to office to do? IE: Follow the federal sentencing guidelines like she should? In no way was there ever going to be some 30 year sentence. Six months maximum is not over reach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One, two, a million, four million, what difference does it actually make? The crime was violating the terms, it isn't relevant where the EOF bit was transmitted. If you made the same files half as big he would have "stolen" twice as many files, or twice as big then he would have done half the crime by your logic. He never distributed anything. No clue where you got that from? Additionally "threatening a business mode…
It makes a big difference. Four million is apparently the majority of JSTOR's database. Keep in mind that JSTOR doesn't own those articles, it just arranges approved access to paying institutions on behalf of the various journals which do own the articles. If Aaron had distributed them he might have damaged around a thousand different institutions involved in an important segment of the knowledge and innovation indus…
Academia does not publish articles. Publishers do and they are anything but cash strapped, check out Elsevier for instance.