Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#111

Post by delinka » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:30 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #68

paulsutter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Linus said her statements were _false_, he'd probably be wrong. Both statements appear carefully crafted. If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct. Each statement exaggerates to suit the purposes of the context. But Linus said she lied. If you define lying as deliberate deception, he was right. If you think a lie must also be false, you can accuse him of sloppy English. But Li…

> Personally I wish Linus would slightly reword his post so that it doesn't confuse people who get hung up on semantics instead of his central point. Yes, that would be for the best because as it is it's not just people who get hung up on semantics that are going to be bothered by this, it will allow opposition to his statements to reject them out of hand as untrue. And that is the bigger worry.

"...hung up on semantics..."

Which is precisely what the legal system in the US does. The judiciary gets into semantic analysis and declares a law unconstitutional. Sometimes, they get a little loose with the semantics and attempt to ascertain 'intent' and make a determination about the law.

Semantics matter when your life is on the line. Semantics matter when you're trying to communicate clearly.

Re: undefined

#112

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:31 PM UTC

thetruthNow wrote: post #84

okamiueru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think this will possibly achieve? How many times has the internet lynch mob been misguided, for you to realize that this is a shitty way to approach matters? Not only that, but if you want to reiterate Linus' statement (as you seem to be suggesting, to Ortiz herself), at least realize that he made a fool of himself here. The two statements don't contradict themselves, and going from that to a "lie" is cou…

I never said that anyone should harass her. That was your idea. Don't project it on me. If Carmen Ortiz has done nothing wrong, then what does she have to fear?

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#113

Post by jheriko » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:47 PM UTC

i don't get all the fuss - and i've been following this story for a little while now, trying to work out exactly what is so important about this all... considering how many worse things are going on than self entitled pricks topping themselves to avoid being punished by law (whether excessive punishment or not).

this may be insensitive, but why don't school shootings result in the same kind of critical look at gun laws?

or killing pakistani civilians with drones in breach of international law

or the idf killing more palestinian /children/ than israelis have ever died at the hands of palestinians, which is indirectly funded by 'aid' money totalling some $3 billion from the US at a time when the country is suffering economic problems and is cutting benefits for its own citizens that cost a lot less.

trade embargo against cuba because of a revolution that installed a government chosen by people through a fight for freedom that happened to not align with the ideology of the administration in the 60s

pick one, they all kill more people and are vastly more important and worth spending your time being angry at your government for.

this is a piffling tragedy of people who can't deal with first world problems... i shed no tears for anyone involved.

downvote at will.

Re: undefined

#114

Post by PoliticsJunkie » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:49 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #54

rhizome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon for Judges to reject prosecutor's sentencing recommendations in favor of harsher penalties. http://www.legalinfo.com/legal-news/judge-exceeds-prosecutor... http://www.cadillacnews.com/news_story/?story_id=1806284&#38... Michael Vick experienced this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/michael_mccann... Judges don't have to respect plea agreements or prosecutor's promises to the defendant:…

> Both interpretations are valid, you're just favoring the legalistic over the layman's. 100% agreed, unfortunately this will likely be decided in the legal arena, not in a public forum. The damage done to Ortiz' career is to some extent determined in the public eye and in that sense maybe Linus' statements help. At least he spoke out, he might have weighed his words better by pointing out that Ortiz has possibly tec…

sounds like Nazis defence in Norymberg to me. Technically, they just followed the orders (law)... makes me sick.

Re: undefined

#115

Post by danenania » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:52 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #44

Removing / blaming one person without reforming the system is called a "purge" as in Stalinist Purge Please fix the system not the blame Suggestion: are plea bargains public record? If so can we parse and publicise them? Would it be interesting to know the ratio of years charged vs years pleaded - especially by race and offence and state? Edit: no not trying to compare this in degree with marching thousands to death…

Public backlash against individual prosecutors who overreach is one of the best tools available for changing the system.

Re: undefined

#116

Post by toyg » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #39

dustin wrote: post #18

For all the posts saying Linus is wrong, which he may well be technically, consider this from a layman's perspective. Ortiz recently: "At no time did this office ever seek ... maximum penalties under the law." Justice.gov previously: "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison..." At a minimum it's a bad PR screw-up on their part and they're backpedaling because their "make us look tough" press releases have backfired. Mo…

Even outside of legalese, words have meaning. Saying in a press release that Mr. Swartz "faces up to 35 years in prison" is not the same as actively seeking the maximum penalty. It's likely that the original press release was meant to add credibility to the prosecution, in the eyes of the general public -- to highlight that, in view of the law, what the defendant was charged with was no small matter. I really don't s…

You forget a few further steps:

- the defendant is charged with crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 35 years

- the prosecution offers a deal of 4-6 months (plus no-computer etc etc)

- the defendant refuses

- the prosecution files another 9 charges to push the maximum up to 50 years

- the prosecution signals that a plea bargain now will likely carry around 7 years

- the defendant kills himself

- the prosecution says "but we always offered 6 months!"

Nope, no lie at all there, nossah.

Re: undefined

#117

Post by BenoitEssiambre » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 1:58 PM UTC

carlisle_ wrote: post #30

I'm not an attorney, but I would imagine even if Carmen Ortiz were completely at fault she would never admit as much and would never apologize. Why? Because she could open herself up to a civil lawsuit. This just speaks so highly of the state of our society. Even if you're at fault taking the moral high ground, owning up and apologizing means you could have the rest of your life ruined. Granted in this context it's a…

Also, as someone pointed out on the Linus post, Aaron Swartz himself wrote about his prosecutor's behavior:

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis

Re: undefined

#118

Post by anonymouz » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

mverwijs wrote: post #105

zokier wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was always there very much as a threat. But wouldn't the maximum penalty be there always no matter what the prosecution would do? I mean, isn't the final decision made by the judges, who can give the penalty the deem fit (in the bounds of the law)?

Isn't the max penalty dependant on what the charges were? Those charges were in the hands of the procecutors. If they really did not wish to come across as threatening, they could have charged him with less (as far as I understand it).

Well, they need to charge him with something that they believe they can actually prove to the court. Furthermore, it is obviously in the interest of the prosecution to charge him with everything that they think they can prove, because if they pick just one and fail to prove it to the court they lose.

Suppose for example they think they can prove charges A,B and C, and say, each of them comes with a maximum penalty of 1 year. Even if they seek a conviction for 6 months they will put forth all three charges, after all it might turn out that the court finds him innocent of A, and if they didn't bring B,C the prosecution is screwed.

Re: undefined

#119

Post by betterunix » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #95

btilly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pulled the $1.5 million figure from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/12/aaron-swartz/ . The justice system is required to provide an attorney if you can't get your own. However if you look at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ you'll find that incompetent representation is one of the major causes of innocent people losing these cases. Furthermore in Aaron's case he's being charged under a fairly specialized…

Given how the rest of the society works, I'd be not surprised that "incompetent" really means "poorly connected" and that the whole system is just a $1.5 million racket to get a "well connected" lawyer to grease your case.

No, in this case, incompetent means "incompetent." Public defenders are often inexperienced and overworked, and are notorious for advising their clients to accept plea bargains rather than go to trial.

Re: undefined

#120

Post by shail » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:09 PM UTC

I really do not understand why people are trying to look at smaller issues such as who is right or wrong, whether she went back or not, whether its normal to follow such practices to extort plea etc.

I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) the laws ever say that lawyers have the permission to extort pleas even though that's what is going on everywhere.

And if as an appointed office holder and given such responsibility, you have to understand that nothing sort of extortion should ever undergo and if you could not do that, you are not fit to run the office. Simple. Period.

How hard is that for anyone to understand. Please don't give standard practices bullshit.