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

How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

susiebright.blogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#111

Post by rhizome »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #53
rhizome wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.

And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not…

I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that.

Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#112

Post by dinkumthinkum »

wissler wrote: post #110
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? I have training in philosophy but I have no idea what you're talking about; I'm not sure what professional philosophers have to do with this situation at all.

What an ironic question. What do you think the rational purpose of philosophy is?

So you're serious? You think the US laws were written by postmodernists and that most US citizens are relativists? Really? This seems like a weird version of a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#113

Post by dinkumthinkum »

wissler wrote: post #107
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that the problem with the U.S. is that everyone is hopelessly enamored with Rorty or other postmodernists, then, I think maybe you are out of touch with "reality" just a little bit. :) I don't think the NRA is going to start quoting Derrida any time soon.

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.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#114

Post by btilly »

rprasad wrote: post #94
defen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're now the third lawyer I've seen on HN in the past couple days who has come on here and defended Ortiz with an argument that essentially claims that she did nothing wrong, that procedures were followed, that it's the system that's broken and needs fixing. That getting rid of Ortiz won't fix anything ("it's not the relatively simple matter of stopping overzealous prosecution in one agency".) Those things may all…

It should tell you something that every lawyer on HN is defending Ortiz. It's because Ortiz isn't the problem--the system, and more specifically the laws, are the problem. Nietzsche's justifications have no relevance here. Removing Ortiz wouldn't change anything because the next US Prosecutor would simply do the same thing given the same set of facts. Prosecutors overreach. They have to, given the way double jeopardy…

...the system, and more specifically the laws, are the problem.

Not "more specifically", the right word is "including". And the system includes a lot of other broken things.

Such as the way that prosecutors habitually overreach. And no, they don't "have to" do that. They have discretion, but don't get ahead in their jobs unless they do overreach.

So yes, the laws need improvement. But so do prosecutors.

Lawyers have feelings, too. Ortiz almost certainly went into the prosecutor's office to do good, to see justice done and to protect the innocent.

I believe this to be true.

I also believe that Ortiz completely lost track of that, and has become something that she hopefully would have hated when she was younger. Unfortunately for Ortiz, I further believe that having her bear real consequences for having lost her moral compass and justifying her actions with "that's just my job" would be a very useful step on the path to fixing the broken prosecutorial culture that lead to Aaron's suicide.

She will spend the rest of her career second guessing herself with every defendant--both the defendants like Swartz and the murderers and drug dealers that form the rest of her caseload.

Yes, she likely will. Furthermore this is probably not the first tragedy she's been involved with, nor is it likely to be her last if she continues. However her very success in the broken system she's in is direct evidence that this incentive is not enough to get her - or other successful prosecutors - to behave in a humane fashion to those she opposes. Therefore the fact that she feels unhappy about the result is clearly insufficient deterrence.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#115

Post by wissler »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #112
wissler wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an ironic question. What do you think the rational purpose of philosophy is?

So you're serious? You think the US laws were written by postmodernists and that most US citizens are relativists? Really? This seems like a weird version of a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

So, you're a philosophy buff, but you can't help yourself regarding ignorant presumption about another person's thoughts.

I don't think philosophy has taught you much about being careful with ideas. That too is ironic. I shouldn't have to disclaim your ignorant presumptions every time you open your ignorant, presumptuous mouth.

Also, I asked you a basic question. I asked you what the purpose of philosophy was. Why are you evading the question?

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#116

Post by jamesaguilar »

nkassis wrote: post #80
jamesaguilar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had openly admitted the facts and several reliable parties had corroborated them? Feel free to call me a child molester before my conviction in that case. Don't throw me in jail before proving it, of course, but you needn't qualify every single thing you say with "alleged." If the facts aren't pretty well established, then of course it is wise to be more judicious.

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.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#117

Post by jamesaguilar »

rhizome wrote: post #111
jamesaguilar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not…

I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that. Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even tr…

I addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse."

> make an example of someone

I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence.

> evade establishing precedent

I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#118

Post by jamesaguilar »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #100
jamesaguilar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I don't know the right answer to this question. On the one hand, it does seem wrong to send someone to jail when you were willing to give them probation if they bargained with you. On the other hand, if the bargain deal and the worst case outcome of a tri…

I think the flaw is in thinking of the justice system as some kind of factory where "expensive" needs to be taken into account because we're working on volume. We need to stop charging so many people with crimes. Widespread criminality can only have two causes: The first is that we've criminalized too much, and the solution is obvious, repeal the unnecessary laws. The second is that society is suffering from a system…

> where "expensive" needs to be taken into account

I'm afraid I don't see this as a flaw. Scarce prosecutorial resources will always necessitate some kind of discretion in how to spend time.

> criminalize too much

You are widening the scope of the debate far more than I have taste for. You will have to find someone else to argue this point with.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#119

Post by jamesaguilar »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #99
jamesaguilar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at it, it is Nazi in its self. Do and think as you are told. Wow, what a silly take on it. The law's admonition is to not make a genocide out of a molehill. If that's Nazi and conformist, so is telling children not to fucking cry wolf. Nazis were bad, we get it. Not every policy you dislike can usefully be equated with the murder of millions of Jews and the subjugation of the European continent. Particularly,…

>Particularly, this case of a prosecutor prosecuting someone under a lawfully passed rule bears scarcely more relation to the Nazis than to unicorns. There is a distinctly "just following orders" vibe to the argument that a prosecutor is right to prosecute someone completely regardless of any proportionality of the penalties to the alleged acts of the accused, just because the law allows it.

I don't think many of the pro-prosecution folks are arguing that she's right to prosecute solely because she can according to the law. That is just one factor, at least for me. I can also see several good arguments for the law's existence, and the way I model the prosecutor's mind, she can too and views this prosecution as necessary to uphold the rights of content owners.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#120

Post by wnight »

rayiner wrote: post #27
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. >The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. The only dishonesty I'm seeing is from the aspie "law and…

> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. He was hit with the hacking equivalent of trespassing. The point is that the fact that the network is unprotected or poorly protected doesn't make it any less "hacking" than the fact that property is unprotected or poorly protect…

No honest person would call this the theft of millions of documents. This is akin to jumping the gate at a theme park and riding for free, a bunch of times. Nobody stole a rollercoaster. Harm was done but there's no need to reach for emotional terms to exaggerate it.

It'd take a lawyer to call this theft. I mean, by a word in a book it is but realistically it isn't.

For instance, I've had a forum post quoted word for word, and not as a reply. Of course I hadn't registered the copyright, but if I had I could have sued, as I would have been robbed - in your eyes. The same nothing would have happened but by virtue of a piece of paper you and yours would see it differently.

You talk about the closed mindset of hackernews but fail to see the emotionally isolated world inhabited by those who act as if morality flows from law instead of vice versa.

So again, no. I don't think an honest person would agree with that characterization of the events, at least not until a lawyer 'clarified' it for them.

Post reply on HN