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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#131

Post by MrScruff »

pacala wrote: post #101
bambax wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed words have a meaning. If you issue a statement that "the defendant is charged with crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 35 years", then you inherently quantify the gravity of the defendant acts as a 35 year jail time crime. If, instead, you issue a statement that "we are seeking to put the defendant in jail for 6 months", then you quantify the gravity of the defendant acts as a 6 months jail time crime. The…

Consider an analogy. When we reason about the performance of algorithms, it's important to know both the worst case performance and the typical case. They're two separate bits of information.

Re: undefined

#132

Post by mhb »

A more charitable (and possibly more far-fetched) interpretation is that Ortiz has a different agenda in talking to the press than she does when negotiating with opposing lawyers.

Maybe she intended to make herself look merciful when agreeing to the much smaller punishment. The argument that the experienced defense lawyers were influenced by press releases rather than what they were actually being offered by the prosecution seems a little weak.

Re: undefined

#133

Post by mpyne »

zokier wrote: post #85
lloeki wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said once, of course. Regularly repeated though, it is a scare tactic to push for a settlement, with "up to" merely acting as a plausible deniability device. Being prosecuted is psychologically exhausting, and such tactics introduce lingering thoughts weakening one's mind even more.

Her reasons behind the word choices may have been nefarious (although I hardly believe that either). But she didn't lie or contradict herself, which is what Linus is claiming.

It's not even nefarious. What else is she supposed to say about the sentence when charges are initially filed?

She can't say what a judge will do. She can't say what sentence the defense team might argue for. She can't even necessarily give a formal pronouncement of what she might argue for as that could tamper with negotiations between the prosecution and defense attorneys!

The only factual statement you can make about the charges when they're filed to give an impression of the seriousness is the statutory maximum, so-and-so can face up to X years in prison based on these charges.

I swear it sounds like a lot of the people here are either blissfully unaware of legal cases in general or are deliberately being hyperbolic now that it suits them. The former you can blame on ignorance I suppose, but the latter is disgusting.

Re: undefined

#134

Post by jacquesm »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #117
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

I read that (interesting piece, I did not know this bit of history) and could not find any references to his prosecutors behavior, could you please point out the reference for me?

Re: undefined

#135

Post by mpyne »

Niten wrote: post #124
jacquesm wrote: post #7

Until Aarons' lawyer speaks up with evidence to the contrary Carmen Ortiz statement stands unchallenged. Much as I would like her to carry (or at least acknowledge) some actual responsibility for what she has helped causing there is a lot of room for interpretation here and saying 'she lied' in a legal sense is premature and may end up to be simply untrue. Linus is a very clever guy but he's dead wrong about this. I'…

Well if you read through the post, especially Linus's follow-up comments, you'll find that his very point is this distinction between the truth of these technically correct, weasel-worded statements and the bigger picture. Sentencing is ultimately up to the judge, and the truth is that Ortiz used the threat of "up to 35 years" to try to force a plea bargain. When Swartz refused a bargain which would have branded him…

> her office absolutely threw the book at a kid for downloading some PDFs.

And repeatedly going around network blocks in order to obtain those PDFs...

Re: undefined

#136

Post by jacquesm »

mpyne wrote: post #128
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should read up a bit on this. His three lawyers all failed to reach a conclusion to the case that did not include jail time, possibly greatly increased during the actual sentencing (true, the latter was a small chance but a chance anyway). source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit...

You should read up on this too then. His lawyers did manage to extract a plea deal with no jail time, but then MIT wouldn't sign off on it. Let's be specific, are you trying to claim that Aaron stood a small chance at actually be sentenced to 35 years, or are you just talking about jail time at all?

> You should read up on this too then. His lawyers did manage to extract a plea deal with no jail time, but then MIT wouldn't sign off on it.

and so they didn't..

I predict that this will be the main area of interest when Abelson's report comes out. Why did MIT insist on jailtime?

> Let's be specific, are you trying to claim that Aaron stood a small chance at actually be sentenced to 35 years,

No.

> or are you just talking about jail time at all?

Yes.

Re: undefined

#137

Post by ShawnBird »

laurent123456 wrote: post #28
btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

Was the $1.5 million only to lower the 6 months? Does that mean that if he had accepted the 4 months, he wouldn't have had anything to pay?

Well from my understanding the 4 months is not what he would get for sure, that is just what the prosecutor would tell the judge to do. He could still get anywhere between 4 months and 50 years (the maximum after the prosecutor added even more charges) but since he plead guilty as part of the deal he could no longer fight it in court.

Re: undefined

#138

Post by sopooneo »

btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

One thing that confuses me about this. Why couldn't Aaron raise money?

A couple days ago I saw a repost of an old HN thread where people debated a notice Aaron had put on his website stating that he was accepting money for a legal defense. Did we just not help enough? Or was there some reason that making a more public plea, or giving details of the case would make the judge angry? I expect the answer these questions has already been covered in detail, so links are appreciated.

Re: undefined

#139

Post by lifeisstillgood »

danenania wrote: post #115
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.

How does firing one person change the system - do we have a manifesto of change, a set of coherent demands ? A vision of the future that we have all agreed upon?

Yes the anger surrounding this will start some change - but do we want individual prosecuters to choose that change? - is not the more responsbile approach to start a locus for public debate and present our lawmakers with a consensus opinion - you know, lobbying.

Re: undefined

#140

Post by mpyne »

jeswin wrote: post #107
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

Well, he's wrong about this. Quoting the maximum statutory penalty is the standard in news releases, but tells you exactly zero about the negotiations in attorney conferences. US attorneys don't write the press releases, those are done by the most junior lawyers and quote the statutory maximum because it's factual without giving anything away about the government's courtroom strategy.

Even if it wasn't 35 years, 6-7 years is plenty long to ruin anyone's life. If Aaron decided not to accept the guilty plea, his option was 6-7 years and not 6 months. After reading everything that has been written about him, I would assume that he won't choose a 6-month sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to liberating information.

No, his option was to see what he'd get at trial, where the sentencing would be dependent on which crimes he was convicted for, which elements of other crimes the jury felt he infringed (without being enough to be guilty overall of the charge).

Had the prosecutors gotten convictions on each group of charges they filed they would have pushed for 6-7 years (they have to, otherwise why take the plea?). The Federal sentencing guidelines would have recommended a sentence in the range of 1-2 years (according to Jennifer Granick of all people, who is decidedly not a fan of what happened to Aaron Swartz).

The final sentence would have been up to the judge but given the circumstances (rich; white; well-respected; first-time offense; relatively innocuous as far as effect) it's extraordinarily unlikely he would have received more than the FSG (and if he did, it would help out his case immensely on appeal).

> for pleading guilty to liberating information.

If liberating information is his goal, why wouldn't he be proud and honored to wear that particular Scarlet Letter? Do you think those branded by the Nazis for guarding Jews would be anything other than proud to show to their children and grandchildren the living proof of their taking a righteous stand when others were afraid?

Post reply on HN