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

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#191

Post by shail »

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…

Do you think releasing a press release of 35 years possible imprisonment for such a petty crime (if you consider this a crime at all) is a correct act?

Please do not give standard practice bullshit.

If its standard practice, someone has to change it, who else will identify and change it if it not for people like in her position.

Re: undefined

#192

Post by ben336 »

danielweber wrote: post #179
detst wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. And I'm shocked to see how many people misinterpret those geeks. We don't believe he was absolutely going to end up in jail for 35 years; we believe it was hung over his head to extort a plea deal, while remaining a real possibility. > Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they soun…

What was being "hung over his head" was 7 years in prison. I still find 7 years offensive, but we need to understand the basic facts: - 6 months is what he would get with plea bargain - 6-7 years is what he would get if he went to trial and lost - 35 years was what was in press releases to deter other people from committing the crime

Thats a great summary. It doesn't matter what was said in public if it was overruled in private. It sounds very clear that Aaron knew the maximum they were seeking was 7 years.

Re: undefined

#194

Post by jacquesm »

sopooneo wrote: post #138
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…

> Did we just not help enough?

That was not 'not enough help', it was a net negative imho.

Re: undefined

#195

Post by jamesaguilar »

jacquesm wrote: post #31
jamesaguilar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree. Calling her am idiot on this context is simply with…

> She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. > That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. This is true, and nobody has said that she should not have prosecuted. The things that are being said are: - this prosecution was subject…

> I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. ... If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way ...

Nobody has to prove things that should be the default assumption. You should assume that when someone has been extensively investigated by a law office, that office understands at least the most superficial, obvious facts of the case. Likewise, it is the default stance that a person at a high station in a technical field isn't an idiot. I don't have to prove it. There has to be evidence to contradict it before the accusation ought to be thrown about.

> Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this.

I honestly can't recall an occasion where I have accused someone of being stupid for disagreeing with my political stance on this site or in any other forum where you'd have cause to call me out on it. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that some time in the past two and a half years I've made that mistake. The hypocrisy accusation bears no weight when the accused is not currently endorsing a stance that runs contrary to their action. It is wholly irrelevant that at some point in time I have violated some part of my own moral code.

> Let's keep the meta discussion out of it.

I think the meta-discussion becomes appropriate when baseless accusations start being accepted without evidence simply because of the political stance of the majority of the site participants. It seems to me that HN is uniquely unsuited to approach this particular issue rationally, and I have provided evidence to that end. I will not keep the meta-discussion out of it.

Re: undefined

#197

Post by daltonlp »

ben336 wrote: post #192
danielweber wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was being "hung over his head" was 7 years in prison. I still find 7 years offensive, but we need to understand the basic facts: - 6 months is what he would get with plea bargain - 6-7 years is what he would get if he went to trial and lost - 35 years was what was in press releases to deter other people from committing the crime

Thats a great summary. It doesn't matter what was said in public if it was overruled in private. It sounds very clear that Aaron knew the maximum they were seeking was 7 years.

I agree, that's a great summary. If you were Aaron, and those were the options you faced, would you have taken taken the plea deal?

Re: undefined

#198

Post by wissler »

rada wrote: post #182
wissler wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between having the power of Ortiz -- in effect, a gun pointed at Aaron saying "come to jail peacefully or die resisting arrest, your choice" -- and Linus tossing off remarks he's obviously not going to implement. Really what Linus hates are stupid people so he spouts off about them from time to time. E.g. like those who can't see the difference between a harsh remark and actual bullying. If…

Oh please. There is fantasy land and then there is reality. Press releases are not guns. White-collar criminals do not die resisting arrest. And internet bullies like Torvalds cause way more suicides than prosecutors like Ortiz.

You are a profoundly confused person.

Re: undefined

#199

Post by tedunangst »

jacquesm wrote: post #58
stef25 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America. He was an extremely talented rich white kid, associated with a top university who would have had dozens of high profiles vouching for him in court. I guess his lawyer did a terrible job of telling him not to worry.

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...

I am concerned that people think the number of lawyers you hire should affect the outcome. Does that sound like a fair justice system?

Re: undefined

#200

Post by jlgreco »

stef25 wrote: post #56
downandout wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Even as plea negotiations went forward, the implication was "plead this out or you will get 35 years". She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would…

It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America. He was an extremely talented rich white kid, associated with a top university who would have had dozens of high profiles vouching for him in court. I guess his lawyer did a terrible job of telling him not to worry.

> It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America.

A few months ago some pretty damn prominent community members here were telling us how there was no way in hell Aaron would ever serve any jail time. Turns out he was going to even if he accepted the plea bargain.

Post reply on HN