U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

That is one very unfortunate choice of words and I have goose flesh just reading that line. Terminated indeed.

So Ortiz' message is that - this is my job I fight for the law, and I agree that its over the top, but it is what it is. Change the framework and I'll do what it says.

The law (edit: and system ) is set up so that a "good prosecutor" would work to prove Aaron was guilty of breaking those laws. The final sentence, which is the responsibility of the Judge would have to take account of everything especially his motivation, to give him an appropriate sentence.

"I'm just doing my job, and the final sentencing isn't in my hands"

---

Fine - that's her version, and frankly - its exactly as expected. There really are few if any other ways that Ortiz could explain her actions.

Strangely its also pretty much the exact defense that the Financial industry has used so far. AKA these are the rules, hate the game not the player.

Sometimes people from the outside are required to point out that somethings are obviously morally wrong. Especially when Insiders end up missing it.

When cops come across otherwise nice young white guys who believe themselves invulnerable or above the law and are doing stupid, impulsive things, their usual practice is to "scare them straight." So they get tough on them, tell them all of the awful consequences they're in for, put them in a horrible, cramped cell, maybe throw them in with some real nasty characters, and, above all, get their parents involved.

It's a form of kindness. If you make them crush their self-confidence and make them feel like shit, they learn their lesson. They lose that blithe self-confidence and begin to realise they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And then, they will hopefully turn into constructive, positive-minded members of society.

The practice varies with the character of the kid, the ugliness of their crime, etc. I'm not saying this is what Ortiz and co were thinking with Aaron necessarily but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an element. Aaron's behaviour was very removed from the situations I'm talking about, so the participants and response was very different. But he sounds like quite an... intense person, so maybe they decided they needed to put a lot of pressure on him to crush his spirit.

Of course, usually the kids don't kill themselves - but then usually it's not the justice department slapping them on the wrist. They should have realised that people like Aaron are very fragile. I won't apologise for that. A more delicate touch was required, because this outcome is just awful and a disaster for all parties. A real shame. But I do want to point out that their actions in frightening him were not necessarily without reason.

By the way, I have spent a night in a cold concrete cell sobering up and feeling like the world's biggest idiot. My escapade cost me $2700 and a lot of self-respect, and though it was awful at the time I am thankful and realise I learned my lesson very economically. Hearing Aaron's story is really painful.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what the precedent is or what is reasonable when an affected party does not wish for charges to be pressed.

There are people along history (and I mean specifically civil servants, like Thomas More -the first that comes to my mind but by no means the only one-) who have even given his life because they did not want to comply with 'the law'... This 'complying with the law' is fedding me up.

Someone has already noticed that bankers did also act 'with the law on their part'...

And all the rating agencies, they suddendly 'just offer counsel and advice', they are in no way suggesting that a product is fit for buying or selling...

Is there a conscience out there?