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

61–70 of 130 posts

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

#61

Post by caf »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But in this case the laws were on point. Indeed. Perhaps it would clarify things if people who object to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could stand up and say "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished; there should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"?

Is it inconceivable that there's a middle ground to be found somewhere between "no criminal penalty at all" and "wildly, disproportionately harsh penalties"?

Perhaps we could call it "punishment that fits the crime"?

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

#62

Post by jlgreco »

rms wrote: post #59
MichaelSalib wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect, was there any problem with the felony besides his ego? I mean, I know people whose lifelong dream is to be a defense attorney. For those folks, a felony would be a huge problem since it would keep them from gaining admission to the bar. Did Swartz have a similar issue? Or was he unable to bear the thought of being called names by that paragon of moral legitimacy known as the US government?

Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.

It also hurts employment (not just if you want to be a lawyer...) and even housing prospects. Being a felon very effectively makes you a second class citizen.

Even ignoring all of that, there is the factor of being forced to submit before an unjust power. The "felon" assignment did not represent just a label, but also total submission. Just summing this up as a problem with his "ego" may seem a good way to marginalize this consideration, but it is incredibly transparent.

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

#63

Post by MichaelSalib »

jlgreco wrote: post #62
rms wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.

It also hurts employment (not just if you want to be a lawyer...) and even housing prospects. Being a felon very effectively makes you a second class citizen. Even ignoring all of that, there is the factor of being forced to submit before an unjust power. The "felon" assignment did not represent just a label, but also total submission. Just summing this up as a problem with his "ego" may seem a good way to marginaliz…

Ah, thanks for explaining.

Is the "moving internationally" issue a question of travel or permanent residency?

I get how a felony conviction might be a big deal for someone with a GED and no money and no connections. But Swartz had lots of connections and lots of money and was widely respected in professional circles. I really can't see any startup that he wanted to work for rejecting him over his felony conviction. And while some owners might not want to rent to people with violent felony records, I'm having trouble seeing many owners reject an accomplished man with money and recommendation letters from Larry Lessig and Cory Doctrow.

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

#64

Post by newman314 »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #52
andreyf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.

There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood , did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.

Please.

If you are accused of being a child molester, does it mean that we should all consider you guilty? But we should not quibble about such technicalities as you so blithely claim.

"Innocent until proven guilty". That's how the law works (and should)

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

#65

Post by ramanujan »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #63
jlgreco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also hurts employment (not just if you want to be a lawyer...) and even housing prospects. Being a felon very effectively makes you a second class citizen. Even ignoring all of that, there is the factor of being forced to submit before an unjust power. The "felon" assignment did not represent just a label, but also total submission. Just summing this up as a problem with his "ego" may seem a good way to marginaliz…

Ah, thanks for explaining. Is the "moving internationally" issue a question of travel or permanent residency? I get how a felony conviction might be a big deal for someone with a GED and no money and no connections. But Swartz had lots of connections and lots of money and was widely respected in professional circles. I really can't see any startup that he wanted to work for rejecting him over his felony conviction. A…

He had no money left, was already bankrupt after defending himself to this point...Besides, this is the wrong question - on what earth should it even be possible for a prosecutor to threaten thirty five years and a felony conviction for this sort of thing? That kind of sentence is for attempted murder, it is a few years short of life in prison. This was wrong, this was not right. Prosecutions like these mean that we lose our humanity.

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

#66

Post by RyanMcGreal »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #29
Yaa101 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.

Godwin's Law is designed to deter inappropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism so as not to weaken or otherwise besmirch appropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism. The United States government has been getting steadily and incrementally more fascistic for at least the past decade, and I would not be so quick to dismiss summarily a comparison between how the US government operates and how historic fascist governments have operated.

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

#67

Post by kenko »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #6

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…

"The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation."

You know the prosecutor could have just not taken him to court at all, right?

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

#68

Post by ivany »

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…

that property is unprotected or poorly protected makes it less "trespassing."

You know that booking someone for trespassing is pretty difficult, right? They have to be depriving you of the use of your property AND refuse to leave. So if I set up camp on your front lawn, and you ask me to leave, and I do, I was not trespassing. I don't think AS was depriving anyone of the use of their property here, was he? So the analogy does not really hold.

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

#69

Post by jamesaguilar »

newman314 wrote: post #64
jamesaguilar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood , did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.

Please. If you are accused of being a child molester, does it mean that we should all consider you guilty? But we should not quibble about such technicalities as you so blithely claim. "Innocent until proven guilty". That's how the law works (and should)

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.

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

#70

Post by Peaker »

smsm42 wrote: post #41
flogic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about expanding the right to council to equivalent resources? That way if the government spends a million trying to convict someone, they have to make an equivalent level of resources available to the defense.

The effect of this would be the government would be prosecuting either cheapest cases (read: defendants most likely to be intimidated, confused and railroaded with minimal effort, including weak, mentally unstable, drug addicts, etc.) or very high-profile cases on which careers are made. Other ones would be completely neglected due to high costs and low cost/benefit ratio, or delegated to the cheapest personnel gover…

It would just be a factor of two in costs. Surely you're exaggerating its effect.

Additionally I would propose that in some random subset of accepted plea bargains, a trial is forced and if the plea is consistently unreasonably far from the plea, there should be some negative consequence for the prosecutor.

Post reply on HN