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

91–100 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#91

Post by lifeisstillgood »

philwelch wrote: post #77
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…

The result of any charges are in the public record, and since no one just pleads guilty without trying to get something out of the deal, you can just analyze every guilty plea and the sentence suggested by the prosecution and assume it's a plea bargain.

Is this then a Freedom of Information request from a citizen in each state?

Basically we seem to be certain that plea bargains are both denying large numbers of people trials and doing so with draconian threats that make both guilty and Innocent afraid

It makes a good narrative - it would be nice to know it is true

And it would be nicer to know it in real time (ie putting court records into electronic form)

Re: undefined

#92

Post by Xylakant »

gcp wrote: post #10
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…

"planning to seek...not bound to follow the plea bargain" So basically, if you don't want to confess (because you're innocent), all bets are off and you might get 35 years. How is he wrong?

Any crime has a maximum sentence. If I rob a store, there's a maximum sentence. If I kill a man, there's a maximum sentence. If I cross on red, there's a maximum sentence. Depending on the circumstances I may or may not get a lower sentence. But the maximum sentence is always there and you might get it - the decision is up to the judge. So all the prosecutor can say "The maximum sentence is 35 years" and maybe add "and I'm seeking 6 years, but the decision is up to the judge."

Re: undefined

#93

Post by da3da »

downandout wrote: post #45
gojomo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the weaselly shades of English used by lawyers and politicians, the two statements highlighted by Torvalds do not necessarily contradict one another. The older statement accurately describes the maximums the law allows, and was used when that was the emphasis. (At the time, the DoJ probably didn't know themselves what sort of sentence they'd ask for, so the only informative and unfalsifiable thing to put in a PR s…

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…

This is why you get a lawyer. So they can explain that almost no one gets anything close to the maximum sentence. See this post for more information http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...

Re: undefined

#94

Post by pacala »

Xylakant wrote: post #92
gcp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"planning to seek...not bound to follow the plea bargain" So basically, if you don't want to confess (because you're innocent), all bets are off and you might get 35 years. How is he wrong?

Any crime has a maximum sentence. If I rob a store, there's a maximum sentence. If I kill a man, there's a maximum sentence. If I cross on red, there's a maximum sentence. Depending on the circumstances I may or may not get a lower sentence. But the maximum sentence is always there and you might get it - the decision is up to the judge. So all the prosecutor can say "The maximum sentence is 35 years" and maybe add "a…

There is one detail: she never added, in public, "I'm seeking X years". She always kept talking about the maximum penalty. The ball is in her court and Linus is right to call her backpedaling a lie.

Re: undefined

#95

Post by pacala »

btilly wrote: post #5
Osiris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the average cost of defending one of these is $1.5 million, which is money Aaron did not have and could not raise. I thought that justice system was required to provide an attorney in the case that a defendant didn't have the means by which to procure their own representation? Is your comment only to suggest that a public defender wouldn't be capable of properly defending Aaron and thus he would need to pay for h…

I pulled the $1.5 million figure from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/12/aaron-swartz/ . The justice system is required to provide an attorney if you can't get your own. However if you look at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ you'll find that incompetent representation is one of the major causes of innocent people losing these cases. Furthermore in Aaron's case he's being charged under a fairly specialized…

Given how the rest of the society works, I'd be not surprised that "incompetent" really means "poorly connected" and that the whole system is just a $1.5 million racket to get a "well connected" lawyer to grease your case.

Re: undefined

#96

Post by thoughtcriminal »

noonespecial wrote: post #79

Ortiz is just doing her best to make us think that Aaron wasn't being threatened with massive jail time the same way she lead Aaron to believe that he was. By not saying it directly and letting innuendo and suggestion do the talking. Linus is a programmer. Booleans can't have the value "dishonest". False is the closest approximation. Cut the man some slack.

You nailed it. Brilliantly stated. I hope this gets voted up to the top.

Re: undefined

#97

Post by jacquesm »

logn wrote: post #89
jacquesm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's very possible he was depressed and wasn't thinking clearly at all. I'd take that as a given. > It's also very possible that this trial made him depressed. I think to think otherwise would be to ignore plenty of evidence to the contrary. > But to assume that he was thinking reasonably about the circumstances and decided it was best not to live is a huge assumption. Depression completely warps reality. Yes. And…

>> But also his loved ones near him didn't do enough to help. >You know NOTHING about that and should refrain from such comments. If you suspect someone is going to harm him/herself, you call 911 and explain as much. They immediately come and forcibly lock the person in a mental institution against their will until a doctor or board decides they're no longer a threat for suicide. Also, I'm not defending Ortiz in any…

> If you suspect someone is going to harm him/herself, you call 911 and explain as much.

Again, you make huge assumptions about the situation. Let me enumerate a few of them:

  - you assume that Aaron let on he was about to do this

  - you assume that there was some opportunity to stop him

  - you assume that Aaron wasn't clever enough to do whatever he wanted
    
  - you assume that no such effort was made but failed
To make a long story short: if someone really wants to commit suicide they will manage to do so, sometimes right under the noses of those that care without them suspecting anything.

> But Ortiz is operating within the system that exists, enforcing ToS-violation-is-a-felony precedent that already exists, using multiple counts to force a plea that all prosecutors do.

Indeed. And she chose that role out of her own free will. 'My hands were tied' doesn't cut it with me, we all make our own decisions, every day.

Re: undefined

#98

Post by Xylakant »

pacala wrote: post #94
Xylakant wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any crime has a maximum sentence. If I rob a store, there's a maximum sentence. If I kill a man, there's a maximum sentence. If I cross on red, there's a maximum sentence. Depending on the circumstances I may or may not get a lower sentence. But the maximum sentence is always there and you might get it - the decision is up to the judge. So all the prosecutor can say "The maximum sentence is 35 years" and maybe add "a…

There is one detail: she never added, in public, "I'm seeking X years". She always kept talking about the maximum penalty. The ball is in her court and Linus is right to call her backpedaling a lie.

I would not expect a prosecutor to talk about the sentence she seeks before the actual court hearing. And we don't know at all what was discussed in the plea bargainings. So no - no lie. Not here.

Coming from a different legal system (germany) I find the way prosecution and plea bargaining works in the states scary, but calling the prosecutor a liar when she works in the common framework is not helpful. It just undermines your cause by opening you up to an unrelated argument about semantics that you'll probably loose. Stick with the facts, argue against plea bargaining and pressure tactics in the legal system. Argue against the fact that to prevail in court, you need massive funding, that justice can effectively bought. Don't get caught up in false arguments about whether Ortiz technically lied or not.

Re: undefined

#99

Post by thoughtcriminal »

infoseckid wrote: post #17

At least Linus commented on this very sensitive issue. Not sure why PG has not said anything publicly when he knew and has worked with Aaron during Reddit.

I'm not sure PG's opinion has much weight in the realm of law and justice. It certainly does with startups and business models.

Linus on the other hand is known for speaking out on issues of law. That probably started in the days of the SCO fiasco, but he has always been vocal and I'm glad to hear him speak out on this issue.

Re: undefined

#100

Post by jacquesm »

thetruthNow wrote: post #84
okamiueru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think this will possibly achieve? How many times has the internet lynch mob been misguided, for you to realize that this is a shitty way to approach matters? Not only that, but if you want to reiterate Linus' statement (as you seem to be suggesting, to Ortiz herself), at least realize that he made a fool of himself here. The two statements don't contradict themselves, and going from that to a "lie" is cou…

I never said that anyone should harass her. That was your idea. Don't project it on me. If Carmen Ortiz has done nothing wrong, then what does she have to fear?

> I'm sure she would love to hear from Us, The People who she represents, directly.

Please. We're not very good at double speak here.

Post reply on HN