Slashdot Mirror
US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide
theodp writes "The e-mail that Defendant Swartz's supplemental memorandum (pdf) cites as paramount to his fifth motion to suppress [evidence against him] is relevant, but not nearly as important as he tries to make it out to be,' quipped United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz (pdf) in a court filing made on the same day Aaron Swartz committed suicide. In the 1-7-2011 e-mail Ortiz refers to, which was not produced for Swartz until Dec. 14th — almost two years after his 1-6-2011 arrest — a Secret Service agent reported to the Assistant U.S. Attorney that he was 'prepared to take custody anytime' of Swartz's laptop, although no one had yet sought a warrant to search the computer. In Prosecutor as Bully, Larry Lessig laments, 'They [JSTOR] declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the government to drop its. MIT, to its great shame, was not as clear, and so the prosecutor had the excuse he needed to continue his war against the "criminal" who we who loved him knew as Aaron.' Swartz's family also had harsh words for MIT and prosecutors: 'Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney's office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney's office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron.' With MIT President Emeritus Charles M. Vest currently serving as a Trustee of JSTOR parent Ithaka as well as a Trustee of The MIT Corporation, one might have expected MIT to issue a statement similar to the let's-put-this-behind-us one JSTOR made on the Swartz case back in 2011."
the US seems to have terrorized a youth into killing himself.
I'd seek gitmo for the US 'official' who performed this act of terrorism.
if we don't stop the american terrorists (gov hacks who can ruin lives at-will for essentially no good reason at all) then we all have BECOME part of them.
a message needs to be sent. TO THE GOVERNMENT. stop being asshats wrapped in the false flag of 'justice'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
If anything good comes of this situation it would be nice if Swartz were to become the Mohamed Bouazizi of prosecutorial reform in the US. Unlikely, but one can hope.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It used to be the home of the hacker culture.
we'll criticize people that had no personal tie to a person for not recognizing their true mental state? How many immediate family members do not recognize a suicidal condition in someone? But we expect a lawyer to see it?
Fuck off asshole. If you are facing decades in prison and being forever named a felon, wouldn't you consider it?
These prosecutors need to pay for their crimes. They need to be fired, disbarred, and then thrown in jail.
Culprit #1: Stephen P. Heymann, the head of the Cybercrime Unit and lead prosecutor
Culprit #2: Carmen M. Ortiz, US Attorney (and Bostonian of the Year as Twitter tells me)
Sign the petitions:
[1]
[2]
These people seem to be soulless automatons devoid of any compassion and quite willing to destroy a life without good reason just so they can advance their own careers a bit. This behavior is the hallmark of dangerous psychopaths. People like that belong into a closed mental institutions, not into positions of power.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
A lawyer filed court documents attacking his opponent's case! How do we get from that to blaming the attorney for the defendant's suicide?
Swartz was an American computer programmer, writer, archivist, political organizer, and Internet activist. Swartz co-authored the "RSS 1.0" specification of RSS, and built the Web site framework web.py and the architecture for the Open Library. He also built Infogami, a company that merged with Reddit in its early days, through which he became an equal owner of the merged company.
On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested in connection with systematic downloading of academic journal articles from JSTOR, which became the subject of a federal investigation.[2][3] JSTOR offended Swartz mainly for two reasons: it charged large fees for access to these articles but did not compensate the authors and it ensured that huge numbers of people are denied access to the scholarship produced by America's colleges and universities.[4][5] On January 11, 2013, Swartz was found dead in his Crown Heights, Brooklyn, apartment, where he had hanged himself.
- Wikipedia
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Someone who sees it as not only as a steady job with decent benefits, but also someone who wants to remove the vast amounts of scum from walking the street? The scum such as those who rape and murder?
JSTOR has posted a condolences note on their website.
They deceived the court that multiple felonies were committed. And their intimidation lead to suicide. There are a multitude of charges that can be filed. Find a prosecutor with the balls to charge another prosecutor, and these two will be in jail.
* the government reserves the right to engage in bullying any time it wishes, for any reason. In this case parents are encouraged to teach their children that bystanding is appropriate and expected.
A lot of people are outraged over the prosecutorial overreach in this case (and, by extension, the tradition of prosecutorial overreach in most cases prosecuted by the federal government), and a petition has popped up to remove the DA in charge of this case: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
It's a start, though what I'd really like to see is some proper judicial reform, so we can bring some sanity to the judicial system.
Links to the Ars coverage of this story:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-and-information-activist-takes-his-own-life/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/family-blames-us-attorneys-for-death-of-aaron-swartz/
Suicide can only be blamed on the person that did it.
I absolutely agree with you.
That doesn't preclude charging the prosecutors with a whole array of harassment and misconduct-related actions.
Unfortunately, the US has a serious problem wherein prosecutors have effectively infinite resources to harass someone; on top of which, we reward them for convictions, not for serving justice. On the flip side of that, public defenders lose money for every hour they spend on a case vs working at their "real" jobs; and since they don't generally do it as their primary job (more like an act of compulsory charity on the side), they have little incentive to care how they perform in that role. Thus, you have a supposedly-antagonistic system where both sides have strong incentive to push everyone brought up on charges to settle, regardless of guilt.
You want to fix the system? We need to have "prosecutor pays" for privately retained defense; and we need to ban settlements entirely.
Yes, that means every two-bit punk who shoplifts gets to hire Johnny Cochran. And yes, I realize how much the second point there would slow down the system - Or more accurately, it would mean nonviolent cases with no "real" damages, such as Swartz', would never have made it past a private student misconduct panel at MIT, and we'd have a brilliant but bored kid still alive.
The group of psychopaths also known as the Roswell City Council pushed Andrew Wordes (also known as the Roswell Chicken Man) to take his life in March 2012.
It's not so much the prosecutors fault, as it is a system that over zealously values intellectual property, so that the prosperous can be even more prosperous. We, as a society, have lost our bearings. Things are out of whack. I read today an article in the nytimes about sex trafficking, and how border guards in Pakistan, are on the alert for terrorists and pirated DVDs, yet ignore blatant evidence of young girls being sold into slavery. The reasoning? They want to please the Americans whose priorities are terrorism and piracy. We are broken.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. To reform the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 to rationalize it with the 21st century by the following measure
A. Repeal any and all language from the CFAA that originated in the Espionage Act of 1918 or its amended forms such as the McCarran Internal Security Act or the Subversive Activities Control Act of the 1950s.
B. Alter the definition of "Protected Computer" so that the act only covers Federal Government and Financial computer systems, and no others.
C. Remove any and all language that creates a crime simply because a computer is involved in an activity, where otherwise the activity would not be considered a crime.
D. Specifically state that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not apply to the Act. Almost all modern communications are 1. done on a computer, and 2. interstate in nature. Whereas it is against the spirit of the Founding Fathers to have the Federal Goverment control every single communication in a Free country, this act should be adopted by the congress and signed by the President.
The Man(tm) wanted to put him away for virtually his whole life.
yes, at that age, x+35 IS your whole life.
I bet a lot of people would off themselves if faced and what is, effectively, the end of their lifes and the absolute end of their freedom.
NH says 'live free or die!'. I think living free is so important, maybe NH has a point, there.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You're questioning his strength of character? He was charged because he wanted to liberate academic documents. He drew the ire of the Feds because he freely released court documents. He stood up against SOPA. And he helped launch Creative Commons. I'm pretty fucking sure he had a shitload of "strength of character".
For what, AC? For what, exactly, should "the prosecutors ... be fired, disbarred, and then thrown in jail?" Please lay out a compelling case based on something other than your circumstantial reasoning, ad-hominem attacks, and naked assertion?
Also: as meaningless as petitions are, they'd be slightly less meaningless if you at least courageously offered those an ability to sign a petition in the opposite direction too. In fact, this should be a moral requirement for all those who ever make a petition.
35 years was the maximum he could be sentenced to, that doesn't mean he was going to get it.
That case also started 2 years ago and the case hadn't undergone any startling twists that explain a suicide. Yes, after arrest I can understand, after a search I can understand, after being found guilty I can understand, after sentencing I can understand, in jail I can understand.
But in the investigation period when the lawyers are duking it out over admissible evidence? Either it had to be a slow deterioration in his mental state, which his family should have noted OR something else happened. That linked letter from the prosecutor is to trivial to kill yourself over unless you been slowly going over the edge in any case.
The guy went against the law as a form of protest, he knew that what he was doing was illegal and wanted that to change. And his treatment was legal letters. SCARY! A while ago, I called a scumbag to account himself for claiming the womens right to vote was achieved without violence by linking to just one of the countless incidents of women being arrested and tortured in jail. And these women endured. This guy offed himself over an email?
Then either he was always a unstable person OR he is a crybaby who wanted to look cool by protesting and then pissed himself when "The man" came down on him OR something else is going on entirely.
I think he had a cause, I think he could have expected that it would land him court and I don't think a person like that panics over a letter in a legal case that is/was far from concluded. That kind of person does NOT kill himself over a letter from a prosecutor. Read the letter, it is a trivial non-issue in the run up to a court case, it isn't a smoking gun, it isn't saying "we got you and you are going to federal pound in the ass jail sonny boy". It is almost saying "your lawyer got a good point but obviously I am not going to say it like that but you won this round". Chiding? Hardly.
Now I don't know him at all, don't know his personality (the real one, not the media one) but I think something more is going on. Either the pressure on him was far greater then we know, he was killed or his he had other mental issues already.
It is NOT the job of the prosecutor to weigh every communication on a silver platter to see if it might push someone over the edge. It is the job of family and the person himself to recognize mental issues and seek help. Something is missing here, normal people even under stress of an investigation do NOT off themselves over the linked letter. I would examine if there are other causes for an unstable mental condition that could have been triggered by anything, something as "trivial" as taking the Christmas decorations down.
We like when something tragic happens, to blame someone. It can be something as stupid as a cat not wanting to be petted that day that pushes people over the edge. That his family is so quickly ready to put the blame on others is to me a red flag. How hard did his family push him to succeed? Most boys at 14 worry about girls (how icky they are and how you can stop them thinking you are icky) this guy was designing RSS. Many a wonder kid has far from a happy youth. Who pushed this guy the hardest? The prosecutor or his family and friends who wanted him to achieve time and time again? Far more kids commit suicide because of pushy parents who are never satisfied then over long running legal cases that so far have NOT gone against him (as far as I know I freely admit, please feel free to put me right and show links to articles were it was becoming clear that he was going to loose this case). How hard was Lessig pushing yet again for someone ELSE to fight HIS fight for him with Lessig not being the one facing jail?
I think this case is going to stir up a real nasty mess with pushy parents and people expecting Swartz to fight everyone elses battle but him alone the one facing jail.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sucide is never the answer to lifes problems. Never! Never give up! There's always hope that around the corner is a better tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then one day afterward, but do not give up, ever.
My sympathies go out to this young mans family and friends.
I agree. if the full power of the gov is coming down on you, the gov SHOULD also pay for your legal fees, and good defense people, too.
else, it is purely and clearly bullying. legal bullying.
the way we win hearts and minds in the world is by example. the Rest Of World(tm) looks at us and is not convinced that they want to import anything AT ALL like american freedom and justice.
if we don't start fixing our broken-ways, we will never be taken seriously by the world. and yes, we have dropped in our high moral ground several notches over the last several decades.
does anyone in command CARE about how we look? never mind how we act, but at least give the impression of fairness!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
but not nearly as important as he tries to make it out to be,' quipped United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz
Quipped? Chided? These words do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
How many MIT student pranks ended with felony charges?
I highly recommend reading Alex Stamos' thoughts on Aaron Swartz:
The Truth about Aaron Swartz's "Crime"
http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/
1. Swartz wasn't facing 30+ years unless he already had a bunch of prior violent felony convictions. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, he was facing maybe 6-24 months if he was convicted of everything.
2. It was a victimless crime if you don't count anyone that works/studies at MIT, works at JSTOR, or uses JSTOR anywhere in the world. The entire campus was cut off as JSTOR/MIT scrambled to stop Swartz, who repeatedly attempted to circumvent the blocks put up by JSTOR/MIT over a period of weeks. Reports from JSTOR indicated that Swartz activities were causing servers to crash and were impacting other users. JSTOR backed down because of bad publicity, not because Swartz caused no harm.
3. Trespassing, breaking and entering, unauthorized use of a computer system, and denial-of-service attacks are all crimes. Prosecutors don't need support of every victim or even any victim to pursue a case because they represent the People who have an interest in stopping such activities. Every day, wife beaters are convicted despite the protests of their spouses. You would think a law professor would know this kind of stuff but Lessig, by all appearances, is not much of a lawyer just a supreme bullshitter.
4. Swartz had a lot of time to realize that he should probably stop his activities because the admins were on to him and trying to stop him but instead he escalated his crimes.
5. Harvard must be incredibly embarassed to have brought this guy on as a Fellow in their Center for Ethics.
6. There should an award in memory of Swartz for the person who's own actions cock up the greatest streak of good fortune. Maybe he didn't screw up as bad as OJ Simpson but you can't have a memorial award in the name of someone who isn't dead.
So he pirated a few documents and distributed them? Why did this end in his death?
Because he was weak?
You should find out whether you are a psychopath. Your response strongly indicated that you are. If so, there are a number of high risks that you face that are not present in sane human beings. Understanding them helps with avoiding them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yeah, there's a victim complex in the west. I don't think it applies in this case. Like Alan Turing, who also killed himself, the man was a hero who hit his limit for how much he could take. There's so much apathy towards so many issues these days I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
and won't be fixed by itself. You can get 30 years for making public something that should be, get sued for millons of dollars for copying a few songs, sued for billons for doing common sense implementations. But if you screw the entire world economy (causing indirectly the dead of thousands of people) you get even more money, driving drunk have barely any legal consequences or carrying assault weapons in populated areas for "defense" is all ok (to put very few examples, is far worse than this). Justice is a nice meaningless (or with a real meaning that have no relation with what people think it means) word by now.
And you can't use the legal or political system to fix it, as not only they broken it, but would break it even more given the opportunity (i.e. the golden opportunity of asking them to fix it).
With a hopeless situation like this, im not surprised that people suicide themselves when this mess touch them.
That used to be role of the media.
Then media was consolidated in the hands of the few with vested interest in not shaking the boat when they have installed their own captain and navigator crew.
What makes you think this 4th branch of government wouldn't just get corrupted like media did?
see, THIS is why I worry more about a government out of control and having too much (domestic) power. the Terrorists(tm) are not likely to ever mess with you or me. its extremely unlikely that we will experience foreign terrorism in our lifetimes. statistically speaking.
but its likely that the government will try to fuck you over and, unlike a freight train, it will BACK UP and keep running you over until you're finished.
I fear the government more than I fear the mafia or terrorists. the difference is that the government won't stop and it appears, you can't even reason with them. you'd have a better chance reasoning with the mob, sometimes! with the mob, its just about money; but with the government, its a self-inflated 'we are the good guys!' and that's FAR more dangerous than money-based motivations. its akin to a religious war.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You mean the scum who have no power and influence. And of course the innocent who get railroaded. Those are the people prosecutors go after. But in our two-tiered justice system, the type of scum with vast sums of money and political friends -- slap on the wrist.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 :
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
This is not a commentary on right or wrong. We're not talking about a young man with an IQ of 65 on death row for a crime he may not understand. Aaron Schwartz was by every reckoning a very smart man. He must have at least considered there could be consequences and repercussions for his actions. Imagine the idea that zealously prosecuting famous people publicly is a career maker...the Giuliani Axiom, if you will. 35 years? IANAL, but you never see these white collar cases serving or being sentenced to anything close to the maximum of all the charges stacked together. Mr Schwartz was intelligent enough to realize these things. It is highly likely, given his incredible success at such a young age, that he was ill prepared to deal with bad things happening to him. ______________Feel free to mod this down without conscience: I was born poor, stayed that way for a good while, and bad things and I are not at all strangers.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
If the GP AC had made more than just a passing joke (tying in recent gun and sexual assault cases at the same time, it takes some skill and luck to pull something like that off), then AC would not have been marked a troll. Throw in the response that JSTOR *withdrew* its allegations, but the prosecutors pursued the case anyway, and we have a situation where there are serious questions about the prosecutors.
Specifically:
Why did they pursue a case when the plaintiffs want out?
a) Was it because they thought what he allegedly did was so terrible that it must be prosecuted?
b) Were they thinking this was a meal ticket to fame?
I don't know, and I'd sure as hell like to find out. If it was a), then I'd like to know what's happening with our laws and to our justice departments so make a copyright case like this so "life and death." This is especially damning in the light of the US attorneys not pursuing HSBC for aiding terrorism and organized crime. If it was b), then these people are pretty sick, and I would hold them partly responsible for Aaron Swartz's death, at least morally if not legally.
He was probably unwilling to yield to such pressure. And do you know what happens when you don't? They go through with the maximum threatened and crush you like a bug. And everyone blames you for not accepting the lesser bargain.
Actually, it pretty much is. Not for someone who makes a living committing crimes, of course. But for anyone who wants to ever make a good living honestly. Few companies hire felons for any but the most menial positions, and many companies even vet contractors for felonies as well.
And of course, there's always the question of whether he'd have survived prison. People willing to stand up for themselves, but without the personal physical strength to back it up, nor the social ability to assemble a gang of followers, are unlikely to do well in prison
I've never understood this "suicide is the fault of the victim" mentality. Sure, they're the one who pulled the trigger. But a person in that mental state isn't rational, and may not be sane at all. You have to consider who drove them to that state, if anyone, and who ignored the warning signs, cries for help, or outright helped push them into making an irrational decision when they weren't in their right minds. Maybe they don't deserve the harshest penalties for their (in)action, maybe they didn't really have any ill-will or motive behind what they did, but just ignoring their share of the blame is ridiculous.
I'm not equating them, I'm saying they're both heroes. Swartz was trying to stand up against what seems to be a copyright controlled government (the JSTOR issue, SOPA, etc). We could use a lot more people like him. I'm also saying that when you push a person past their limit bad things happen. It's not easy standing up for what you believe in surrounded by either apathy or abuse.
Since he was charged with something that could result in that much jail time he was also entitled to a federal public defender if he couldn't afford his own lawyer.
Kevin Mitnick got royally shafted for the crimes he committed. He was grossly mistreated and denied a swift trial, access to the evidence in the case against him and by all means, fair representation. What can happen to Mitnick, could happen to any white/grey/blackhat hacker, regardless of what they are accused of or how much of what they are accused of is actually true. In reality, Swartz could very well be looking at 5 years behind bars and the rest of his working life probation. For some reason US courts tend to put people in jail longer for hacking a computer and not stealing anything than for multiple violent armed robberies lately. He may not have gotten 35 years, but losing everything you have and not having a way to get back on track when you're out of jail is going to make most people rather depressed.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
governor's race now. If she had any hope of running for governor, as many claim that she does, this kind of PR should put an end to it. Bullying a 26 y/o until he commits suicide isn't going to play well even if the average person doesn't understand the case. And if what has been said so far about the case (i.e. ambitious prosecutor trying to make a name for herself over-zealously pursues disproportionate punishment for a victimless crime when she probably doesn't even understand how a network operates or what JSTOR is), then she is even more screwed. It's a small consolation but at least it's something.
Do you know what a public defender is?
Either an underpaid version of a lawyer doing a job they'd rather not, or the bottom of the legal barrel that can't get a better job.
Are you aware that they are available to those charged in all criminal prosecutions?
Are you aware that the truth of that depends on your financial situation and willingness to bankrupt yourself defending against an opponent with essentially infinite resources?
The 6th amendment guarantees your right to counsel. It doesn't guarantee your right to free, or even necessarily very good counsel.
He wasn't facing decades in jail. He was facing the possibility of decades in jail. He didn't even fight. I don't know him, and I don't know enough of the particulars of this case to definitively say whether he acted cowardly or not, but on the surface, it does look that way. Regardless, my heart goes out to his friends and family. Coward or not, suicide is one of the most selfish actions an individual can take. Even if your life sucks at the moment, you are more than your own life, and suicide hurts those who care about you far more than it hurts yourself.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
I have an alternate proposal. The total cost of investigation + prosecution must be available for the defense. That is, if the cops and the crime lab and the prosecutors office spend $500,000 on the case, then you get that amount for the defense.
The reason is simple - if someone is clearly guilty, the investigation is comparatively cheap. And if the cops spend a million bucks on prosecution, this usually means their case is weak and they are trying to amplify this weak signal as much as possible.
It should also be noted that depression is considered a mental illness, not a lack of character. It's likely that he was unable to pay, not unwilling.
I thought deceiving the court was the primary job of lawyers. Every time I have needed lawyers it was either to manipulate the court in ways I didn't believe I was able to, or to provide extra intimidation to the opposition.
If everyone was completely honest and forthcoming, we wouldn't even need lawyers. Judges would work just fine on their own.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Uh, no. Strength of character. Asshole. When you're dead, you're gone. No more life, no more things you love. At least with life you have a *chance* at redemption.
Yeah, look at this guy. Another weak-willed loser who didn't have the balls to tough it out.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
What can happen is we put JSTOR out of business.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
this was his final statement, his final way of making a point.
When I was in grad school, there was one tenured professor who was true scum; had only graduated 3 PhD's in 15 years, had an affair with a student, had one student who had previously committed suicide, I can go on. At the same time, he had over 300 publications and books to his name, was known and respected in his field, and was a fellow of a prestigious academic society. During my third year, his second student committed suicide. This was the tipping point; within the year, the professor was forced to retire and is no longer overseeing students.
I can only hope this tragic event becomes a tipping point for copyright reform as well.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
...and what law was broken?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/family-blames-us-attorneys-for-death-of-aaron-swartz/
Stamos goes on to write that MIT runs an “open, unmonitored and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted as much in an interview Aaron’s attorneys and I conducted in December. MIT is aware of the controls they could put in place to prevent what they consider abuse, such as downloading too many PDFs from one website or utilizing too much bandwidth, but they choose not to.” In addition, he wrote, MIT did not require users of its network to agree to any terms of use, nor did JSTOR take any steps to prevent large-scale downloads of its PDFs.
"millions of dollars".. in ACADEMIC papers? really?
worst case is trespassing because he entered the network closet w/o permission. tresspassing does not warrant 30 years. ever.
overzealous resume padding is the reason the US Atty continued with this sham.
That is what a trial resolves - if whatever the defendant did was illegal or not. Unfortunately, he chose not to resolve that question leaving it up to the next guy to do.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Any executioner trying to put someone behind bars for 35 years, only for distributing non-copyrighted information that should have been free in the first place, is 'going personal'.
Prosecutors damn well know how to contribute to, or even create a 'suicidal condition in someone', but some don't give a shit because they are paid for it.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
There's no need to end up in a courtroom if you are willing to kill yourself first. Suicide makes you immune to pretty much any punishment. He could have shot one of the prosecutors and escaped punishment by just killing himself. Being suicidal, genuinely suicidal, makes you tremendously powerful for a short time. It allows you to completely ignore any consequences of whatever action you might want to take. And the idea that suicide isn't heroic is merely your opinion. I disagree.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
If everyone was completely honest and forthcoming, we wouldn't even need lawyers. Judges would work just fine on their own.
If everyone was completely honest and forthcoming we wouldn't need judges either.
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
Not true--just because both sides of an argument are honest and forthcoming doesn't mean that they're both right. They often have different understandings of a situation that come from their own unique perspectives and beliefs. Judges are useful arbiters for determining which side is correct.
Rob
I don't disagree with you in general. If he won, however, he would have had a possibility of furthering the cause of changing this broken system using his visibility and story.
Indeed, he likely could have made much more of a difference even if he had decided to spend every last penny he had on his defense (and then the government would have been required to pay for the remainder of his defense), fought the charges, won, and then committed suicide leaving a detailed explanation of how the case the prosecutors couldn't prove had destroyed his life (in reality, after winning, he probably would have decided to abort the "suicide" part of such a plan given his age, skills, and visibility).
Personally, I think prosecutors (the organization, not the individual prosecuting attorney) should be required to pay every "reasonable" expense of defense if the defendant is not convicted with some sort of prorating if multiple charges are brought and only some result in conviction (perhaps using the maximum possible sentences of the various charges to prorate the entire defense bill since trying to tease apart which minute of lawyer time went to defend which charge is probably infeasible). Similarly, if the defendant is found guilty, she should be required to pay the government's reasonable cost of prosecution to the extent they have the resources to do so after victims of the crimes are compensated (so, for example, Bernie Madoff's assets would have all gone to those scammed, not the government for their prosecution costs).
As well, I think it would be appropriate that prosecutors must make all specific threats of additional charges in writing and that once the threat is made, the defendant can demand that the threatened charge (which the prosecutors are less likely to be able to prove if they are threatening to "overcharge") be pursued and that lesser charges for the same act be dismissed with prejudice (subject to some restrictions). The result being, of course, attempts to bully by overcharging would backfire often (leaving the government paying for a defense to a charge that they never really expected to win and giving the defendant a pass on lesser charges).
Some of these requirements for prosecutors to pay for defense of failed prosecutions and the defendant's right to force charging the highest threatened charge may be subject to court approval/review for various reasons. For example, if the preponderance of the evidence shows that the defendant actively misled (vs., fore example, just refused to talk to) prosecutors and that resulted in a higher real or threatened charge than appropriate, the prosecutor should be able to make the lesser charges and not have to pay for any defense related to the higher charges.
This would, of course, unfortunately clog up the court system as prosecutors and defense attorneys adjusted to the new game.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
He didn't die for what he believed in. He died to escape.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
I'd like to see more oversight on plea deals.
However, completely banning them is heavy handed. Sometimes suspects will gladly plea guilty to a lesser charge when they are guilty of a greater charge but the prosecutor decides, for example, that a diversion program plus probation (possible under the lesser charge) is better for all than a prison or jail sentence (the minimum punishment under the greater charge). Such arrangements are sometimes the result of the prosecutor looking at the details and the personal situation of the individual and convincing themselves that the suspect accepts responsibility. To force everyone to go to court instead of having the suspect plead guilty to the lesser charge in exchange for the greater charge being dropped would waste everyone's resources.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
This person needs to be in charge of the investigation into the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
Then maybe some charges will actually be brought against the people running these 'too big to fail' banks.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
People, what happened to you? I grew up in the communist block, and we used to like the USA, the country where you could express your opinion, where there was real justice, where anybody could live a decent life if he was willing to work, without everybody else trying to rob him... This seems so long ago. Now I see exactly what we have overthrown some 23 years ago - a totalitarian state with security everywhere and unprosecutable prosecutors (who watches the watchers? well, nobody does), where the government bullies a smart, standup guy, and his neighbours are so twisted by all the intellectual property hype that they don't do anything about it but rather rationalize their apathy by explaining to themselves how he actually did commit a crime. Looks to me like the terrorists already won, your precious freedom is long gone, and your stay in Afghanistan is just a waste of money. Feel free to hate me for this opinion, at least you will have some illusion of freedom ;)