Prosecution of Swartz Typical for the "Sick Culture" Pervading the DOJ

tukang writes "According to a report in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, State prosecutors had planned to let Swartz off with a warning and Swartz would not have faced any criminal proceedings or prison time had it not been for the decision of Carmen Ortiz's office to intervene and take over the case." Although the CNET article focuses on Aaron Swartz's particular case, the original article calls attention to general abuse of power within the DOJ: "It seems never to have occurred to Ortiz, nor to the career prosecutors in her office in charge of the prosecution, Stephen Heymann and Scott Garland, that there is something wrong with overcharging, and then raising the ante, merely to wring a guilty plea to a dubious statute. Nor does it occur generally to federal prosecutors that there’s something wrong with bringing prosecutions so complex that they are guaranteed to bankrupt all but the wealthiest. These tactics have become so normal within the Department of Justice that few who operate within the bowels of this increasingly corrupt system can even see why it is corrupt. Even most journalists, who are supposedly there to tell truth to power, no longer see what’s wrong and even play cheerleader."

Comments

Re:What he really did deserved jail time.

[jklovanc]

Irrelevant. JSTOR dropped charges.

Irrelevant because JSTOR is not the one pressing the charges the Federal Attorney is.

One has to be stupid to take "you could get 50 years for that" seriously. His defense lawyer would also have to be incompetent to let him. Many offenses have high maximum penalties but few defendants get the maximums. Publicizing those maximums is just playing to the sympathies of the public and has nothing to do with what would actually happen.

And if you thing that 50 years is reasonable for trespass, then there is no hope.

Had Swartz only entered the room, looked around and left then 50 years would have been way too much. That is not what happened. Swartz dd many other things while in the closet and would never have gotten 50 years as that was the maximum sentences.

Isimply cannot believe the level of obtuseness displayed by your post. If you believe that threatening a man with 50 years in gaol so that he capitulates to a 6 month sentance without trial is not broken then I simply do not know how to even beginning to explain the basic concepts of justice and fairness to you.

Excellent cop out. You can not explain it because you have no basis for your explanation. I think it is completely reasonable to tell a defendant" Look, you can plead out to charges we all know you are guilty of or we can go to court on the off chance that we make a mistake. If we go to court we will charge you with what ever we can under the law and you may be up for a lot more time. Your choice, plea to what you did or role the dice." The reason it is not broken is that no system in the world could survive if every single charge went to court.

Re:An old saying.

[DrXym]

That's the potential length of sentence if he was sentenced to the maximum terms possible for all offences, to be served consecutively. I don't think anyone believes he would have served that or anywhere close. More likely it would have been pleaded down or the judge would have set a more reasonable sentence. And even if it did happen there is an appeal process.

All of which is by the by. The best way to ensure you're not looking at jail time, long or short, is not to commit felony offences in the first place.