Skip to main content

View Diary: Aaron Swartz Was Going Home With a Slap On The Wrist. Then The Feds Got Involved (274 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you seriously think it was appropriate to say (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, joanneleon

    "well, we will just lock him up then" rather than something like "tell him to get psychiatric treatment"?  I suppose you would be perfectly fine with a 40 year prison sentence in a maximum security rape-me-in-the-ass (and I mean that part) prison as well.

    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

    by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:00:50 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  First, that quote has not been proven, (0+ / 0-)

      and it's HIGHLY unlikely anything like that was ever said.  Consider the source.

      Second, prisons are well-equipped to accommodate those who truly are suicidal.  Very few people are actually excited about having to go to jail.  Go figure.

      Third, Swartz would have served ONLY 4-6 MONTHS ... in a minimum security, posh federal prison with white collar inmates who posed no risk to his safety whatsoever.  Give me a break on the "hardship" he would have "suffered", especially given the magnitude of his crimes.  Sheesh.  If he didn't want to do the time, he shouldn't have done the crime; it's not like anyone had a gun to his head.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:06:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Question, do you have something against (4+ / 0-)

        Aaron Swartz? You can't control the message, it's out there.

        You are omitting important facts in your amateur prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

        1. The Feds would never drop the felony charge. He did not want to be branded a felon.

        2. The fine which you never mention was $1 million. His finances were shot from the two years of defending himself against the overzealous prosecution. He did not want to have his parents mortgage their home for his legal fees and fine.

        Stop trying to minimize his likely sentence while leaving out the FELON designation and the MONEY.

        If you had watched the memorial service and heard what his friends and loved ones had to say, you might be better informed.

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:31:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right, the Feds would never drop ... (0+ / 0-)

          the requirement that Swartz plead guilty to something, it's a basic requirement of ALL plea bargains.  A person maintaining innocence will not be allowed to plea bargain, that's just not the way it works.  Such an admission is part of the "bargain".

          If Swartz didn't want to be branded a felon, he shouldn't have done what he did.  Yet he CLEARLY knew he was committing crimes; why else would he have attempted to hide his face from MIT's surveillance cameras, and hide his laptop in one of their computer closets?  If he believed what he was doing was all fine and dandy, he'd have done neither of those things.  The fact that he did is what prosecutors call "consciousness of guilt" and would have been explained as such to a jury, leading to his certain conviction.

          As to the fine, there wouldn't have been one but for his voluntary acts.  Even so, he chose to spend all his money on attorney's fees (first class counsel, no doubt, probably charging $1k an hour or so) trying to weasel out of the consequences.  And even then, given his past successes, he could have earned enough to pay ... probably just by selling the rights to his story.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:09:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why should we (3+ / 0-)

        "consider the source"?

        The source was Aaron's lawyer, right and a first party to the exchange.  That's a highly credible source.

        The person who is not highly credible in this discussion is you since you've been trolling the Swartz diaries for weeks now and making disparaging comments about him.  What's your problem with him or why do you feel such a strong need to defend Ortiz and Heymann?  Many, many people have condemned their behavior and over prosecution in this, including a retired judge, another very credible source.  Some former prosecutors have also spoken out against it.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:41:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not "defending" anyone, ... (0+ / 0-)

          including the prosecutors, who were doing what they were SWORN to do, which is to uphold the law.  But I certainly won't defend anyone who thinks they can act with impunity, especially when their "cause" is not profound.  

          If the prosecutors had held fast in refusing to plea bargain, which they have the discretion to do, and insisted on Swartz serving the maximum sentence, perhaps you'd have a case.  But the fact that they were willing to bargain a 50-YEAR sentence down to 4-6 months belies claims of their obstinacy and over-zealousness.  In fact, you will not be able to identify a single violation of ethics in this case.

          The proper counter-balance to over-zealous prosecution, where it exists, is a fair judge and an impartial jury.  Activists can also lobbying to modify laws/sentences.   Swartz knew, however, that he stood no chance at winning at trial because the evidence was complete and convincing.  The fact that he chose to avoid the relatively mild consequences he actually faced was his to make, but after already shaming his family to a considerable degree, he chose to compound THEIR consequences and force THEM to suffer even more for acts HE chose to undertake.  What a man.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:26:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bullshit. After he refused the plea deal there is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina

        no way in hell the prosecutors would accept anything less than 30 years in prison.  Remember, all they said was they weren't seeking the maximum and 30-40 years is not the maximum, is it?  Oh, and sentencing guidelines are just that and don't apply if you are an "enemy of the state" so you can bet it would have been in a maximum security prison.

        So what would your response be to a 40 year sentence in a maximum security prison had he not killed himself?  You still haven't answered the question.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your claim that he was certain to have served (0+ / 0-)

          a long sentence in a maximum security facility is comprised of two hypotheticals, not facts.  Still, trying to make sense of the implied question is problematic: How would "I" respond if HE received such a sentence and was required to serve it at such a facility?  I wouldn't, as I believe what he did was wrong.  If I thought differently, and if I thought his sentence was unjust, I'd offer to assist his defense team in case there was anything I could do that would help.  

          On another note, the implication that Swartz was being treated as "an enemy of the state" is disproved by the fact that he was not being held in jail while awaiting trial, which would certainly have occurred if what you claim were, in fact, true as perceived by the authorities.  

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:46:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So do you believe a 35- 40 year jail sentence (0+ / 0-)

            (actual not maximum) in a maximum security prison would be an unjust sentence for what he did?  Yes or no?

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:06:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site