I guess it's pretty much what you would expect them to say. I still don't think threatening to prosecute him with a charge that could put him in jail for multiple years for an act that should have had a maximum penalty of no more than 30 days is anything they should have done or been able to do, and the fact that they "offered" to make him a felon for the rest of his life and send him to prison for "only" six months if he would waive his right to bankrupt himself proving that he didn't do it is not exactly endearing. But it's what they do every day, so naturally they think it's normal.
I've already lost count of how many times I've said this in the last few days, but we need to fix this. These laws have got to change so that this can't happen.
Be careful that you don't allow a minimum penalty that is much worse than the law says is due. If you believe Alex Granos, the defense's expert witness, there was no penalizable crime[1]: JSTOR allowed unlimited downloads to people connected to MIT's network without regard to speed, MIT didn't prohibit anybody from connecting, and the closet was unlocked. The more I learn, the more the prosecution has to answer for, let alone however much this kind of thing happens to other people, even for other kinds of crimes. If this is the means by which convictions are obtained and careers are scored, there are some truly perverse incentives in the Department of Justice.
They didn't threaten him with the maximum sentence allowed by the law. They also didn't duct tape him to a chair and electrocute him. The two statements are approximately as meaningful, since Swartz was charged with 13 felony counts and the maximum penalty for his case would have been longer than the base penalty in California for murdering a police officer during the commission of a felony.
What they did instead was threaten Swartz with a calamitous 6-7 year sentence if he exercised his right to a jury trial, demanding instead that he testify under oath that he was guilty of 13 felonies and accept 4-6 months in prison.
Carmen Ortiz's defence is an attempt to shift the Overton window.
Her argument is that he was charged with so many charges that if he was given the maximum sentence on all of them he would have been put in prison for a very long time. That sets the upper limit of the Overton window. Instead of that upper limit, she is quick to point out that he was offered six months imprisonment if her admitted to the charges.
But taken without context, six months imprisonment for non-violent activities that, even if they had been successful, would have been very unlikely to have had a significant adverse impact on anyone is extremely disproportionate.
The other problem with her 'maximum sentence' argument is that it was the USAG office that decided to charge him with multiple charges all relating to the same events. If they had just charged him with "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" and no other charges, the maximum sentence allowed under 18 USC 1040 would have been 10 years (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030), and under the sentencing guidelines he would have fallen under Offence Level 6 (see http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...). Assuming no criminal history, the sentencing guidelines would dictate 0-6 months imprisonment and/or a $500-5000 fine.
The statement contains no new news, it was already reported that there was an ultimatum from the prosecution for him to either plead guilty to all 13 counts, or go to trial where he faced a sentence of up to 50 years in prison.
Attorney Jennifer Granick, the Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, pointed out that plea offers are not binding on the court and are presented as optional suggestions for the judge to consider during sentencing. Normally the judge goes with the "neutral" sentencing guidelines, regardless of any deals.
In this case, neutral guidelines are capped at 5 years per count, for a potential sentence of 65 years in prison, with the guilty plea deal.
As Granick states:
> [T]he court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. Rather, the probation department drafts an advisory sentencing report recommending a sentence based on the guidelines. The judge tends to rely heavily on that "neutral" report in sentencing. If Aaron pleaded to a misdemeanor, his potential sentence would be capped at one year, regardless of his guidelines calculation. However, if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe.
Those who argue that Swartz should have plead guilty to all 13 counts are either unaware of these facts, or choose to present their opinion in a way designed to mislead the public that the prosecutor's deal was reasonable.
>plea offers are not binding on the court and are presented as optional suggestions for the judge to consider during sentencing
That's not entirely true. There are two basic types of pleas. One is a sentence recommendation - the government recommends a sentence, but the court is free to do what it wants and the defendant cannot withdraw the plea if they are unhappy with the sentence. However, rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for plea agreements under which the court may only either accept or reject the plea and the stipulated sentence; it cannot change the sentence. If the court rejects a plea made under this rule, the defendant is free to withdraw their plea and go back to square one (face a trial). The Rule that the plea is being made under is always specified in the plea agreement in writing. I don't know which type they were discussing, but he would have had to be insane to plead guilty to 13 felonies and not insist on an 11(c)(1)(C) plea.
He may have been stressed not over the initial sentence, but over the the consequences. For one thing, he would have been under federal Supervised Release for a period of either 3 or 5 years, during which a judge could have barred him from using a computer or the Internet. Any violation of these rules could have then yielded an instant sentence of up to the length of supervision - either 3 or 5 years - even if the violation occurred on the last day of his supervision. These types of restrictions are put in place all the time.
Finally, pleading guilty to 13 felonies may have been problematic from a criminal history point of view. If he were ever charged with anything in the future, the judge or prosecutor would be unlikely to show mercy on someone that has 13 felonies on their record. In some states, any prosecution for a felony subsequent to this deal would have qualified him for a three strikes/habitual offender status and an accompanying life sentence (Nevada being one, for example, that does not distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies for purposes of three strikes sentences - a felony DUI in Vegas after this plea would have earned Aaron a life sentence).
1) judges generally rubber stamp pleas
2) pleas can be made contingent on sentencing, no danger of crazy judge surprising the defendant
3) you can agree you've violated the letter of the law while maintaining that what you did should not be illegal.
Something's not adding up for me. If he were convicted at trial of all 13 counts the most he could face is 50 years but if he plead guilty the max is raised to 65? How does that work?
If they were only looking for a 6 month sentence, why did they charge him with 11 counts of fraud?
The judge is free to disregard the proscecution's recommendations and sentence the defendant to the full legal maximum. This is not common in federal cases, but it does happen.
The statement makes clear what I had suspected, as a lawyer, from the outset: Lessig, some criminal defense attorneys, and a few other parties have mounted a witchhunt that has little to do with the case in hand.
I should add that I'm not far from Lessig politically, and I don't have any strong disagreement with open-information advocates. But Lessig turned this case into something it shouldn't have been, and he benefits from that personally. Aaron's lawyer, a partner at a major firm, is using this case for his own personal publicity, and that is a shame too. "Follow the money" works for people who manipulate hackers too, not just those who oppose them.
I've noticed a lot of legal mistakes in this forum. To start with, the attempt here wasn't "victimless," and the law routinely punishes unsuccessful attempts even when nobody is hurt. "Computer hacker offered plea deal of six-months in minimum-security prison after seeking to make an expensive archive that generates significant revenue public" wouldn't arouse anger among anyone except extremists. It might arouse political disagreement, or even a small protest, but not a call to fire prosecutors. What it aroused before Aaron's suicide was a small effort to raise money for his legal defense, which didn't really go anywhere. If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending.
There's other manipulative PR worth identifying. Aaron's lawyer said that he told the prosecutor his client was a potential suicide risk. How does anyone who reflects for a minute think that a prosecutor's office should respond to that. They did what they usually do, which is to tell the lawyer that they could revoke bail and monitor the client if that was what the client wanted. What else should they have done? Do we think all charges against suicidal people should be dropped?
Welcome to Hacker News, SocioTech. I see you joined when the Swartz case news broke and all of your posts so far have been to defend the actions of the prosecution while demonizing Swartz and his advocates.
That's fine, but why not take a look at the front page of Hacker News? As a tech guy and hacker, I'm sure there are lots of other topics that you as a new member would enjoy discussing and not just this single topic.
Why was jail time and a felony ever sought for in this case? Why not 2-5 years community service focused on computer needs in the community? He stays out of jail, doesn't get a felony and the community or government gets some much needed computer help <edit> while he pays his debt to society.</edit>
It's not that I oppose the fact that DA was prosecuting, it's how they were doing it. I see this as abuse of power by not showing restraint - but that's my opinion that a felony and jail time were excessive for the crime committed and the DA should have shown more restraint in how they plea barganed.
Mirroring the arguments about MAC spoofing in another thread, I have a question.
If I got banned from an IRC server, switched my proxy settings and came back on to spam a channel with "I Dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯" Can I be prosecuted and sent to prison for it? After all, I'm "evading access restrictions" and every other ridiculous vague threshold for illegal activity Aaron was charged with.
The programmer/lurker in me would react by banning open proxies (DNSBL?) and requiring registration. Which is what we've been doing for decades. Would the federal prosecutor in you hunt down this potentially 10 year old kid and charge them with computer fraud to set an example?
I think the sane reaction to a security issue is to fix the issue. Especially in the cyberlibterarian utopia I wish the Internet was. If it was exploited with enough maliciousness, I can look the other way while the hacker is sentenced for it.
But for something this stupid? An open wifi network? An open closet? Aaron broke through no walls but made-up protocol restrictions. Where is the line drawn?
The statement doesn't actually provide any new information. All it says is that they decline to resign or admit wrongdoing. That much was expected and nothing else is anything we didn't already know.
>If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending.
You're assuming that we were being rational before and now are being irrational rather than the other way around. It was previously irrational for us not to do something about this. (I don't mean these prosecutors specifically, but the system that allows this sort of thing to be "normal" is hugely problematic.)
As for "manipulative PR," I'm not sure how much we should care about being "manipulated" to try and fix something which is legitimately in our own self interest to fix anyway.
"As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible."
Then why did you prosecute a terms of service violation? Or do you mean "protecting" the use of computers by restricting it to only those purposes you happen to like?
This "TOS" stuff is another red herring. Even the EFF said the new proposed change in that law wouldn't have stopped the charges in this case.
This case was about more than doing something that JSTOR told users not to do. Yes, it involved that too, but it also involved taking materials that others had copyright to and threatening to make them publicly available, which could have disrupted many organizations' functioning.
Would you be surprised if someone pulled four million videos off of YouTube (or books off of Google Books) and torrented them, and then was prosecuted and asked to serve six months?
> I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office's prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life
If MIT asked to drop the charges, then you not only wasted taxpayers money but whats more importantly, as a result, you've helped young man to take his life.
> The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably.
Prosecutors routinely over-charge in an effort to intimidate defendants into plea deals. It's very effective on the vulnerable, often with tragic consequences.
When justice is measured in the number of convictions and sentences handed out and not low crime-rates, this is what happens.
>I must, however, make clear that this office's conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably.
No, it wasn't appropriate. Both MIT and JSTOR had declined to continue prosecution. Her office over charged to force a plea bargain with 6mo of prison time and would have turned Aaron into a felon.
This is so much CYA bullshit from the government. It's time to stand up to these bullies.
I'm impressed that a US Attorney is responding to criticism. I will remain cynical, however, because there are hundreds who are suffering from these types of tactics. I doubt we'll see this type of outpouring for all those who have been subjected to this type of prosecution.
Largely because the targets of such over prosecution are either unsympathetic (drug dealers, gang members) or because people are quite happy to join the "string him up!" Mentality when it's a bad guy they can't identify with (bankers).
I'm surprised by the level of "human-ness" the statement shows. It would have been very easily for the office to take a more empty position a la "we have nothing to say - we were doing our jobs."
That being said, other than the unexpected personal touch, this is basically what we all assumed they'd say. "We're sorry. He broke the law - we were doing our job."
"That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct - a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting."
The "assistant" US Attorneys are lawyers, not what you'd think of as "assistants." The "US Attorney" is a politically appointed senior executive, while the "Assistant US Attorneys" are career staff lawyers. The "US Attorney" signs most filings, but the career staff does the significant legal groundwork on almost everything.
So these were the choices they offered him:
- Plead guilty and become a felon (even if he believed otherwise, and clearly against his conscience.)
- Or face 13 felony counts, potentially leading to a very lengthy prison sentence.
The prosecutors were trying to make sure the case never goes to court. This is disgusting!
even if he believed otherwise, and clearly against his conscience
So you're saying that a man who steals a car shouldn't face felony charges as long as he claims that his conscience is clear? The law must be objective, not based on whim.
The indictment doesn't say anything about the penalties sought. Anybody have handy the primary sources indicating what penalties the prosecutors were pushing for?
It would be interesting to see what she, or some AUSAs, have told the courts in their pleadings.
I'm not sure if PACER (http://www.pacer.gov/) has all the criminal pleadings, but it might have those. Its another thing in the long list of items that should be completely free to access.
Archive.org has the whole docket. It used to be a reference on his Wikipedia page, but it looks like it's not there anymore. You can find it in the history.
It sounds like the response is trying to say without saying that there was no great big fateful choice of "plead guilty to something you think wasn't wrong and do 6 months or probably get 30 years."
I suspect everything they said to Aaron without saying in their dealings with him attempted to convince him that was his choice exactly.
"The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct - while a violation of the law - did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|13 years ago|reply
I've already lost count of how many times I've said this in the last few days, but we need to fix this. These laws have got to change so that this can't happen.
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
1. http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...
[+] [-] tghw|13 years ago|reply
Where are you getting 30 days from?
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
What they did instead was threaten Swartz with a calamitous 6-7 year sentence if he exercised his right to a jury trial, demanding instead that he testify under oath that he was guilty of 13 felonies and accept 4-6 months in prison.
[+] [-] javajosh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] A1kmm|13 years ago|reply
Her argument is that he was charged with so many charges that if he was given the maximum sentence on all of them he would have been put in prison for a very long time. That sets the upper limit of the Overton window. Instead of that upper limit, she is quick to point out that he was offered six months imprisonment if her admitted to the charges.
But taken without context, six months imprisonment for non-violent activities that, even if they had been successful, would have been very unlikely to have had a significant adverse impact on anyone is extremely disproportionate.
The other problem with her 'maximum sentence' argument is that it was the USAG office that decided to charge him with multiple charges all relating to the same events. If they had just charged him with "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" and no other charges, the maximum sentence allowed under 18 USC 1040 would have been 10 years (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030), and under the sentencing guidelines he would have fallen under Offence Level 6 (see http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...). Assuming no criminal history, the sentencing guidelines would dictate 0-6 months imprisonment and/or a $500-5000 fine.
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
She's mentally ill, that one.
[+] [-] droithomme|13 years ago|reply
Attorney Jennifer Granick, the Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, pointed out that plea offers are not binding on the court and are presented as optional suggestions for the judge to consider during sentencing. Normally the judge goes with the "neutral" sentencing guidelines, regardless of any deals.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-l...
In this case, neutral guidelines are capped at 5 years per count, for a potential sentence of 65 years in prison, with the guilty plea deal.
As Granick states:
> [T]he court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. Rather, the probation department drafts an advisory sentencing report recommending a sentence based on the guidelines. The judge tends to rely heavily on that "neutral" report in sentencing. If Aaron pleaded to a misdemeanor, his potential sentence would be capped at one year, regardless of his guidelines calculation. However, if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe.
Those who argue that Swartz should have plead guilty to all 13 counts are either unaware of these facts, or choose to present their opinion in a way designed to mislead the public that the prosecutor's deal was reasonable.
[+] [-] downandout|13 years ago|reply
That's not entirely true. There are two basic types of pleas. One is a sentence recommendation - the government recommends a sentence, but the court is free to do what it wants and the defendant cannot withdraw the plea if they are unhappy with the sentence. However, rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for plea agreements under which the court may only either accept or reject the plea and the stipulated sentence; it cannot change the sentence. If the court rejects a plea made under this rule, the defendant is free to withdraw their plea and go back to square one (face a trial). The Rule that the plea is being made under is always specified in the plea agreement in writing. I don't know which type they were discussing, but he would have had to be insane to plead guilty to 13 felonies and not insist on an 11(c)(1)(C) plea.
He may have been stressed not over the initial sentence, but over the the consequences. For one thing, he would have been under federal Supervised Release for a period of either 3 or 5 years, during which a judge could have barred him from using a computer or the Internet. Any violation of these rules could have then yielded an instant sentence of up to the length of supervision - either 3 or 5 years - even if the violation occurred on the last day of his supervision. These types of restrictions are put in place all the time.
Finally, pleading guilty to 13 felonies may have been problematic from a criminal history point of view. If he were ever charged with anything in the future, the judge or prosecutor would be unlikely to show mercy on someone that has 13 felonies on their record. In some states, any prosecution for a felony subsequent to this deal would have qualified him for a three strikes/habitual offender status and an accompanying life sentence (Nevada being one, for example, that does not distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies for purposes of three strikes sentences - a felony DUI in Vegas after this plea would have earned Aaron a life sentence).
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
1) judges generally rubber stamp pleas 2) pleas can be made contingent on sentencing, no danger of crazy judge surprising the defendant 3) you can agree you've violated the letter of the law while maintaining that what you did should not be illegal.
[+] [-] maxharris|13 years ago|reply
What about the evidence to the contrary? He was caught on camera covering his face with a bike helmet.
What constitutes a crime is not for the accused to determine.
[+] [-] tedunangst|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] il|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sociotech|13 years ago|reply
I should add that I'm not far from Lessig politically, and I don't have any strong disagreement with open-information advocates. But Lessig turned this case into something it shouldn't have been, and he benefits from that personally. Aaron's lawyer, a partner at a major firm, is using this case for his own personal publicity, and that is a shame too. "Follow the money" works for people who manipulate hackers too, not just those who oppose them.
I've noticed a lot of legal mistakes in this forum. To start with, the attempt here wasn't "victimless," and the law routinely punishes unsuccessful attempts even when nobody is hurt. "Computer hacker offered plea deal of six-months in minimum-security prison after seeking to make an expensive archive that generates significant revenue public" wouldn't arouse anger among anyone except extremists. It might arouse political disagreement, or even a small protest, but not a call to fire prosecutors. What it aroused before Aaron's suicide was a small effort to raise money for his legal defense, which didn't really go anywhere. If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending.
There's other manipulative PR worth identifying. Aaron's lawyer said that he told the prosecutor his client was a potential suicide risk. How does anyone who reflects for a minute think that a prosecutor's office should respond to that. They did what they usually do, which is to tell the lawyer that they could revoke bail and monitor the client if that was what the client wanted. What else should they have done? Do we think all charges against suicidal people should be dropped?
[+] [-] droithomme|13 years ago|reply
That's fine, but why not take a look at the front page of Hacker News? As a tech guy and hacker, I'm sure there are lots of other topics that you as a new member would enjoy discussing and not just this single topic.
[+] [-] hippee-lee|13 years ago|reply
It's not that I oppose the fact that DA was prosecuting, it's how they were doing it. I see this as abuse of power by not showing restraint - but that's my opinion that a felony and jail time were excessive for the crime committed and the DA should have shown more restraint in how they plea barganed.
[+] [-] ewillbefull|13 years ago|reply
If I got banned from an IRC server, switched my proxy settings and came back on to spam a channel with "I Dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯" Can I be prosecuted and sent to prison for it? After all, I'm "evading access restrictions" and every other ridiculous vague threshold for illegal activity Aaron was charged with.
The programmer/lurker in me would react by banning open proxies (DNSBL?) and requiring registration. Which is what we've been doing for decades. Would the federal prosecutor in you hunt down this potentially 10 year old kid and charge them with computer fraud to set an example?
I think the sane reaction to a security issue is to fix the issue. Especially in the cyberlibterarian utopia I wish the Internet was. If it was exploited with enough maliciousness, I can look the other way while the hacker is sentenced for it.
But for something this stupid? An open wifi network? An open closet? Aaron broke through no walls but made-up protocol restrictions. Where is the line drawn?
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
Yes, like the press release Ortiz issued stating that Aaron faced up to 35 years in prison.
Again, that number was not pulled out of thin air- it came directly from her office in an official press release.
This never was a purely legal case at any time. It has always, at all times, also been a case the prosecution intentionally made into a media case.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|13 years ago|reply
The statement doesn't actually provide any new information. All it says is that they decline to resign or admit wrongdoing. That much was expected and nothing else is anything we didn't already know.
>If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending.
You're assuming that we were being rational before and now are being irrational rather than the other way around. It was previously irrational for us not to do something about this. (I don't mean these prosecutors specifically, but the system that allows this sort of thing to be "normal" is hugely problematic.)
As for "manipulative PR," I'm not sure how much we should care about being "manipulated" to try and fix something which is legitimately in our own self interest to fix anyway.
[+] [-] edsu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DuskStar|13 years ago|reply
Then why did you prosecute a terms of service violation? Or do you mean "protecting" the use of computers by restricting it to only those purposes you happen to like?
[+] [-] sociotech|13 years ago|reply
This case was about more than doing something that JSTOR told users not to do. Yes, it involved that too, but it also involved taking materials that others had copyright to and threatening to make them publicly available, which could have disrupted many organizations' functioning.
Would you be surprised if someone pulled four million videos off of YouTube (or books off of Google Books) and torrented them, and then was prosecuted and asked to serve six months?
[+] [-] joering2|13 years ago|reply
If MIT asked to drop the charges, then you not only wasted taxpayers money but whats more importantly, as a result, you've helped young man to take his life.
> The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably.
Yes of course Ms. Ortiz; so were those military and political leaders in Germany circa 1939 and see how they ended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
Nobody will live forever Ms. Ortiz. I hope Aaron will wait for you at Heaven's gates and handle you a key... to hell.
[+] [-] eksith|13 years ago|reply
When justice is measured in the number of convictions and sentences handed out and not low crime-rates, this is what happens.
[+] [-] javajosh|13 years ago|reply
No, it wasn't appropriate. Both MIT and JSTOR had declined to continue prosecution. Her office over charged to force a plea bargain with 6mo of prison time and would have turned Aaron into a felon.
This is so much CYA bullshit from the government. It's time to stand up to these bullies.
[+] [-] TDL|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nlh|13 years ago|reply
That being said, other than the unexpected personal touch, this is basically what we all assumed they'd say. "We're sorry. He broke the law - we were doing our job."
So in the end, this doesn't change anything.
[+] [-] LancerSykera|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tghw|13 years ago|reply
It sounds like a plea bargain to me.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-...
[+] [-] sociotech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeswin|13 years ago|reply
The prosecutors were trying to make sure the case never goes to court. This is disgusting!
[+] [-] maxharris|13 years ago|reply
So you're saying that a man who steals a car shouldn't face felony charges as long as he claims that his conscience is clear? The law must be objective, not based on whim.
[+] [-] Firehed|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DuskStar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenger00|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure if PACER (http://www.pacer.gov/) has all the criminal pleadings, but it might have those. Its another thing in the long list of items that should be completely free to access.
[+] [-] sociotech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
I suspect everything they said to Aaron without saying in their dealings with him attempted to convince him that was his choice exactly.
[+] [-] icepick|13 years ago|reply
No. You don't get it. Try again.
[+] [-] tghw|13 years ago|reply
"The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct - while a violation of the law - did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."