And ask them why this person is allowed to wield the full might and power of the US Government.
If you want to ensure that this gets attention it's a matter of sustained pressure, and of getting both houses of Congress to ask the embarrassing and obvious questions of the Justice department.
This is bringing the worst out of HN. In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so, but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.
We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
This is hardly the first article to demonstrate this, and there are certainly many valid issues to be reviewed and discussed, but many commenters here are demonstrating that we're just as capable of turning into a lynch mob as anyone else.
Most people seem to be asking for her to be fired. I waited for a while to see more evidence appear, but at this point it looks pretty clearly like she abused her power. Asking for her to be fired is perfectly reasonable, not a mob.
I am much more concerned that she had that much power in the first place. I don't think she is any worse than many of the other prosecutors. I think we need to reign in the laws that prosecutors use in these situations.
A recent link also said that she liked to use civil forfeiture laws. I can't say I have much sympathy for her.
>>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
This is a strawman and nobody here has said it. The actual argument is that prosecutors have very strong incentives to put as much pressure as possible on defendants, and the latter most often cannot defend themselves because the process is so extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the defendant either has to settle for a plea bargain or lose the trial. Unfortunately, many times they take the third option, which is suicide.
Make no mistake: this isn't about Ortiz. This is a systemic problem.
How else is a citizen supposed to hold an unelected federal prosecutor accountable? Do prosecutors ever screw up? Did they screw up in this case?
Getting her out of office is going to require a big push but it will send a message to every single federal prosecutor in the nation. It's our duty as citizens and as hackers to see justice served here.
As for "valid issues", please enumerate them. What exculpatory facts are there? She's made her statements, twice. She's presented her case in her own words. Zero regret.
> In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so,
I was skeptical at first too, but statements from his friends and family as well bear that out.
> but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.
I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?
I don't find it surprising at all that people have an immediate emotional reaction to something and perhaps initially will be irrational and jump to conclusions. We all do that occasionally.
What is unfortunate though is that after that immediate perhaps irrational reaction, I would hope that they would then give it some thought and say "ok you are right I haven't heard all the evidence (or may never)". Now if you are friends or family it's possible that emotionally that might never happen. You are to close to the situation.
This happens also with trials. People end up disagreeing with the jury (and I'm not saying juries don't screw up) but at least the jury was privy (if not sleeping or swayed by others) to normally much more information then someone only reading summary reports (keeping in mind that there are people that might watch the trial from gavel to gavel).
I don't really care about the cause & effect of his suicide. Everything I read about this case, from the supposed crime to the manner in which the prosecution handled it, is disturbing, both for the fact that they did and for the fact that they do it every single day. The system won't fix itself. I also fear it will get worse before it gets better.
This seems like a good time to turn an old saw over so that the sharp edge faces the other way:
Sometimes "good" people get done wrong in the pursuit of justice. Real life is messy and things don't always work out they way we'd like. But its the system we have. There's room for improvement, sure, but its the best we've got right now. Its no one's fault in particular, sometimes things just turn out badly and the prosecutor loses her job along with her assistants.
I wish more people were pissed off at plea bargaining. Yes, I know people think, the US needs it. But there's plenty of countries without plea bargaining (or at least, with a greatly reduced plea bargaining system). IMO, it should simply result in a reduced sentence, at the discretion of the judge (as evidence of remorse, not a reward for making the court's job easier).
The government doesn't threaten you with a bigger sentence if you refuse to be unconstitutionally searched (if you tell the cops to come back if they get a warrant). You don't get a smaller sentence for waiving your right to a silence, or counsel. But you do get a smaller sentence for waiving a right to a fair trial. I can't really see how this is constitutional, but being forced to waive other rights isn't.
Yes, things would be easier if criminals were coerced (by the threat of a larger sentence) to let the police search them without a warrant, to answer everything the police asked, to not to lawyer up, and to confess their guilt without a trial. But it's not the way a free country works.
And you are punished with stiffer sentences. If criminals are getting off lightly (due to plea bargaining), then politicians will raise sentences. This means people who do nothing more than demand a fair trial will receive stiffer punishments than they deserve.
I can't see how a lack of fair trials serves justice either. It encourages lazy police work. And an unfair process turns people against the system. If people accept plea bargains, do they really see themselves a guilty, or simply persecuted by "the system"?
I largely agree with you though some sentence reduction for making the court's life easier, avoiding the cost (emotional, time and financial) to witnesses (including the victim) is appropriate it is a question of the magnitude. 10x sentence difference is undue pressure that is enough to make the innocent plead guilty (or worse). An expectation of 30%-50% sentence for pleading early is a significant reduction but not in most cases enough to make an innocent person plead guilty unless it crosses a threshold that allows a suspended sentence or community punishment (in which case the magnitude of any improper conviction is relatively low).
I'm in the UK were there is talk of cautiously introducing some form of plea bargaining. At the moment I think pleading guilty (and how early it is done) is just something taken into by the judge. There may be some deals on the charges brought when there is some discretion but I don't think the opportunities are that great.
With Ortiz's political aspirations this seems like the worst response she could possibly make. It seems to me that the public would respond better to something like "we'll review our practices to ensure we're best serving the public." They could then just sweep it under the rug and wait for the public to forget. If it came up again they could then they could issue a statement along the lines of this one.
I live far away from USA, so I don't know any specifics, but I happen to live in a country where "the public" elected to power a party that openly tried to transform a country into a police state. It's debatable what impact their time in office had overall, but they gained popularity thanks to exactly the same stance Ortiz presents here and maintained it (popularity) for three years thanks to many similar cases. Granted, the victims were chosen much more wisely - a doctor, a politician, a beggar, to name a few - but handling of their cases was even worse, because they were used as a propaganda and displayed in the media from the very beginning, along with a video of breaking door and cuffing said doctor on the ground for example. The politician in question even committed suicide when the police tried to arrest her, and we were told that this was perfectly normal occurrence and that nothing is going to change.
And this is perfectly normal, European country we're talking about...
So no, I don't think this is going to negatively impact Ortiz career, it's possible that she's even saying this in hope of gaining popularity.
I know this seems improbable, but then winning the election by said party seemed improbable too in 2005 and then actually happened. It's easy to look at one's social circle and think it represents "the public". Well, it most often does not.
That was my thought process. But she obviously thinks so highly of herself that she can stand up to the American public and defend her position, even though things obviously went sideways.
By making herself look so deplorable it will take the attention away from how prosecutors and the judicial system works and instead focus on how SHE worked as a prosecutor in our judicial system.
With as much public outcry as there's been regarding this, I think it's inevitable that she will resign from her role as a prosecutor. By doing this though she may save Stephen Heymann's job and easily be able to land another (probably better paying) job.
Which is worse? - saying "we'll review" and do nothing, or arrogantly saying "we were never wrong" and still do nothing. In the end though, it looks like nothing is going to change.
It would be nice to have a leader who says "Yes we were wrong, I apologize. Let me fix the system" and actually fix it.
The very least she could do, is stop making more statements.
Perhaps she is trying to cater to the far-right, law-and-order types who say things like, "Aaron Swartz was committing a crime and he knew it, so of course he should be prosecuted, just like anyone else!" You see plenty of that attitude on HN.
Half the public agrees with "might makes right" and Obama is a centrist. I think Ortiz's office will continue to have carte blanche to extort plea bargains using disproportionate threats.
"We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently."
How can a suicide of a 26 year old man under prosecution by your office not warrant some sort of change? How can you not reflect and try for a better outcome. To not change suggests that this was an acceptable outcome... which is the point we are trying to make. Prosecution should not be so severe that suicide is a viable alternative.
The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves. Our community might be certain that his suicide was a result of the prosecution, and there may or may not be evidence of that, but all things being equal, simply being suicidal cannot be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The second response is that these people are lawyers. They're not going to openly admit to having done wrong even if it's obvious because it will only make their punishment that much swifter. Statements like the above are publicly made until it becomes clear that an act of contrition will reduce the penalty. That isn't obvious to Ortiz or her department right now, so there's no reason to expect them to attempt to publicly admit wrongdoing.
Note that this would be true even if Ortiz actually were wracked with guilt. These people are lawyers.
Ah, so I guess it has been proven that Aaron committed suicide because of the prosecution.
He didn't commit suicide because he was, you know, chronically depressed for years. Obviously, people who are chronically depressed for years but are in great life circumstances never kill themselves(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace)
The justice department is not in the healthcare business.
Let's not shy too far from the facts here. Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.
Personally, I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case. I want to know what was written and discussed among the prosecutors (Ortiz, Heynman and others in that office) and everyone else involved with this case (Secret Service). I think the Internet will do a much better job of investigating prosecutorial misconduct than any internal investigation could uncover.
Once someone assumes a public office they should assume they are now a public good working for the betterment of the society that appointed them. One of the rights, we the people, should have, is the ability to provide direct oversight; maybe not in real time, but at least post hoc.
I don't think the suicide itself should change how cases are handled, but the revelations about how inherently wrong the prosecution of Swartz was, should change how cases are handled.
You absolutely don't want other cases or issues to be advanced through people killing themselves, or threats of suicide.
You also don't want non-violent civil disobedience hacking to face $1.5mm in legal costs, $1mm in fines, and 13 felony counts and multiple years in prison, particularly when the injured party comes to a successful private resolution with the offender.
Also, the cases in the future should not be handled by USA Ortiz of AUSA Heymann, who should no longer be involved in the practice of law, particularly not as employees and representatives of the people of the United States.
Well.. Can she say something else? I mean - wouldn't any statement remotely similar to "In light of the recent events we will think about our approach and adapt our methods" basically admit guilt and having been wrong before?
We are deeply distraught over the outcome of this case. We will be examining our procedures to ensure that we acted correctly. Our duty to the American people is to uphold justice for defendants as well as accusers. Mr. Swartz's death leaves us having unfulfilled our obligation to both Mr. Swartz and the American people and was not the intention of this office.
There is a non-trivial proportion of humanity that simply cannot change their mind, cannot admit when they are wrong. If you think long enough about it and follow a rule-based mindset absent objective feedback (as fields such as law allow), you can justify almost any action taken ad-infinitum, as long as you follow a rule book and pattern you have practiced for years. That said, mentally inagile, cognitive calcified people should be culled from our justice system ruthlessly. We need people who can think through proportion, harm, and justice on a dynamic basis.
She's toast and she knows it. She's trying to save her political career.
It doesn't even matter anymore whether she's right or wrong.
Personally I feel that she mishandled this case (and that the whole system is pretty messed up), but the truth is somewhere between the two positions we keep hearing.
[+] [-] olefoo|13 years ago|reply
And your Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...
And ask them why this person is allowed to wield the full might and power of the US Government.
If you want to ensure that this gets attention it's a matter of sustained pressure, and of getting both houses of Congress to ask the embarrassing and obvious questions of the Justice department.
[+] [-] cobrausn|13 years ago|reply
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=InNews&C...
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
That said, one wonders which audience Ms. Ortiz is attempting to court with this stance.
[+] [-] FireBeyond|13 years ago|reply
We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
This is hardly the first article to demonstrate this, and there are certainly many valid issues to be reviewed and discussed, but many commenters here are demonstrating that we're just as capable of turning into a lynch mob as anyone else.
[+] [-] jeffdavis|13 years ago|reply
I am much more concerned that she had that much power in the first place. I don't think she is any worse than many of the other prosecutors. I think we need to reign in the laws that prosecutors use in these situations.
A recent link also said that she liked to use civil forfeiture laws. I can't say I have much sympathy for her.
[+] [-] enraged_camel|13 years ago|reply
This is a strawman and nobody here has said it. The actual argument is that prosecutors have very strong incentives to put as much pressure as possible on defendants, and the latter most often cannot defend themselves because the process is so extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the defendant either has to settle for a plea bargain or lose the trial. Unfortunately, many times they take the third option, which is suicide.
Make no mistake: this isn't about Ortiz. This is a systemic problem.
[+] [-] temphn|13 years ago|reply
Getting her out of office is going to require a big push but it will send a message to every single federal prosecutor in the nation. It's our duty as citizens and as hackers to see justice served here.
As for "valid issues", please enumerate them. What exculpatory facts are there? She's made her statements, twice. She's presented her case in her own words. Zero regret.
[+] [-] azakai|13 years ago|reply
I was skeptical at first too, but statements from his friends and family as well bear that out.
> but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.
I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
I don't find it surprising at all that people have an immediate emotional reaction to something and perhaps initially will be irrational and jump to conclusions. We all do that occasionally.
What is unfortunate though is that after that immediate perhaps irrational reaction, I would hope that they would then give it some thought and say "ok you are right I haven't heard all the evidence (or may never)". Now if you are friends or family it's possible that emotionally that might never happen. You are to close to the situation.
This happens also with trials. People end up disagreeing with the jury (and I'm not saying juries don't screw up) but at least the jury was privy (if not sleeping or swayed by others) to normally much more information then someone only reading summary reports (keeping in mind that there are people that might watch the trial from gavel to gavel).
[+] [-] frere|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
Sometimes "good" people get done wrong in the pursuit of justice. Real life is messy and things don't always work out they way we'd like. But its the system we have. There's room for improvement, sure, but its the best we've got right now. Its no one's fault in particular, sometimes things just turn out badly and the prosecutor loses her job along with her assistants.
[+] [-] tome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wisty|13 years ago|reply
The government doesn't threaten you with a bigger sentence if you refuse to be unconstitutionally searched (if you tell the cops to come back if they get a warrant). You don't get a smaller sentence for waiving your right to a silence, or counsel. But you do get a smaller sentence for waiving a right to a fair trial. I can't really see how this is constitutional, but being forced to waive other rights isn't.
Yes, things would be easier if criminals were coerced (by the threat of a larger sentence) to let the police search them without a warrant, to answer everything the police asked, to not to lawyer up, and to confess their guilt without a trial. But it's not the way a free country works.
And you are punished with stiffer sentences. If criminals are getting off lightly (due to plea bargaining), then politicians will raise sentences. This means people who do nothing more than demand a fair trial will receive stiffer punishments than they deserve.
I can't see how a lack of fair trials serves justice either. It encourages lazy police work. And an unfair process turns people against the system. If people accept plea bargains, do they really see themselves a guilty, or simply persecuted by "the system"?
[+] [-] josephlord|13 years ago|reply
I'm in the UK were there is talk of cautiously introducing some form of plea bargaining. At the moment I think pleading guilty (and how early it is done) is just something taken into by the judge. There may be some deals on the charges brought when there is some discretion but I don't think the opportunities are that great.
[+] [-] cschmidt|13 years ago|reply
What a concept: prosecuting each case on its own merits.
[+] [-] driverdan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klibertp|13 years ago|reply
And this is perfectly normal, European country we're talking about...
So no, I don't think this is going to negatively impact Ortiz career, it's possible that she's even saying this in hope of gaining popularity.
I know this seems improbable, but then winning the election by said party seemed improbable too in 2005 and then actually happened. It's easy to look at one's social circle and think it represents "the public". Well, it most often does not.
[+] [-] wheelerwj|13 years ago|reply
This is not someone we want in a higher office.
[+] [-] saranagati|13 years ago|reply
With as much public outcry as there's been regarding this, I think it's inevitable that she will resign from her role as a prosecutor. By doing this though she may save Stephen Heymann's job and easily be able to land another (probably better paying) job.
[+] [-] vijayr|13 years ago|reply
It would be nice to have a leader who says "Yes we were wrong, I apologize. Let me fix the system" and actually fix it.
The very least she could do, is stop making more statements.
[+] [-] betterunix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genwin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wheelerwj|13 years ago|reply
How can a suicide of a 26 year old man under prosecution by your office not warrant some sort of change? How can you not reflect and try for a better outcome. To not change suggests that this was an acceptable outcome... which is the point we are trying to make. Prosecution should not be so severe that suicide is a viable alternative.
[+] [-] fusiongyro|13 years ago|reply
The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves. Our community might be certain that his suicide was a result of the prosecution, and there may or may not be evidence of that, but all things being equal, simply being suicidal cannot be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The second response is that these people are lawyers. They're not going to openly admit to having done wrong even if it's obvious because it will only make their punishment that much swifter. Statements like the above are publicly made until it becomes clear that an act of contrition will reduce the penalty. That isn't obvious to Ortiz or her department right now, so there's no reason to expect them to attempt to publicly admit wrongdoing.
Note that this would be true even if Ortiz actually were wracked with guilt. These people are lawyers.
[+] [-] oh_sigh|13 years ago|reply
He didn't commit suicide because he was, you know, chronically depressed for years. Obviously, people who are chronically depressed for years but are in great life circumstances never kill themselves(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace)
[+] [-] TylerE|13 years ago|reply
Let's not shy too far from the facts here. Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.
[+] [-] malandrew|13 years ago|reply
Once someone assumes a public office they should assume they are now a public good working for the betterment of the society that appointed them. One of the rights, we the people, should have, is the ability to provide direct oversight; maybe not in real time, but at least post hoc.
[+] [-] nonamegiven|13 years ago|reply
Similar things have happened, although not always with the government's enthusiastic cooperation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers#Leak
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
You absolutely don't want other cases or issues to be advanced through people killing themselves, or threats of suicide.
You also don't want non-violent civil disobedience hacking to face $1.5mm in legal costs, $1mm in fines, and 13 felony counts and multiple years in prison, particularly when the injured party comes to a successful private resolution with the offender.
Also, the cases in the future should not be handled by USA Ortiz of AUSA Heymann, who should no longer be involved in the practice of law, particularly not as employees and representatives of the people of the United States.
[+] [-] darklajid|13 years ago|reply
In other words: Is this surprising, in any way?
[+] [-] wheelerwj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marssaxman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wheelerwj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aswanson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
"Don't make a federal case out of it!"
[+] [-] ericjeepn|13 years ago|reply
~DAVID MAMET, Faustus
[+] [-] tomjen3|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxhansl|13 years ago|reply
It doesn't even matter anymore whether she's right or wrong. Personally I feel that she mishandled this case (and that the whole system is pretty messed up), but the truth is somewhere between the two positions we keep hearing.
[+] [-] arbuge|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philprx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jijji|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterSear|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf#During...