

On humanity, a big failure in Aaron Swartz case - aaronbrethorst
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

======
gyardley
The excerpt, containing new (to me, anyway) information, that makes this
article worth posting:

 _Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated
a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed
off on it, but MIT would not._

~~~
haberman
Wait, I thought the idea is that the prosecutor represents The People and not
The Victim? It's very confusing to me how JSTOR and MIT are involved and yet
not involved.

I wonder if this will turn up in MIT's report.

~~~
_delirium
It's a longstanding legal debate, but in practice victims' opinions have a
significant role in many plea bargains. Part of it, as far as I can tell, is
that the U.S. doesn't have a purely protect-the-public conception of what the
purpose of criminal law is, but also has a strong undercurrent of retributive
justice. It's pretty common to hear people talk about a trial helping victims
"achieve justice". So it's much easier for a prosecutor to sign off on a plea
bargain if the victims support it than if they don't, even if their opposition
wouldn't have legal standing.

And more recently there is some weak legal standing for victims' opinions on
the matter. A number of states, and the federal government, have enacted
"victims' rights" laws giving (alleged) victims some right to have their
opinions heard in a case. The federal version [1] confers two rights relevant
to having their opinion heard (though not necessarily followed) when
negotiating plea bargains: 1) "The right to be reasonably heard at any public
proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any
parole proceeding." and 2) "The reasonable right to confer with the attorney
for the Government in the case."

[1] [http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-
victims-r...](http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-victims-
rights.pdf)

------
welder
One quote I took from the news story:

“The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,”
Good told me. “His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique
to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron
kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of
the risk, and they were heedless.”

~~~
rosser
Coupling that Heymann was specifically warned about Swartz's mental state with
his (Heymann's) previous prosecution of Jonathan James, leading to _his_
suicide, has me seriously thinking this guy needs to see the other side of a
defense table.

I'm sure there are laws protecting prosecutors from prosecution for actions
carried out during the course of their duties, but those laws have to have
limits. Having been forewarned that Aaron was a suicide risk, proceeding as
the AUSA did reeks of criminal negligence, commonly defined as an act that is
"careless, _inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind_ , or in the case of
gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant."
(emphasis added)

~~~
jpdoctor
> _has me seriously thinking this guy needs to see the other side of a defense
> table._

Along with a prosecutor that decides to mitigate a suicide risk by locking him
up. Just to be safe.

------
lawnchair_larry
Mods, please revert the title to the more informative version that this was
submitted under. Everybody hates this practice.

~~~
ericd
I don't hate this practice, it prevents a lot of the hyperbolic editorializing
you see elsewhere on the web.

------
andreyf
Off topic: refresh the page twice, and you get a paywall until you clear your
cookies. Curious tactic... and somewhat ironic given the subject of the
article.

On topic: _Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly
negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said
JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.¶ “There were subsets of the MIT
community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,” Weinberg said. That
support did not override institutional interests._

I'm a little unclear about what MIT's "institutional interests" were in
regards to Aaron's case... can anyone clarify?

~~~
danso
Probably the departments of MIT unconnected to the computer science one where
they may have different opinions on academic property

------
praptak
In other news, the online petition to remove Carmen Ortiz from her office,
reached the necessary 25k signatures threshold.

~~~
welder
And the petition to remove Steve Heymann, the prosecutor on this case, only
has 2k of the 25k signatures needed.

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-
us-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-
steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb)

~~~
danso
It will be covered by the same response made to the Ortiz petition....they
group similar petitions, such as the secession ones by individual states

------
sajid
The more I learn about what happened, the sorrier I feel for Aaron. It must
have seemed like the whole world was against him.

------
EuroCoder
Steve Heymann is a murderer.

~~~
davidw
So if some girl breaks up with a guy who she knows has depression issues, for
some silly reason, does that make her a murderer too? Aaron was responsible
for his own actions.

That doesn't make the prosecutors good guys - far from it. But they didn't
kill him.

~~~
bulliedkid
So if some girl or boy with popularity in school verbally threatens me or
accuse me of being fat, stupid, a Jew, a religious nut, a christian or atheist
or whatever and bullys me into suicide it is not their fault? What Aaron did
was great, moral and maybe illegal but that doesn't warrant the 35 years of
federal prison. Maybe days.

And before you say anything about the persecutor doin his job the elected Nazi
Hitler were just following orderz and the law.

They killed him. And they knew he was at suicide risk. I would end my life
rather than going to federal prison until I'm 65 for freeing tax payers
research. Federal cases 80% conviction rate.

I hate the game and the players willing to play the game.

~~~
jstevens85
Why are you mentioning the figure of 35 years? According to the WSJ, the
prosecution was planning to push for seven years at trial, and were willing to
offer six months in exchange for a guilty plea. It's also my impression that
many people end up being released early, so the actual time spent in prison
would've been shorter.

~~~
rjbond3rd
You're making it sound like no big deal. Maybe by that time, the damage was
done. Anyway, the real issue is the Orwellian pressure tactics used by the
state to destroy a relatively powerless individual.

------
Millennium
Right, humanity is the one that failed, not the entitled twerp lacking in
respect for the wishes of content creators other than himself.

His actions had consequences, and he feared to pay. I have trouble
sympathizing.

