
Petition To Fire Aaron Swartz’ Prosecutor Reaches Goal - zoowar
http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/15/petition-to-fire-aaron-swartz-prosecutor-reaches-goal
======
agwa
Though I'd like to see Oritz fired, and think she's deserving of it, the
effort to get her fired is blinding us to a bigger problem and a proper
solution. The system was broken long before Oritz and Swartz, but it wasn't
until it affected someone we like that we noticed. But we're in a bubble, and
the vast majority of Americans do not care who Aaron Swartz is, will not be
affected by this tragedy like we were, and in general think that prosecutors
need all the tools they can get to put "bad" people in prison.

The American people love tough-on-crime policies, and it's not possible to
publicly shame a public official, or get her fired, for doing something that
most of the public supports. If we want to make change, we need to move the
needle on the public's perception of crime. That's a hard problem, and it's
not as easy as signing a petition, but it's a problem we'll never be able to
solve if we're blinded by trying to exact vengeance on a prosecutor.

Edited to add: if Oritz were likely to be fired, then I agree it would be a
great starting point for a larger movement. But my point is that changing
public opinion of tough-on-crime policies is a _prerequisite_ for getting
Oritz fired. A prosecutor is not going to be fired for engaging in normal
conduct that is loved by the public, even if the outcome in this case was
tragic.

~~~
res0nat0r
He wasn't going to get 30 years. See the other top HN post right now about he
could have plea-bargained for 6 months.

~~~
marshray
He could only get the 6 month (rather than 35 years) prison sentence by
waiving his right to a fair trial. So exercising his constitutionally
guaranteed right would result in a seventy-fold increase in his worst-case
outcome.

In 2009 fully 96% of criminal cases in our Federal court system resulted in a
conviction.
[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7...](http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7593302)

This situation would be absurd if it weren't so horrific.

~~~
mpyne
> He could only get the 6 month (rather than 35 years) prison sentence by
> waiving his right to a fair trial.

If he willingly engaged in a jury trial and somehow still got convicted, with
a strict judge, and a jury that hates him, and an incompetent defense, he
_still_ wouldn't get anything approaching a 35-year sentence.

Is it really too much to ask to not use hyperbole for matters as serious as
this? You could just as well be saying that the taxpayers are paying for
Sandra Fluke to have sex.

Please, please, I'm begging you all: By setting up an echo chamber and
inventing your own "facts" and then taking action based on that made-up dream
world, you're just as wrong as "the other side".

~~~
marshray
> he still wouldn't get anything approaching a 35-year sentence.

You don't know that.

As tptacek and an actual computer criminal defense lawyer points out:

 _Granick: Important to remember much lower burden on prosecution at
sentencing; “reasonable” loss claims on “preponderance of evidence”. Net-net:
If charged with 13 felonies, you can’t lose on ANY, because even if acquitted
on 12, they strike back at sentencing._

From this I conclude the game-theoretic payoff matrix is the message: don't
bet on a fair trial, even if you're completely innocent. Prisoner's Dilemma
indeed.

ref: <https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344549601742848>
<https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/291344675305037825>

> You could just as well be saying that the taxpayers are paying for Sandra
> Fluke to have sex.

Now who's talking hyperbole again?

~~~
rprasad
You are. You're skipping the most important part of the criminal process: _the
trial_.

* don't bet on a fair trial, even if you're completely innocent. *

Hyperbole, and dangerous exaggeration. The "beyond a reasonable doubt"
standard is a very _high_ standard. I've won jury trials where the evidence
all supported the prosecution's case (seriously, I had no evidence) but was
not sufficient to reach this standard. Federal judges are even stricter at
forcing federal prosecutors to satisfy this standard--they'll frequently
dismiss the case without even letting the jury deliberate.

If you think jury trials are patently unfair, you need to actually go down to
a courtroom and _watch_ the jury trials. You'll learn a lot, and you'll
discover that the justice system is not even remotely as lopsided as you think
it is... _once you get to the trial stage_. (But yes, it's definitely lopsided
in favor of the prosecution at every stage before trial. _

~~~
marshray
You won some jury trials once, good for you.

But I didn't say "jury trials are patently unfair" or even that trials in
general are impossible to win.

Aaron was weighing a guaranteed felony record and 6 months in prison against 0
(if acquitted on all 13 charges) to 50 years at some unknowable probability.

Clearly the prosecutor wanted him to think that invoking his right to a trial
was a "bad bet".

------
danso
> _Overall, there is a feeling that Aaron Swartz’ death has to mark the
> beginning of a change. This petition could be a ticket and an opportunity
> for the administration to begin such a change, if nothing else, just by
> firing an overreaching prosecutor. That would be a symbolic action that
> would still send a message, albeit a weak one, but it would go a long way
> for many. In contrast, a nonaction from the administration would be a signal
> that vigilante justice is the only remaining option, which would be
> unfortunate on many levels._

This is a silly article. There are actually steps that happen before the
firing of an official, most notably an investigation. But this article reads
as: "We got 25,000 signatures, if the President doesn't ax her then people
will resort to armed revolt"

(I'll skip the debate on whether it's good for a government to be directed by
the popularity of an online petition, unless people favor the country renamed
to 'The United States of Bieber')

The main point is that action in government is _slow_. And for good reason. If
people want to hold onto the fantasy that when a bunch of people get angry,
the government will take drastic action...then fine...but people who really
want to see change should be prepared to accept that the original problem (the
case against Swartz) may not be satisfactory dealt with, but that attitudes
change and reform can eventually happen, as long as the people who care
continue to speak up and apply pressure.

~~~
numbsafari
In Lawrence Lessig's essay titled "Prosecutor as Bully", he writes the
following in his last paragraph:

 _Somehow, we need to get beyond the "I'm right so I'm right to nuke you"
ethics that dominates our time._

If that's the case, threatening "vigilante justice" based on 25,000 signatures
would seem to indicate those who want to see action against the prosecutors
have failed to learn that lesson and are only interested in continuing the
downward spiral.

~~~
npsimons
Let's try to eliminate the equivocating, shall we? One the one hand, we have
someone who was being threatened with being imprisoned for half his life, for
doing something that couldn't have possibly merited that kind of retribution.
On the other hand, we have a person being threatened with being removed from
an position of power so that she (hopefully) can't abuse power over others
again. She most likely will be able to get another job, and more importantly,
won't have to live most of her life behind bars.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Yeah I love how people keep acting like "oh, his life was ruined so now you
need to ruin hers?" NO, we need to make her not have the power to ruin more
lives. If because of this, her and her millionaire husband manage to
rationalize this as their lives being ruined while not caring about the kid's
death they are responsible for than that really tells one everything they
would need to know about the content of their character.

~~~
mcantelon
Her losing her position would prevent her from having the power to ruin more
lives, no?

~~~
ryguytilidie
That was my entire point.

~~~
mcantelon
Ah, I misread... apologies.

------
AnIrishDuck
Am I the only one embarrassed by the blatant errors in that petition? The
first sentence is a run-on grammatical non sequitor. The rest of the petition
conveys a muddled thought process that seems blinded by outrage. Did the
author even bother to proofread that thing before submitting it?

There are plenty of other reasons to pass on this petition. That said, this
displays less polish and thought than an email I typically send to my boss. I
wouldn't blame the White House for ignoring a plea that reads more like a
teenager's facebook rant. It certainly appears to have involved the same level
of critical thinking.

~~~
olefoo
As the author of the petition; I take responsibility for hitting the submit
button, halfway through an edit.

Sorry.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I say this only to help in the future: (Life Pro Tip style)

Do your writing/editing in a separate app/editor window, and then copy/paste
it in. This applies to important emails as well, to prevent hitting send
before your final draft is done.

~~~
MartinCron
Similarly: I always leave the TO: line empty in emails until I'm sure that the
message is done.

~~~
wildmXranat
Ha, I do the the same thing. Only once the message is spell-checked and read
over, do I fill in the recipient address.

------
pms
"There is also an ongoing petition to fire assistant U.S. Attorney Steve
Heymann, also connected with the events that led to the tragic suicide of
prodigy Aaron Swartz. That petition has yet to reach its goal."
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-
us-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-
steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb)

------
thomasvendetta
Petition to fire accomplice Steve Heymann still needs 22k more:
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-
us-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-
steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb)

~~~
greghinch
This one is arguably more important. The more I read about this guy, the more
he sounds like the real bully

------
uptown
Am I the only one that finds these petitions pointless? They marginalize any
real activism down to just some signatures by loosely-connected individuals
and really just provide a forum for speaking to your elected officials -
something they're supposed to be there for anyway - in a format that has none
of the financial "umph" that lobbyists bring.

~~~
georgemcbay
They aren't inherently totally pointless. If they reach the 25,000
"signatures" required to trigger a response, that becomes somewhat of a news
item more likely to spill into the mainstream news, thus drawing some
attention to whatever the issue is, which is always somewhat helpful.

But certainly they are less effective than real protest, or real physical
letters sent to lawmakers, so if done in lieu of those things then that's a
problem.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Yeah. Tell me about how that death star is going to go again?

That's why these petitions are an utter joke.

------
SoftwareMaven
_This petition could be a ticket and an opportunity for the administration to
begin such a change..._

Yeah, because we all know how well Obama's "change" went. How's gitmo going?
What about those executive orders? Seen any drones in the Middle East or
northern Africa lately? Surely there is no more cronyism in the White House or
Justice Department. I realize not every promise can be kept, but I've never
regretted a vote like I did the vote for him (not that I ever would have voted
for McCain).

The point is this administration has shown it could care less about change.
Don't expect anything, much less anything positive, to come of this.

~~~
baggachipz
> this administration ... could care less about change

So, in fact, they DO care about change then?

------
ceol
I'm not sure what this petition is trying to accomplish. Do you think, should
the President fire Ms Ortiz, she would be replaced by someone completely
different? Her actions are a reflection of the _entire_ justice system; the
person who replaces her will continue with the same bullying, "String 'em up
in Town Square"-style tactics as she did. Everything will continue as it has
been, but now the affluent, Bay-area 20-somethings who were originally so
outraged will kick up their feet and go back to not caring about the justice
system because they _think_ they effected some sort of change.

I was so surprised with the HN community's response. So many people saw that
Aaron had committed suicide and thought, with their ninja-rockstar-hacker
intelligence, that we should go on a witch-hunt and burn Ms Ortiz at the
stake. Doesn't that seem like the worst possible thing to do in a time when we
have very little facts?

~~~
PrudenceYuris
That is a curious argument.

The point of this petition, and everything else done to remove Ortiz, Heymann,
and Garland is that it is a repeatable process.

Making a spectacular example of Ortiz et. al. is a first step, but it's a fine
first step.

Or put it this way, would we have as many lawyers willing to shield torture
had John Yoo ended up delivering pizza for a living?

~~~
ceol
I'm not seeing much to remove Heymann or Garland. There's another petition for
Heymann, but that's not getting near as much traction as the Ortiz one, even
when I've seen numerous commenters claim he was the one behind the case.

What's going on with these petitions is exactly the tactic politicians use to
calm the populace down when they're screaming for something to be done after a
scandal or catastrophe. Removing Ortiz would give everyone the vengeance they
desire but it wouldn't do a damn thing because the people qualified to replace
her are all just like her.

~~~
PrudenceYuris
That's a good point regarding the petition, which is why direct action against
these people should not be limited to signing the petition.

Indeed, they should be harried out of their professional and private lives as
thoroughly and relentlessly as they drove Swartz to suicide. Their lives
should be made not worth living.

------
crag
Let me point out every prosecutor threatens the accused. Whether you were
caught stealing gold or chewing gum.

I doubt this "prosecutor" even knew the details of the "crime" or cared. I
doubt she was ever briefed on the details of Aaron's life or cared too hear
it. That's what she has assistants for.

And that's the problem with the system. Prosecutors don't take time (except on
TV) to learn about the accused. They just go straight for the throat. Be
dammed the circumstances.

It's not enough to go after one prosecutor. Change the system.

------
SagelyGuru
I think this whole petition is a mistaken diversion. This issue is bigger than
Ms. Ortiz. The fact is that she was only doing her job in the way that the
Congress and the Administration very much expected her to do. Take this up
with those who gave her the weapons: the laws she was using and the common
procedures she was using. Take it up with those who very much wanted those
weapons ready and used to silence an activist.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I agree with you. We must change the laws that allowed this to happen.

But we can do both.

------
davemel37
I seem to recall a story about a Pepsi employee who made a bad decision that
cost Pepsi over 10 million dollars. The CEO called him into his office, and
the employee shuffled in saying, "I guess you are gonna fire me now." To which
the CEO Exclaimed, "Fire You?! I Just Spent 10 million dollars educating you!"

Just something to think about here.

~~~
rdl
People learn from mistakes and become better.

They generally do not improve from moral/character flaws like being a power-
seeking career-ambitious-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else asshole political
climber.

------
res0nat0r
Why is there not this type of outpouring of rage and internet hate the last
few days for someone who is seriously being railroaded: Bradley Manning.

This is a person who has been locked up into solitary for months now and is
being treated very inhumanely. Is it because he hasn't written any Python
libraries and isn't visible in Silicon Valley?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You are making a logical argument, but change doesn't come from logic. _What_
you should change should come from logic, but the impetus -- the will -- comes
from emotion. People need to be stirred up in order to act. That is human
nature. And when the cause of that is a tragedy it breaks our hearts, but that
is why we must work to make it so that this does not happen again.

So argue that we should help Bradley Manning, or the inner city victims of the
drug war, or children starving in Africa. But argue it somewhere else at some
other time. Right now we have a cause. There are a large number of good people
who want to fix _this_ now. Let them. Help them. Because this needs to be
fixed, and having a singular cause gives us focus. It puts success in reach,
more than it is at any other time. You are not helping by distracting people
with other serious problems -- all you are doing is making it less likely that
_anything_ gets done, by disheartening everyone with the scope of the problems
we face.

We do not have to fix every problem in the world at the same time. Now is the
time to fix this one.

~~~
res0nat0r
I think this is describing exactly why I feel like a grumpy cynical jerk about
this right now. The internet loves it causes. It loves to pontificate on
forums and sign petitions to change things, just as long as these changes
don't involve anything more than clicking buttons and typing things from
laptops while sitting on the couch.

I'd rather people calmly review the _facts_ about the people and things
involved with the situation rather than do the standard internet mob thing and
call for heads to roll and people to be fired. Wait to learn the details
rather than rely on emotions before you get angry.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I think people pretty well understand the facts here. We have understood them
for a long time. Current law makes everyone a criminal. Prosecutors threaten
young people with excessive sentences to coerce them into plea bargains. None
of this is new information. What we have lacked before is the will to do what
is necessary to fix it.

And if you have an idea how to do that, let's hear it. Because "heads will
roll" is not wholly without merit in these situations, but neither is it
inherently the best possible solution. So if you can suggest something
_better_ then let's hear it.

~~~
res0nat0r
Better suggestion: Find out first if the 30 year sentence was actually chosen
to be handed down, or had to be put in place due to the way the law is
currently written. If it is the latter demand the law be fixed, not the person
who's job it is to enforce the law.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The trouble is that it's both. The law should never have allowed a sentence
that ridiculous for the act Swartz allegedly committed, but prosecutors also
choose what to charge. So we _do_ need to fix the laws to prevent excessively
aggressive prosecutors from having anything that outrageous to charge minor
offenders with. I would even admit that that is the more important
achievement.

But we still need to do something about excessively aggressive prosecutors
too, because they can still do plenty of damage with knives and guns even
after we take away their nuclear weapons.

------
gesman
We need another one: "To return all taxpayer's money wasted on prolonged witch
hunt fueled by personal egoic ambitions"

~~~
numbsafari
Only if it's followed up with a petition to "return all taxpayer money wasted
on egoic pranks".

There was always a way forward to achieving Aaron's goals that didn't involve
sneaking around. Whether he was right or wrong, he knew on some level that
what he was doing was, at the very least, inappropriate and potentially
harmful. If not, then why attempt to hide his face? If not, why even do it at
all?

It's a sad and unfortunate fact that Aaron didn't found Demand Progress
_before_ he decided to do what he did. It's a sad and unfortunate fact that he
will never have his day in court, or the opportunity to plead for mercy by
showing that he'd learned his lesson and founded Demand Progress in an effort
to take a better, more rational path to achieving his goals.

And it's a sad and unfortunate fact that we are wasting time on silly
petitions that single out individuals rather than investing all that time and
effort into changing the laws they were using against Aaron so that this kind
of abuse never happens again. Instead, a bunch of young people are going to go
out and do rash and ill considered things in the defense of someone who did a
rash and ill considered thing and likely end up facing a similar, if not worse
fate than he did.

It's a sad and unfortunate thing that, despite all of the collective
intelligence on this and many other forums, there are very few adults willing
to stand up and say "don't do rash and ill considered things unless you are
willing to deal with the consequences".

Young people are prone to making bad choices, we should neither encourage
them, nor seek to punish them disproportionately.

~~~
phaemon
> Only if it's followed up with a petition to "return all taxpayer money
> wasted on egoic pranks".

If someone keys your car, and you spend $5,000,000 tracking them down to
punish them, it doesn't mean _they've_ wasted $5,000,000 of your money. It
means you're a moron.

~~~
Firehed
Yes, but you're in control of your own stupidity. My tax dollars, which I have
no control over, went into this particular witch-hunt. Asking for a refund is
not out of the question - even though I know it's never going to happen, the
idea is to send the message that I do not approve.

------
throwaway271
Ortiz was nominated to her position by Obama in 2009. She resides in Milton,
MA where it just so happens Gov Patrick, Obama's close personal friend also
resides. She's well-connected and a double diversity quota. She's going
nowhere.

~~~
PrudenceYuris
Which is why efforts to end her career should go forward with as little
restraint as her prosecution

------
bjhoops1
Aaaand they just raised the petition threshold to 100,000:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57564203-93/white-house-
rai...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57564203-93/white-house-raises-
petition-signature-threshold-to-100k/)

~~~
pohl
From looking the petition page, this petition may have been grandfathered-in.
(It says "SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 11, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000: 0")

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-
stat...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-
district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck)

------
tcuk
It's a sad day when the mob campaigns to end the career of someone who's
simply doing there job, rather than causing change to the actual law that
defines how they do the job.

But this particular prosecutor was just a bully, right? Who had it out for
Aaron out of personal hate, perhaps the Illuminati are involved also?

The only other reasoning is she was just doing her job and prosecuting a man
who broke the actual law, and showed traits of an activist who could be a
repeat offender, and was trying to deter him from getting into more serious
trouble in the future.

A suspended sentence and a felony doesn't seem too bad if she was deterring
him from something that could see him in jail 10 years with a plea bargain.

~~~
marshray
No mob is trying to "end the career" of some mid-level public servant for
whimsical reasons.

The United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts is not someone
just "doing their job", it is a very high-level position appointed to serve
the public interest. What people want is to prevent this person from abusing
the power entrusted in them any further.

Oh look, just last week Oritz declined to run for Governor.
[http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/01/...](http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/01/carmen_ortiz_rules_out_gov_senate_run)

------
glyphobet
It is a shame that the petition to pardon Swartz has 1/10th of the signatures
that the petition to fire Ortiz has. Let's advocate for a government that
forgives (alleged) crimes as strongly as we advocate for a government that
punishes people like Ortiz.

<http://twitpic.com/bvjjvz>
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/posthumously-
pardo...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/posthumously-pardon-aaron-
swartz/DVpdmSBj)

~~~
tkahn6
Swartz is dead, so I don't know what pardoning him now would accomplish other
than securing a useless symbolic 'victory'.

~~~
mpyne
He can't even be pardoned; the charges were dropped. Even if the charges were
somehow still in effect, the proper thing to do would be to have the charges
dropped entirely. A pardon implies guilt, it simply commutes the sentence of
the convicted.

------
zby
Nothing like a good old scapegoating.

------
miguelrochefort
What if she gets fired and kills herself? Will they go after us?

It's a never ending war. We're all trying to punish people to give the
exemple. Us trying to fire Ortiz is similar to Ortiz trying to prosecute Aaron
Swartz.

~~~
marshray
> Us trying to fire Ortiz is similar to Ortiz trying to prosecute Aaron Swart

This is a democratic country. We get to campaign to replace our elected
officials, and even the appointed ones too. It's our civic duty.

Do you seriously think that's anything like a government official abusing
their power in an attempt to imprison a highly-regarded citizen for years and
years for downloading bulk articles from the university library?

------
mdxn
This witch hunt is incredibly disturbing. Not only do these petitions
blatantly exclude some fundamental principles of government and society, but
they distracts greatly from where our focus should lie.

------
ommunist
Not yet. The threshold is 100K signatures per petition now.

------
donniezazen
Are non-citizens residents allowed to vote on these petitions?

