[pbateman]

From the link in the article:

Depending on how many of the counts Swartz is found guilty of, the sentence could conceivably total 50+ years and fine in the area of $4 million.

What an absurd and unreasonable level of punishment. Carmen Ortiz, the prosecutor who was behind this[1] needs to be publicly shamed.

[1] (source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-c...)

[waterlesscloud]

She has been rumored as a candidate for Governor or Senator, but denies interest (such denials often mean nothing).

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/01/...

The Boston Globe named her "Bostonian Of The Year" in 2011.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...

Like most things, it seems complicated. She's done a lot of good for society, but it looks like she really screwed up in this particular case.

[agwa]

This is business as usual. Naming the prosecutor isn't going to accomplish anything - the whole system needs fixing.

Just a week ago this was on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003335 I don't think they seized Swartz' assets in this case but they didn't need to - they made his defense as expensive as possible and bled him dry.

[olefoo]

Make no mistake, this means she will always be facing serious opposition should she choose to run for public office.

And since she was appointed by President Obama, it is entirely appropriate for those of us who feel strongly that she misused her position; to ask him to remove her from office for failing to exercise her discretion appropriately.

[agwa]

> Make no mistake, this means she will always be facing serious opposition should she choose to run for public office.

Beware, given the people's love of tough-on-crime politicians, drawing any attention to her career as a prosecutor, even if negative, might only help her. Most people outside of HN probably see Aaron Swartz as a criminal and this tragedy isn't going to have serious sway. Consider that factually innocent people get convicted because of prosecutorial aggression and there are no public scandals.

The public's attitude towards crime needs to change before naming and shaming prosecutors will be effective. We should try to change it - quote figures to show that people needn't fear being victims of serious crime, appeal to the American founding and the ideals of innocent until proven guilty, make economic arguments that locking people up for disproportionate amounts of time is costly and pointless. This approach will move the needle on the public's attitude and will slowly fix the system which did this to Aaron Swartz. It's more nebulous and less satisfying than trying to destroy the career of a bad prosecutor, but it won't be wasted effort.

[AnthonyMouse]

A huge part of the problem is that there is no lobby for largely innocent people who are stripped of all their assets and locked in prison indefinitely, but there are strong lobbies for "tough on crime": Police unions want more "resources" (i.e. cash in their members' pockets) for crime fighting, especially if the "crime" involves suspects who are very unlikely to harm investigators, like "computer" crimes. Private prisons want more prisoners so that they grow their "business" -- and if they're innocent all the better, because good, honest people are less violent inmates. Victims' groups suffer from "what have you done for me lately" disease, where to get support from their constituencies they need to continually be making it harder for anyone accused to not be convicted and anyone convicted to ever see the light of day again, with no real incentive to care whether those accused and convicted are guilty or innocent.

And, of course, there are no strong "innocent convicts" special interest groups because their constituencies, though numbering in the millions, have no money and can't vote.

[SoftwareMaven]

Because Obama has shown so much interest in listening to those who voted him in, right? Copyright maximalists are exstatic about this prosecution, and that's the trough Obama feeds from. That slop doesn't smell any better than the Republican's trough.

Also, remember that Swartz was a key player in the SOPA/PIPA campaign. Do you think anybody in the government is sad about this? There will be no support from Obama on this. I doubt you could get an acknowledgement of any kind out of him.

[jiggy2011]

As a rule I find it difficult to justify a prison sentence (beyond perhaps a short "scare them straight" visit) to somebody who has committed a crime that isn't violent (or causing others to commit violence) or perhaps something that causes widespread distress (certain types of fraud).

Of course this would make it difficult to jail alcapones perhaps.

[AnthonyMouse]

>Of course this would make it difficult to jail alcapones perhaps.

I don't follow. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion -- because he committed tax evasion. He also allegedly (and very likely actually) committed a whole list of other serious crimes they didn't prove. But tax evasion is an actual crime that should actually be prosecuted. If Al Capone had made all his money placing legal bets in Las Vegas and then failed to pay tax on the winnings, he could and should have been convicted just the same for failing to pay his taxes. He should also, if proved, be convicted of any murders or racketeering or other such things he participated in.

What he shouldn't be is charged with a law that you could just as easily be charged with, with multi-decade prison sentences attached, just because law enforcement is too corrupt or incompetent to prove the real crimes that he actually committed.

[jiggy2011]

Oh, I agree.

I suppose my point is that it might make it easier though for those who order violent crime to distance themselves from it enough that it becomes extremely difficult to every give them a custodial sentence.

[jfager]

The prosecutors actually working the case were Scott L. Garland and Stephen P. Heymann. (source: http://ia600504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137...)

[PrudenceYuris]

Stephen P. Heymann deserves special attention. He worked for the "Security Division" of EMC. He may have a past record of inflating small exploits with no criminal intent into federal cases. We don't need lawyers like that practising tech law.

[rdl]

Even sadder is that Scott L. Garland is a MIT alum :(

[Benferhat]

The prosecutor's job is to charge you with the violation of every statute that the evidence indicates you violated, and use that breadth of charges as leverage in a plea negotiation. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[erichocean]

People in power need to take responsibility for what they do. Claiming they're "just doing their job" is how the worst stuff that ever happens to humanity by other humans goes down.

For more, check out The Lucifer Effect. Doing evil in the name of your "job" is a bug in the human psyche.

We need to do everything we can to mitigate its effects, and that starts by not staying stupid shit like "Hate the game, not the player" that's intended to absolve people of the guilt and shame they should be feeling for acting immorally.

[objclxt]

Laws are meant to be beneficial to society as a whole. In the US, laws must be passed by a democratically elected body.

The judicial system is one of the few areas where "just doing your job", no matter how 'evil' it may seem, is morally right. Even the most heinous and obviously guilty defendant deserves the best defence available. And similarly, is a prosecutor enforcing a law that society chose to enact inherently evil?

It is far, far better to take all this outrage and anger and direct it towards changing the outdated laws that govern computer crime.

[erichocean]

> And similarly, is a prosecutor enforcing a law that society chose to enact inherently evil?

That's not what happened here: society did not enact laws that made his actions illegal, and certainly did not inact punishments to the extent of a felony and 35 years in prison.

This is perhaps the clearest case I've even seen for prosecutorial abuse (excepting situation where the prosecutions literally fabricates evidence). More info here: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...

Bottom line: in this case, society is not to blame and no, the prosecutors weren't just "doing their job".

[PrudenceYuris]

Congress is bought and elections are a choice among the bought.

We are dealing with prideful arrogant people. They need a vivid example in order to get their attention. Destroying this case's prosecutors' careers is only a good start.

[catshirt]

"don't hate the player" is a satirical half assed defense used to justify irresonsible actions. even if the entirety of our hate should be directed at the game, that doesn't mean the player holds no responsibility.

[PrudenceYuris]

Hate the game or play the game.

Destroying her reputation. Stripping her of every professional friendship by making her a pariah. Piling on in every conceivable forum against her. Making it cost her every every she ever earned, her home, her retirement, and every penny of any family member willing to help her would be perfectly fitting and proportionate in that light.

And yet you will see people here say "Write a note to your Congressman" and that should be the limit of it. Bah.

[darkarmani]

Isn't part of the game political? By shaming her, you are playing the game.