Look at this from the prosecutors point of view. They have hard evidence of a crime. They have evidence of consciousness of guilt from the perpetrator. It’s a slam dunk at trial so why should it get to that point? It’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. That’s why the plea deal was so generous compared to the downside of taking it to court. You want to entice them to take a slap on the wrist plea deal so everyone can avoid the cost of forestalling the eventuality of the jury’s verdict.
It’s true that prosecutors can be overzealous in their prosecutions, but 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be.
Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money?
> 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be
I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons. Imprisoned persons are frequently subject to physical and sexual violence at the hands of guards and other incarcerated people. These are inhumane conditions to subject anyone to, mass murderer and copyright-infringer alike.
“Bob’s Story: “I was in the minimum security camp at Fairton for about nine months. It wasn’t nearly as bad as I expected prison to be. The place was clean, the food wasn’t bad, and I didn’t feel any tension between the guys. If I wanted to avoid someone, I could stay to myself. “There were fewer than 100 guys serving sentences in the federal prison camp and I didn’t feel much in the way of harassment from anyone, staff or inmates. With the help of an orderly, I coordinated a prison job for myself in the library. It was just a small room with lots of books and I passed my days catching up on reading. I hadn’t read at all since I was in college because work kept me too busy. During the time I was at the camp I read about 30 great books and I lost 25 pounds. I’m back down to the same weight I was when I was in school and I feel better than ever. My wife loves the new look. She says the prison sentence probably gave me an extra ten years to live.”
https://www.whitecollaradvice.com/whats-it-like-in-the-priso...
Remember, maximum security is expensive.
Yes, but I think the solution is to make fewer things criminal through the democratic process first. Enforcement of laws is important.
It’s one thing to put people in jail who don’t belong there. But according to this article it kinda seems like Swartz did deserve some jail time.
He knowingly broke the law and showed no remorse. Instead his view was that the law should not apply to him because he did not agree with it. That’s a dangerous mindset to have for an individual with money and power.
It’s important to show remorse and contrition in these circumstances, otherwise we can just assume the behavior will continue. And Swartz had a history of this kind of behavior starting with PACER, so really it should have been expected that failing to prosecute in this instance would have been taken by Swartz as a signal to behave like this with impunity.
> I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons.
I 100% agree with you, and know all about this topic, but that’s really a different conversation.
Agreed, unfortunately it seems that we selectively enforce laws based on political pressure. Look at the numerous high profile cases targeting white collar criminals, for example with Purdue and the Sackler family.
They got away with zero jail time and a slap on the wrist (financially), all because they were able to hire the right political actors who could influence the outcome of legal procedures.
I'm sure if Swartz was similarly connected (for example a family who was a Senator), this whole thing would have gone away quietly.
Alas, the laws that apply to the commoners do not apply to the elite.
Don’t give up hope yet!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202...
> I'm sure if Swartz was similarly connected (for example a family who was a Senator), this whole thing would have gone away quietly.
I think Swartz made himself an easy political target without realizing it. From his perspective, he was just a guy in a room trying to “save the world.”
From the outside a different picture can be painted. He positioned himself as an activist, and amassed a great deal of resources and even an active following. He was well connected in that he was on a first name basis with billionaires, and probably even had the personal numbers of a few in his phone.
So I think all this made Swartz a target without him really intending to be one. Or at least he didn’t think that in the process of “saving the world”, that the world would fight back. That seems to be one of the central points of TFA at least.
From the article, it seems that he was concerned about how being a convicted felon would hurt his career prospects. It would reduce his likelihood of being able to save the world. Not that he would have, anyway, but I think that's part of the thought process.
Speaking for me personally, six months in federal prison would feel like an almost life-ending scenario. I'd lose my job (obviously) and would have trouble finding another in the field for which I'm educated and trained. My fiancee would not have sufficient income to pay our mortgage so we'd lose our house, and I'm not sure what we'd be able to do for the many pets we love dearly. My situation's much different from Swartz's but I can empathize that a six month sentence could have such dramatic consequences that it wouldn't feel like a slap on the wrist.
It's an analogous situation to blackmail. Suppose Alice has found evidence that Bob robbed a bank. Alice is legally allowed to reveal that evidence to the police, but is under no obligation to do so outside of a subpoena. However, even though both choices are legally permissible, Alice is not allowed to make her choice be conditional on receiving payments from Bob, as that would cross the line into blackmail.
Plea bargains are a form of extortion, and should not be part of the legal system.
So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? After all, even if the perpetrator has a 1% chance of winning, there's no reason not to go to trial under that system.
If the perpetrator is willing to plead guilty, there is no need for a trial.
Threatening people with massively larger penalties if they exercise their right to a trial rather than take a plea deal (often time limited before the defense has a chance to see the evidence) is coercive extortion and is morally wrong. There is plenty of evidence of innocent people (especially poor people) taking plea deals due to these prosecutorial tacits of threat and decite.
I don't really think courts should take guilty pleas. I believe in some times/places in the middle ages, courts would not take guilty pleas in case the prisoner had gotten coerced into pleading. Sometimes, we have people with mental illness or other issues that will plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
Along the same lines of "reasonable doubt" in the US generally being enough to escape criminal conviction, I think we should err on the side of safety and perhaps even inefficiency in (not) letting the state exercise its monopoly power of force, coercion, and imprisonment against anyone for any reason, ever.
It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes.
The prosecutor made the offer of a 6-month plea deal to Swartz's lawyer. Who presumably discussed it with Swartz, who seems to have decided not to accept it. Possibly, if you accept the analysis above, on the advice of his lawyer.
My point was how do we know this is an “analysis”. Based off Rolling Stones, this is just the prosecutors words.
How about semi-straight from the horse's mouth? Was his defense attorney working with prosecutors to minimize the threats? Is the Boston Globe in on it? (Conspiracy theories are so much fun! Ever read Foucault's Pendulum?)
So yes. Not just the plea deal and not just this case. In any situation, if the only evidence of something is the word of the state prosecutor, that only means so much.
If it was a slam dunk at trial and 6 months was a fair sentence, then why is there a need to threaten so much more to avoid granting him his right to a trial?
Aaron's case is not unique in this regard and is indicative of the casual brutality and inhumanity inherent in the way that our justice system works. We desperately need to threaten reform how plea bargaining works and the amount of power we give prosecutors.
