It's important to not forget people who perform harmful, malicious acts while in power to prevent them (when possible) from obtaining power to do it again during the remainder of their lifetime. Checks and balances, actions have consequences, citizen responsibility, and all that jazz.

I didn't take this piece as "going after" Ms. Ortiz, but as "never forget", which seems like a fair approach to a public figure and their actions while in public office.

Let’s not forget:

“On July 11, 2011, he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[15][91]”

So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict - because there’s no dispute that he did what he was accused of.

“On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury”

So a second grand jury thought he should be charged too.

“ prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison”

So he was offered 4 months of actual time in white collar prison.

“Swartz and his lead attorney rejected the deal, opting instead for a trial where prosecutors would be forced to justify their pursuit of him.[98][99]”

Uh, no. That’s not how it works. The prosecution doesn’t have to justify the case. They have to prove you committed the crime you are charged with. Whether you or the jury think it’s a waste of time is legally irrelevant.

And then Swartz took his life.

It’s not fair to pillory Ortiz when 1) 2 grand juries indicted Swartz 2) The prosecutor offered a reasonably fair deal (and there’s no indication it wasn’t up for negotiation) 3) We don’t know what sentence Ortiz would have actually recommended at sentencing.

I’m sorry, if Swartz killed himself because of this case - that’s just moronic - and Ortiz doesn’t deserve the blame. As a lawyer, I’d feel a hell of a lot more guilty if I was Swartz’s attorney than I would as Ortiz.

> So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict

As the old saying goes, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told them to.

Edit: I'm not sure how many are aware of how grand juries work.

The prosecutor presents evidence, but the defense is generally not allowed to present any evidence (the defense isn't even allowed to be in the room unless they are explicitly summoned). Grand jury proceedings are secret. If there is an indictment, the defense will not even be allowed to see what evidence was used.

Thus, it's not surprising that a manipulative prosecutor can sometimes get a grand jury to issue an indictment based on flimsy evidence, leading to the saying about them being persuaded to "indict a ham sandwich".

Most common law countries abolished grand juries long ago, and about half of the U.S. states no longer use them at all (even though they are still technically allowed).

In most cases grand juries are optional. The prosecutor does not need to use a grand jury to file charges. So, prosecutors use the grand jury as a way to pass the buck.

They are not (tv news cycle nuttiness aside)used to railroad the innocent.

We do know what sentence she would've recommended. She and Heymann were pushing for 35 years. More than many killers and rapists get, by decades at that. The prosecution even compared him to a rapist.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-heymann-aaron-swartz_...

https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz...

And let's not forget why he turned down the plea deal: HE WASN'T GUILTY OF ANYTHING. Jstor and MIT both didn't want a prosecution, and "MIT’s site license for JSTOR [allowed] for “unlimited” use of the JSTOR library." The prosecution claimed he was going to release the downloaded materials publically, which might have constituted copyright infringement, but he had not actually done so at the time of his voluntary surrender.

Thanks for the correction. I don’t know about federal court, but in (my) state court the judges really don’t care what the prosecutor wants. They go by the guidelines, the sentencing report, and how big of an asshole the defendant is. In my state Swartz would have gotten the usual - two years probation, restitution, no contact with victims.

Anyone do federal criminal work and can guess how the presentence report for Swartz might have read?

>if Swartz killed himself because of this case - that’s just moronic

All other arguments aside - calling the actions of someone with severe mental health issues moronic is the epitome of callousness. What's next, the R word?

Come on, show some class.

My point is that he didn’t kill himself because of the case because that wouldn’t make any sense - it must have been mental illness.

Therefore if it was his mental illness, it’s unfair to blame Ortiz.

>Why are we going after Carmen Ortiz again? Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all.

One doesn't follow the other. If anything, the fact that certain things are left to personal discretion makes it more important for people to speak up when they disagree. In the absence of law to constrain the behavior of the Carmen Ortiz's of the world, social pressure is all we have.

> absence of law to constrain the behavior of the Carmen Ortiz's of the world, social pressure is all we have.

How about changing the laws? You do realize that we literally pick the law-makers, right? I guess writing blog posts is easier.

I always wonder why people assume writers are

a) not doing anything else to further goal and

b) that writing is absolutely, totally useless even though lots of people read it and they, themselves, felt compelled by the writing to respond

I guess they haven't heard the idiom, "The pen is mightier than sword"

Because she tried to rob Aaron Swartz of his future in order to further her career. Indirectly, it worked. Carmen Ortiz used her authority to suck.

>Prosecutorial discretion is the law of the land, after all.

I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it. That seems like a really obvious reason to go after her.

When the regime in Iraq failed, I wonder how many people went after judges and prosecutors to settle scores. These people use decorum to present themselves as righteous arbiters of justice and civility, but often are nothing more than political hacks destroying countless lives.

> I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it.

Discretion means that you're permitted to make whatever decision you think is best. Misusing discretion is an oxymoron.

> Misusing discretion is an oxymoron.

IANAL (are you?) but "abuse of discretion" seems to be a thing

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abuse_of_discretion

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-5-government-organization... (2-A)

But showing someone has poor discretion is the point.

As an example, defending someone that had such generally agreed poor discretion is not, generally, showing good discretion either.

You're conflating the colloquial use of the word "discretion" with the legal term.

Nothing about either use makes her decisions immune to criticism.

She is a lawyer, not an official in the medieval church.

I don't really follow. The claim wasn't that she did something she wasn't allowed to do, by law. The claim is that she crossed moral lines by choosing to do so. Or am I missing some context here?

Or do you have a different meaning on what discretion means? Legally and otherwise.

That's disingenuous, "Discretion" is also defined as "the quality of making good judgements" and "the ability to make responsible decisions" and "the ability to make intelligent decisions". I don't think Carmen exhibited any of those qualities of discretion.

I think a better word for Carmen is unethical bully.

That's fair, imo still a technicality. A better phrasing would be "she was given discretion which she used for her own personal gain."

Sorry, are you arguing that the mere fact that something you do isn’t illegal means you can’t be criticized for it?

Would it follow that you can’t criticize Joe Biden for any of his decisions as long as they aren’t actually illegal? I seriously can’t make sense of your position. What’s under dispute is not whether the act was legal but whether it was a horrible idea.

It’s not a strawman. She’s the direct cause, not the law. If there’s a different prosecutor, it wouldn’t happen, he wouldn’t die.

> The far right and far left (of which Matt Bruenig is decidedly a part of)

Matt Bruenig is not far left, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Policy_Project, he's a democratic-socialist, maybe at most a socialist.

Far left is quite something else! Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics.

Carmen Ortiz bullied Aaron Swartz into committing suicide.

She's worse than the 4chan/kiwifarms trolls, because she used her incredible power and position against him.