Informed ones, rather than state level prosecutors that try to wash their professions hands clean without some introspection on cause and effect.
It is very obvious how upset you are. But we should want more perspectives, not fewer, especially from people with actual legal training.
Yes. By her own account.
> If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. > I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution.
Agreed, but she has already made up her mind. Aaron killed himself because he was mentally ill, and that's that as far as she's concerned.
> It is very obvious how upset you are.
You don't know the half of it.
> But we should want more perspectives, not fewer, especially from people with actual legal training.
This I agree with. But attempting to whitewash this is not very productive.
My biggest question is this: was there any link at all between the PACER case and the way Aaron was hit over the JSTOR issue?
And if there wasn't what was the reason that Aaron was prosecuted when the aggrieved party was already satisfied that no harm had been done?
I'm pretty sure that with Hal Abelson as the head of the MIT internal investigation that we'll get a very clear picture of what happened at MIT but I'm not so sure that the Justice department will come clean (in fact I'm pretty sure they'll just put the blame squarely on Aaron, just like ms. Lee did here).
And I highly doubt ms. Lee has any of the answers here that would truly give us insight in where this whole thing went off the rails.
Other people seem to suggest that the prosecution in this case was driven by gamesmanship and an urge to "make their numbers". But Heymann is a nationally acknowledged authority on the prosecution of electronic crimes and a deputy chief. Is by-the-numbers quota- style prosecution so endemic to the US Attorney's office that it reaches that level?
I agree that the Abelson appointment is a heartening development.
...I don't quite understand this. Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.
You cited nothing, and your claims are impossible to back with reasonable facts. I suspect you haven't even read about the case (though I see in some of your other comments that you claim to be familiar with the facts).
You want us to be "better", and I agree that anger after the fact is less ideal than anger beforehand. But making ridiculous statements about guilt or innocence is just as bad as condemning the prosecutors for murder.
Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne
Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.
The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature.
Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility.
I also think it’s illusory to believe that jury nullification is in any kind of way a meaningful escape. It’s a fluke, nothing more.
From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply:
Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained:
The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpation, without an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.
Or, as Patrick Henry put it:
Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort ” that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.
[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...
Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury.
In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily convict. Thus, the primary method of expressing displeasure in a law...is to express displeasure in a law (by calling your local legislator).
Jury nullification is part of law. Design is the part that dictates that you, as a defense attorney, cannot inform juries of their power. The prosecutors certainly won't.
Every American jury has the power* to ignore the law and make their own verdict if they decide that's how justice would be served.
Last year, it became part of New Hampshire law to protect the right of the defense to inform juries of their power:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/new-hampshire-adopts-jury-...
*edit: changed "right" to "power"
A. Fully advocate for their client by informing the jury of their right to nullify in open court, especially if that nullification would involve disregarding mere administrative law in favor of a no-frills reading of constitutional law.
B. Refrain from informing the jury to avoid risking their relationship with the court or bar, but inform their client of this conflict of interest so that the client may interject partial self-representation if prudent.
C. Avoid informing the client of their rights or this major conflict of interest, but pretend they're still being fully represented.
Whether this reflects on your honest or competence I do not know, but I do not trust anything you claim. Former defense attorney or not.
It was not intentionally designed into common law, but when the Constitution specified when trial by jury should be used, it was widely understood that this was the power that juries had. And this was approved of by the founding fathers. For instance Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Therefore jury nullification may be an accidental property of common law, but it is NOT an accidental property of the US system of law.
http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctr...
And according to an article that he wrote in 2003[1]:
Jury nullification occurs in 3-4% of all criminal trials. Jurors cannot be ordered to convict or punished for acquitting. A jury verdict of Not Guilty is final.
[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...
Yes they can.[1]
> Jury nullification occurs when juries acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.
I do not agree with kristenlee but I did want to bring up at a jury can let someone walk who is technically guilty.
Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to post the same as 2 other people I read the article then came back to read the comments and I didn't see the other comments as I hadn't refreshed the page
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_...
1. That would have bankrupted him anyway.
2. He was guilty, as far as the law book is concerned.
2) Plead guilty, case is over quickly, not expensive to defend, get convicted, serve 2-3 months in jail, get on with fighting for something you believe in
I would say option #2 is "worth considering".
Anyway, if you want to protest the law, you can let yourself be found guilty at trial, then challenge the law on appeal.
One could walk across a border, for example. Not the easiest course, not as easy as being released from responsibility for one's actions, but better than death for sure.
So, how do you feel about a prosecutor that throws the book at a guy that wants nothing more than to improve the world and does what he can with the skills that he's given?
Does 35 years in prison and a ridiculous amount of money to defend yourself against a federal suit of which the aggrieved party wants no part make sense to you?
Do you feel that the prosecutor had 'no options' here or do you believe there was an element of discretion involved?
It would be really convenient if we could just say 'oh, Aaron killed himself because he was mentally ill', especially for all those in positions similar to yours. But as a person that is a lot more stable than Aaron I have to admit that I have no idea how I would react to being pushed by the system to this extent.
What should surprise us is that there are people that the system can waltz over like this that do not start to consider extreme options.
What about trying to apply for a political asylum in some other country?
It would suck to be sitting in a court room some day and have yourself declared a flight risk because you said on hacker news a few years ago that you would absolutely be a flight risk.
On an unrelated note, I have always admired Socrates' response to Crito.
Very interesting. Especially in light of the recent "NSA spying on US citizens" articles. Someone had mentioned an interesting loophole that is exploited and that data can always be collected about anyone and stored. "Search" does not occur until a human acts to retrieve that data. Also it seems there is no historical limit on the data. So if at any point you become a "person of interest" it is theoretically possibly they could have access to all the data you ever generated since birth, if you happen to be 70 years old at the time.
And all that for trying to do something good.
You describe yourself as a 'public interest lawyer'. I suggest you try to live up to that title and have the public interest at heart. The subject of your little rant definitely had the public interest at heart. At least go and read up a bit more about what actually happened, it's not as if there is a shortage of information.