Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."

> Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement.

I agree with previous posts on the matter, which argued that the system of insane maximum penalties + plea bargaining is the modern, "civilized" version of inquisition, i.e. producing guilty pleas under the prospect of torture.

If you translate Carmen Ortiz' statement to "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – to break the defendant's kneecaps" (translation, not equation!), you may get a better idea of why her claim may be absolutely accurate, and still entirely missing the point.




Of course they will threaten him with it but did he really think, or did his lawyers really tell him he would serve long years of hard time?

I wonder if he ever considered the fact that even if he did serve time, he would always be seen as some kind of folk hero who would have been welcomed with open arms by all his peers upon release. It would have been a situation of him, all his peers and everyone he respects against the system, which imho is not that bad a situation. Still a much better situation than for example the one Assange find himself in.


That's a question you'd have to ask his lawyers.

If you look at other cases, from the Pirate Bay to Wikileaks, you'll see that there are always options. Aaron didn't see any. I'd find it almost disgusting to make a judgement. Abstract reasoning can completely break down when you're facing a concrete, threatening situation. And the prospect of becoming "some kind of folk hero" may look very different if that's supposed to be you.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: