Swartz’s attorney, Elliot Peters, stated that prosecutors at one point offered a plea deal of four months in prison and pleading guilty to 13 charges, and warned that if Swartz rejected the deal, future deals would be less attractive;[45] and that two days before Swartz’s death, that “Swartz would have to spend six months in prison and plead guilty to 13 charges if he wanted to avoid going to trial.”[46] Under the six-month deal, after Swartz pled guilty to the 13 charges, the government would have argued for a six-month sentence, and Swartz would have argued for a lesser sentence; the judge would then be free to assign whatever sentence the judge thought appropriate, up to six months.[47] Peters later filed a complaint with the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, stating that if Swartz didn’t plead guilty, Heymann “threatened that he would seek for Mr. Swartz to serve seven years in prison,” a difference in duration Peters asserts went “far beyond” the disparity encouraged by the plea-bargain portion of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.[32]
Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, told The Boston Globe: “I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk. His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.”[48]
Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. “JSTOR signed off on it,” he said, “but MIT would not.”[48]
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that people can agree to a plea deal and then the prosecution can request harsh penalties anyway. Well, I mean they can, but no one would, because the judge would yell at them and then ignore the request. That’s just not how it works.
Edit: Actually, I don’t even see how the prosecution in this case could have managed to try to sneak their way into getting the judge to feel like sentencing the Swartz to more than the deal, as they did with Donald Gonczy. The terms of the plea agreement specifically said that the judge could only impose up to six months.
Carmen Ortiz, the US AG overseeing, has arranged plea deals with leniency and then gone for harsher punishment with the judge.
Any ones other than Donald Gonczy?
If a prosecutor is trying to vigorously prosecute, that’s not really an imbalance in the system. They’re not supposed to be fair about it, any more than the defense counsel is supposed to be “fair” about both sides of the issue, while defending the person. The problem is when the prosecutor’s vigor isn’t matched on the defense side (which does happen for systemic reasons, and is a massive injustice).
Why do you think a prosecutor who tries to prosecute people is “the worst type of person” for the job? I would think the worst type would be someone who fabricates evidence or something, followed at some distance by someone who’s not very vigorous about prosecuting real crime so that someone dangerous is kicking around loose on the street.
It sounds like in that one case, the prosecution recommended exactly the agreed-upon plea agreement, but also made statements at trial that were so aggressive that it amounted to undermining the plea agreement. And so, a judge fixed it, because that’s injustice. That’s how the system is supposed to work, I think. Is it more than just the one person?
Also what does any of this have to do with Democrats? Is she a Democrat? Where did that part come from?
There are quite a few examples of her stretching the limits of legality, yes.
They’re not supposed to be fair about it
Well, this is where I firmly disagree, so we can end the discussion here. This is the sort of approach that benefits only the most wealthy, and firmly punishes anyone without the wealth to get the best lawyers possible.
To me, this is a perfect example of the complete disfunction of the justice system.
Also what does any of this have to do with Democrats?
She is a Democrat, yes, and an Obama appointee as part of the effort to appear tough on crime and appeal to the conservative voters. So its perfectly relevant IMO.
There are quite a few examples of her stretching the limits of legality, yes.
Such as? You said she “arranged plea deals with leniency” et cetera and I’m curious what the other ones were.
Well, this is where I firmly disagree, so we can end the discussion here. This is the sort of approach that benefits only the most wealthy, and firmly punishes anyone without the wealth to get the best lawyers possible.
Oh, I wasn’t saying the system was at all fair. It’s horribly rigged against defendants, with that as just one of the many ways. I’m just saying that the solution of having prosecutors not really try to prosecute, or decide the justice of the case themselves and then prosecute vigorously or not depending on whether they think before trial that the person is guilty, is not a good fix for that system, and it’s weird to accuse a prosecutor of being “the worst kind” because she was prosecuting people at the limits of her ability.
I think properly funding and resourcing legal aid, getting rid of cash bail, and removing some of the tools like extended detention before a hearing that prosecutors use to put pressure on people, would all be necessary steps before we have something approaching justice. You just picked kind of a weird part of the system to identify as the problem, I think.
I won’t make you continue to talk about it if you don’t want.
I’ve got plenty to do aside from have a detailed discussion.
She is an extreme example of the exact issues being brought up. She chose to make this a case, local prosecutors intended to just drop it. JSTOR and MIT were going to drop it. She historically has pushed extreme narratives around evidence. There are plenty of cases out there showcasing her behavior, you’re welcome to look them up. You can even find a few more references in another comment I made here
My opinion remains the same - I dont know that it would have made a difference. She wanted to make a name for herself, the people never mattered to her.
You can look up motel caswell. How she went after teamsters for picketing top chef WITH RACKETEERING charges. How federal judges have pointed out this was prosecutorial discretion, and how she wanted to make a name for herself.
But I have zero interest in a back and forth over my opinion of Ortiz and her role in Swartz’s death. All to gain higher status for her political goals, what actually happened be damned.
The prosecutor has a history of agreeing to leniency in plea deals then going for incredibly harsh penalties after.
I don’t believe a plea deal would have made a difference, unfortunately. A different US AG and I think it would have made a difference.
Well, a different AG and I doubt it would have been remotely the same case, if it even went to actual prosecution in that scenario.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#Plea_negotiations
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that people can agree to a plea deal and then the prosecution can request harsh penalties anyway. Well, I mean they can, but no one would, because the judge would yell at them and then ignore the request. That’s just not how it works.
Edit: Actually, I don’t even see how the prosecution in this case could have managed to try to sneak their way into getting the judge to feel like sentencing the Swartz to more than the deal, as they did with Donald Gonczy. The terms of the plea agreement specifically said that the judge could only impose up to six months.
I’m aware.
Carmen Ortiz, the US AG overseeing, has arranged plea deals with leniency and then gone for harsher punishment with the judge.
Which is why I say it may have made no difference - she may have gone for harsher penalties anyway, with the same result.
She was an absolutely awful pick IMO. The worst type of person for the office she held.
Edit: Look her up on Wikipedia and find the Donald Gonczy case.
An article for reference as well.
What case(s) did this happen in? Where can I read more about this?
See edit, sorry didn’t include that at the time.
She is a perfect example of democrats trying to be “tough on crime” in the worst possible ways.
Any ones other than Donald Gonczy?
If a prosecutor is trying to vigorously prosecute, that’s not really an imbalance in the system. They’re not supposed to be fair about it, any more than the defense counsel is supposed to be “fair” about both sides of the issue, while defending the person. The problem is when the prosecutor’s vigor isn’t matched on the defense side (which does happen for systemic reasons, and is a massive injustice).
Why do you think a prosecutor who tries to prosecute people is “the worst type of person” for the job? I would think the worst type would be someone who fabricates evidence or something, followed at some distance by someone who’s not very vigorous about prosecuting real crime so that someone dangerous is kicking around loose on the street.
It sounds like in that one case, the prosecution recommended exactly the agreed-upon plea agreement, but also made statements at trial that were so aggressive that it amounted to undermining the plea agreement. And so, a judge fixed it, because that’s injustice. That’s how the system is supposed to work, I think. Is it more than just the one person?
Also what does any of this have to do with Democrats? Is she a Democrat? Where did that part come from?
There are quite a few examples of her stretching the limits of legality, yes.
Well, this is where I firmly disagree, so we can end the discussion here. This is the sort of approach that benefits only the most wealthy, and firmly punishes anyone without the wealth to get the best lawyers possible.
To me, this is a perfect example of the complete disfunction of the justice system.
She is a Democrat, yes, and an Obama appointee as part of the effort to appear tough on crime and appeal to the conservative voters. So its perfectly relevant IMO.
Such as? You said she “arranged plea deals with leniency” et cetera and I’m curious what the other ones were.
Oh, I wasn’t saying the system was at all fair. It’s horribly rigged against defendants, with that as just one of the many ways. I’m just saying that the solution of having prosecutors not really try to prosecute, or decide the justice of the case themselves and then prosecute vigorously or not depending on whether they think before trial that the person is guilty, is not a good fix for that system, and it’s weird to accuse a prosecutor of being “the worst kind” because she was prosecuting people at the limits of her ability.
I think properly funding and resourcing legal aid, getting rid of cash bail, and removing some of the tools like extended detention before a hearing that prosecutors use to put pressure on people, would all be necessary steps before we have something approaching justice. You just picked kind of a weird part of the system to identify as the problem, I think.
I won’t make you continue to talk about it if you don’t want.
I’ve got plenty to do aside from have a detailed discussion.
She is an extreme example of the exact issues being brought up. She chose to make this a case, local prosecutors intended to just drop it. JSTOR and MIT were going to drop it. She historically has pushed extreme narratives around evidence. There are plenty of cases out there showcasing her behavior, you’re welcome to look them up. You can even find a few more references in another comment I made here
My opinion remains the same - I dont know that it would have made a difference. She wanted to make a name for herself, the people never mattered to her.
You can look up motel caswell. How she went after teamsters for picketing top chef WITH RACKETEERING charges. How federal judges have pointed out this was prosecutorial discretion, and how she wanted to make a name for herself.
But I have zero interest in a back and forth over my opinion of Ortiz and her role in Swartz’s death. All to gain higher status for her political goals, what actually happened be damned.