In a just, rational world, Aaron would have been lauded as a hero, but our world isn't that world. Our world is one where influence carries more weight than the power of ideas and even though ideas may win in the long term, the effect of power wielded by certain individuals is more immediate and almost always more corrosive.
The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it.
The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of electronic crime which may be overbroad. Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law (because this discretion was historically used to excuse many white defendants accused of lynching black men in the South). They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s).
Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway.
And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on.
No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.
She's at least as guilty as the actual prosecutors on the case.
a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases
b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases
c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued
d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem)
e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few.
f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself.
g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court.
h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of.
i) Those individuals within the government have a social network
j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network
k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government.
It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.
This makes it even sadder then.
If that is the case, then she is BAD at her job. You can't have it both ways. Either way, let everyone know that she is either bad at her job or overzealous.
From my point of view, she is no different from Jack Dorsey, or Steve Jobs, or all those other techheads who are revered for their overzealous and overbearing behavior. The difference is that most people on HN don't, can't, or refuse to understand what her job is and the legal and ethical obligations that come with it.
To put things in perspective: you probably feel the same way about this prosecutor as I feel about the guys running AirBnB.
Somehow one is supposed to be outraged about someone renting out their spare bedroom to make ends meet, but not disturbed by an unelected official railroading and bankrupting Swartz? Indeed, to even defend this lack of accountability while attacking or derailing any measures to hold them accountable? This worldview is absolutely topsy-turvy and incomprehensible; insofar as it has any consistency, it seems to be pure apologia for untrammeled state power, obedience to authority, and rule by lawyers.
While we're on the topic of things HN participants have trouble understanding, you may have a perspective on the legal system to add to the discussion, but you've apparently got something of a blind spot toward what the case you're building looks like outside that perspective.
At least, insofar as you're arguing that the legal system respects and the political system advances the careers of prosecutors who are overzealous (which, by definition, is disproportionate zeal).
> Jack Dorsey, or Steve Jobs, or all those other techheads who are revered for their overzealous and overbearing behavior.
This is like arguing that because some drug addicts are great artists, people should respect drug addicts.
I think it's pretty rare that you find people revered for overbearing and overzealous behavior itself -- when you find that behavior alone, in fact, you find people generally recognized as "assholes."
It's the other stuff that people like Jobs and Dorsey bring to the table that earns them respect and gets people lining up to work with them.
So if you want to make a comparison here that's going to hold up to any real scrutiny, you'd better be able to hold up to the world what Ortiz and her fellow overzealous prosecutors are contributing to the world besides their inordinate zeal -- what their singular gifts and rare qualities are.
Particularly in the moment when the most high profile product of that zeal is that seems to have contributed to someone's death.
You spent most of your comment defending that zeal instead, though. I don't know what that says about the strength of the case you hinted could be made about the details of a prosecutor's job and the legal and ethical obligations that come with it.
No offense to Aaron (who is by all accounts even smarter than I) but many, many people get charged with Federal crimes (even those with 30 year sentences) and don't go and kill themselves. Especially when they're as innocent as everyone describe him to be.
In some of those cases the defendant gets to use it as an opportunity to thumb their nose at the prosecution the entire way along (a kind of "reverse bully-pulpit"). It really sounded to me that Aaron had built a good case for himself once they dropped the trespassing charge, especially in light of everything that's come out since his suicide. So I don't understand it...
You feel like the guys running AirBnB are destroying people's lives?
Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are
overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the
law...They enforce all of the laws on the books unless
someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or
the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce
a particular (set of) law(s).
"The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority."
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has
plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters.
This authority is exercised under the supervision and
direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates.
The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against
the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the
authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is
invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney
General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of
such authority.
The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of
the United States Attorney with relation to criminal
matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the
following:
Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the
United States, see USAM 9-2.010;
Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate
federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010;
Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020;
Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030;
Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial
related questions;
Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an
adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170;
Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and
Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the
supervision of the Criminal Division.