Hacker News Reader

Comment by gyardley | Hacker News Reader

The excerpt, containing new (to me, anyway) information, that makes this article worth posting:

Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.

View on HN

The original title of this was actually something along the lines of "MIT rejected offer for no jail time for Swartz." Unfortunately, a mod changed it, meaning that finding out the reason I posted this takes some digging.

> "MIT rejected offer for no jail time for Swartz."

It would be interesting to know who made that call. And why.

- from an alum with multiple degrees. I find it particularly bizarre knowing some history of disciplinary measures there.

If correct, that's pretty damning for MIT. Think of all the hackers that will think twice before applying now.

I agree. I can't help but feel that MIT's brand is being terribly tarnished. It certainly wasn't worth it.

Wait, I thought the idea is that the prosecutor represents The People and not The Victim? It's very confusing to me how JSTOR and MIT are involved and yet not involved.

I wonder if this will turn up in MIT's report.

Total guess: may be if both "victims" signed off on an agreement(whether it had legal standing or not) it would make it significantly more difficult for the prosecutors to move forward with the criminal case.

It's a longstanding legal debate, but in practice victims' opinions have a significant role in many plea bargains. Part of it, as far as I can tell, is that the U.S. doesn't have a purely protect-the-public conception of what the purpose of criminal law is, but also has a strong undercurrent of retributive justice. It's pretty common to hear people talk about a trial helping victims "achieve justice". So it's much easier for a prosecutor to sign off on a plea bargain if the victims support it than if they don't, even if their opposition wouldn't have legal standing.

And more recently there is some weak legal standing for victims' opinions on the matter. A number of states, and the federal government, have enacted "victims' rights" laws giving (alleged) victims some right to have their opinions heard in a case. The federal version [1] confers two rights relevant to having their opinion heard (though not necessarily followed) when negotiating plea bargains: 1) "The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding." and 2) "The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case."

[1] http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-victims-r...

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Source:

http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/spee...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com