Hacker News Reader

Comment by FireBeyond | Hacker News Reader

This is bringing the worst out of HN. In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so, but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.

We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...

This is hardly the first article to demonstrate this, and there are certainly many valid issues to be reviewed and discussed, but many commenters here are demonstrating that we're just as capable of turning into a lynch mob as anyone else.

View on HN

Most people seem to be asking for her to be fired. I waited for a while to see more evidence appear, but at this point it looks pretty clearly like she abused her power. Asking for her to be fired is perfectly reasonable, not a mob.

I am much more concerned that she had that much power in the first place. I don't think she is any worse than many of the other prosecutors. I think we need to reign in the laws that prosecutors use in these situations.

A recent link also said that she liked to use civil forfeiture laws. I can't say I have much sympathy for her.

"I waited for a while to see more evidence appear, but at this point it looks pretty clearly like she abused her power. Asking for her to be fired is perfectly reasonable"

Would you want your fate to be determined by some people who read things on the Internet or even in the New York Times or on the nightly network news? When you say "evidence" are you privy to something that has been specifically vetted and proven to be a fact?

The Department of Justice seems to want his fate determined by those same people, does that make it better? Note all the major news stories calling him a "hacker," just add stonewalling and you have mission accomplished.

Sigh. We know that Ortiz asked for disproportionate penalties and piled-on charges to try to force a plea bargain. We know that even if all the Government's assertions are true, the alleged crime was quite minor, causing neither monetary harm nor physical harm to any person or entity, and yet the prosecutor was seeking decades in Federal prison for punishment. (The idea that she was seeking less punishment has no evidence behind it, and if were true, she wouldn't have needed to add nine extra felony charges a few months ago.)

All those things are undisputed fact, and they are enough, in the eyes of many, to represent prosecutorial misconduct.

>We know that Ortiz asked for disproportionate penalties and piled-on charges to try to force a plea bargain.

That's how every prosecution works. It's not misconduct. It should be, but it's not.

If it should be misconduct, then it is. And if it is misconduct, it certainly isn't serving justice, which founding principle is "innocent until proven guilty", and not "innocent until threatened enough to admit whatever guilt seems like a lesser evil".

This btw goes for Ortiz et al. too. However, since their pressure in Aaron Schwartz case is pretty well documented, and since they refuse to show the slightest hint of regret, their share of guilt in this tragic suicide is pretty clear. What's more, the continued threat that their twisting of the due process of justice represents must be stopped. And this should be a signal for the DOJ to review its prosecuting policies in depth, and remember justice in general a little more, as opposed to political maneuvering.

I don't think there's any reason to single out Ortiz. She's doing what federal prosecutors do. What all federal prosecutors do.

People want to blame prosecutors, but the real problem here is Congress (as usual). Too many things are illegal under federal law. The justice system would take half the budget and we'd all spend half our time on jury duty if we wanted to take every single illegal act to trial. The only way out for the judiciary is to bully people into accepting plea bargains so only a tiny percentage of cases go to trial. If everyone refused to take a plea the entire system would grind to a halt.

Were I in charge plea bargains would be illegal. That would remove the incentive to throw the book at every minor criminal, and if Congress can't allocate enough money to prosecute a crime it's not important enough to be on the books.

More important than firing Ortiz is reforming the American justice system. But because that is very hard, maybe firing Ortiz sends a signal that at least accelerates that a little.

> the prosecutor was seeking decades in Federal prison for punishment. (The idea that she was seeking less punishment has no evidence behind it, and if were true, she wouldn't have needed to add nine extra felony charges a few months ago.)

On the contrary, the idea that they were seeking decades in prison has no evidence behind it, and contradicts the statements Ortiz and others have made.

As long as people are still spreading factoids like this, I think larrys comment is spot on.

"Would you want your fate to be determined by some people who read things on the Internet or even in the New York Times or on the nightly network news? When you say "evidence" are you privy to something that has been specifically vetted and proven to be a fact?"

The problem is that many people have a profound distrust of and disillusionment in the legal system and the government.

Most people who are outraged at Ortiz's handling of the Swartz case, her ass covering, and business as usual attitude after Swartz's suicide have little faith that the very system that put the likes of Ortiz in power in the first place would deal with her abuse of that power properly.

Excuse me, but I am paying her salary, and granting her immense power. She owes me a better explanation if she wants to keep those things.

Aaron had a right to his freedom until convicted. Ortiz does not have a right to her job.

Sure, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe she will clear her name tomorrow. But "business as usual" and "all the other prosecutors do it, too" doesn't cut it any more.

>>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...

This is a strawman and nobody here has said it. The actual argument is that prosecutors have very strong incentives to put as much pressure as possible on defendants, and the latter most often cannot defend themselves because the process is so extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the defendant either has to settle for a plea bargain or lose the trial. Unfortunately, many times they take the third option, which is suicide.

Make no mistake: this isn't about Ortiz. This is a systemic problem.

>>>>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...

>>This is a strawman and nobody here has said it.

Well... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092900

I think you are taking that comment out of context.

That comment is in its entirety... and is in direct response to this submission. I assume "they" is meant to be "Ortiz's office" aka "US Attorneys". I'm not sure what context makes it so that the commenter is suggesting something other than the US Attorneys encourage suicide.

I interpreted it to mean that the actions of many US attorneys - motivated by incentives to win as many cases as possible - push many defendants to commit suicide. I don't think the poster genuinely meant that prosecutors literally tell the defendant that considering the charges, he/she may as well off himself/herself. THAT would be encouraging suicide.

ok. So I'm not "out of context." We just have different interpretations of the comment. I can live with that.

And the fact that American people tend to reward the most aggressive prosecutor with the most scalps on the belt via elections.

Bobba Fett would have been president if he ran.

How else is a citizen supposed to hold an unelected federal prosecutor accountable? Do prosecutors ever screw up? Did they screw up in this case?

Getting her out of office is going to require a big push but it will send a message to every single federal prosecutor in the nation. It's our duty as citizens and as hackers to see justice served here.

As for "valid issues", please enumerate them. What exculpatory facts are there? She's made her statements, twice. She's presented her case in her own words. Zero regret.

> In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so,

I was skeptical at first too, but statements from his friends and family as well bear that out.

> but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.

I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?

"I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?"

There are some comments linked in my comments page that say as much:

- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5079410 - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073420

Please don't misinterpret, but my comment isn't that HN sucks. There has been a huge discussion on here on this issue, a lot of it productive, and admittedly I take more of a skeptical viewpoint, but have tried to contribute. But that doesn't change that there is a not-insignificant portion of comments that have let passion get in the way of reason (though understandably so, in many cases).

" But that doesn't change that there is a not-insignificant portion of comments that have let passion get in the way of reason"

Seem to me like you're doing something similar when you, instead of replying to the actual comments you think are wrong, starts a meta discussion on the spirit of the conversation based on your feeling. It's not very constructive, especially since it's hard to differentiate from someone using it as a rhetorical argument.

"but many commenters here are demonstrating"

I don't find it surprising at all that people have an immediate emotional reaction to something and perhaps initially will be irrational and jump to conclusions. We all do that occasionally.

What is unfortunate though is that after that immediate perhaps irrational reaction, I would hope that they would then give it some thought and say "ok you are right I haven't heard all the evidence (or may never)". Now if you are friends or family it's possible that emotionally that might never happen. You are to close to the situation.

This happens also with trials. People end up disagreeing with the jury (and I'm not saying juries don't screw up) but at least the jury was privy (if not sleeping or swayed by others) to normally much more information then someone only reading summary reports (keeping in mind that there are people that might watch the trial from gavel to gavel).

I don't really care about the cause & effect of his suicide. Everything I read about this case, from the supposed crime to the manner in which the prosecution handled it, is disturbing, both for the fact that they did and for the fact that they do it every single day. The system won't fix itself. I also fear it will get worse before it gets better.

This seems like a good time to turn an old saw over so that the sharp edge faces the other way:

Sometimes "good" people get done wrong in the pursuit of justice. Real life is messy and things don't always work out they way we'd like. But its the system we have. There's room for improvement, sure, but its the best we've got right now. Its no one's fault in particular, sometimes things just turn out badly and the prosecutor loses her job along with her assistants.

Yes. What's more this kind of push is only going to increase the antipathy procecutors have towards what they see as "hackers".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com