White House Responds To Petition To Fire Aaron Swartz's Prosecutor 189
First time accepted submitter devloop writes Petitioners requesting the White House remove D.A. Carmen Ortiz from office for gross prosecutorial overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz, received today what amounts to a denial from WhiteHouse.gov. "Aaron Swartz's death was a tragic, unthinkable loss for his family and friends. Our sympathy continues to go out to those who were closest to him, and to the many others whose lives he touched. We also reaffirm our belief that a spirit of openness is what makes the Internet such a powerful engine for economic growth, technological innovation, and new ideas. That's why members of the Administration continue to engage with advocates to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform as technology continues to disrupt industries and connect our communities in ways we can't yet imagine. We will continue this engagement as we tackle new questions on key issues such as citizen participation in democracy, open access to information, privacy, intellectual property, free speech, and security. As to the specific personnel-related requests raised in your petitions, our response must be limited. Consistent with the terms we laid out when we began We the People, we will not address agency personnel matters in a petition response, because we do not believe this is the appropriate forum in which to do so."
question (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times has this administration embraced a petition and moved forward with it?
Re:question (Score:5, Insightful)
At a minimum they've been a good source of entertainment for eight years. I'll miss them when they're gone.
Re: (Score:3)
How many times has this administration embraced a petition and moved forward with it?
Yeah, because the white house peititions have been so wonderful, they should move forward.
http://theweek.com/article/ind... [theweek.com]
Especially this one: Transfer funds from the drug war to fund the research and development of the genetic engineering of domestic cat girls. Total signatures: 838.
I can't see why this one hasn't had more signatures. Maybe a conspiracy involving Batman.
Another question, do you think Obama even reads them?
I'd hope so! They're even better than the Onion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, getting a response is a significant achievement. It's like nobody remembers previous Presidents. It might not be perfect but it's more perfect than it was. Even a tepid meaningless response like this is something.
Re: (Score:3)
You were expecting change?
Re: (Score:2)
zero?
you know why? because it's not an appropriate forum for them ;DDD.
How many times done anything helpful? (Score:3, Interesting)
How many times has this administration helped make the U.S. government better for its citizens in any way?
The U.S. government has been arranging that the rich get richer [nytimes.com], allowing the violent to be more violent [slashdot.org], and helping those who want to make money by killing people. [vanityfair.com]
For example, the "Affordable Care Act" is, in my opinion, in the direction of other recent changes in government. Instead of 2 organizations betw
Re:How many times done anything helpful? (Score:5, Interesting)
The ACA gathers money from those like myself who never get sick.
Look, there are real problems with the ACA, but this is not one of them. This is how insurance works. The problem is that it's actually a system of graft from stem to stern. The health insurance companies must be eliminated if we are to have working health care in America. That's how you know the ACA is a lie. If it were meant to help us, the insurance companies would be gone, because we would no longer need them.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACA gathers money from those like myself who never get sick.
Look, there are real problems with the ACA, but this is not one of them. This is how insurance works. The problem is that it's actually a system of graft from stem to stern. The health insurance companies must be eliminated if we are to have working health care in America. That's how you know the ACA is a lie. If it were meant to help us, the insurance companies would be gone, because we would no longer need them.
But anything getting rid of the private health insurance companies would never have passed because Big Gubment can't tell those small business owners what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Most national health care covers the day-to-day things, like check ups in public clinics and hospitalizations in public hospitals. They only cover a portion of visits to private institutions and I believe they don't cover things like cosmetic surgeries (like removing a mole).
There's still a place for health insurers with national health care. It's just a much smaller, less lucrative market. With national health care, the insurance companies would have to design and offer an actual product.
Re: (Score:2)
All you do by going to a single payer (Government) plans is move the Graft, Incompetence and Corruption to a single entity, which, BTW, has immunity from lawsuits.
If Blue Cross won't pay for your Dick Enlargement, you can sue. If Uncle Sam won't, you are SOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of countries have health insurance companies (Score:2)
Are you saying that there is no working health care in Germany, the Netherlands, Japan or Switzerland?
There is more than one way to make a "working" health care system. With sufficient regulation you can have an efficient health care system which utilizes private insurance companies (and private health care providers). Once properly regulated those insurance companies nolonger compete with eachother on who is best at denying care or filtering out the expensive patients, but rather on lowering administrative
Re: (Score:3)
Their ability to refuse care increased under the Act. They still won't let you die but they might elide things that they previously provided.
The nice thing about being in the system is that you can get preventative care and screening. As it turns out, it's super nice to catch cancer early. By the time you go to the hospital with a sore throat that won't go away, you're too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACA was announced and pretended to be in operation before the software was ready: How Obamacare's epic fail exposed our government's biggest tech problem. [theverge.com] Whoever is at the top of the U.S. government was obviously completely incompetent. (Often a U.S. president merely pretends to be in charge, hiding what is actually happening, and who is arranging it.)
The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. Douglas Adams - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Re: (Score:2)
How about instead of tearing things down and whining, you love your country enough to help make something work.
"The ACA gathers money from those like myself who never get sick."
You should understand at some point you will be sick, at that point
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Though the reality is that when it's needed most people struggling will ill be able to afford a several thousand dollar deductible be met first.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm sick I'll pay for it out of my own pocket.
If I'm dying, I won't need to shell out money.
The amount of money one pours down the black hole of insurance could easily pay for all but the most serious medical condition. When the money isn't being wasted, it could be used for other things such as food, housing, clothing or education.
I
"Retarded" to be hostile. Drinkypoo said it better (Score:2)
With sensibly designed insurance, like the unemployment insurance our corporation pays, for example, the cost decreases if you never or seldom use it.
Also, drinkypoo's comment just below [slashdot.org] adds a more clear explanation:
"The problem is that it [the ACA] is actually a system of graft from stem to stern. The health insurance companies must be eliminated if we are to have working health care in America."
Re:How many times done anything helpful? (Score:4, Insightful)
I could buy it was about providing healthcare to those without, yet you can try to deny it's about healthcare but your argument falls apart due to it being a "requirement for healthcare coverage".
If it were about healthcare it would be about healthcare not coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the amount attached, not of signatures, but of money.
As much as could be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As much as could be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
...but demanding the head of someone who annoys you is, one: ineffective scapegoaterry, and two: asinine entitlement.
Not sure if you're trolling (in the classic sense) but I'll bite.
This wasn't just about a random stranger wearing ugly socks. This was a government official abusing their official authority for personal gain. As you note, there may be a broader issue that prosecutors have no legitimate need for such authority but expecting government officials to (only) use their power for the benefit of the people generally is hardly "asinine entitlement". And it's not scapegoating if the person actually did the thing that people are angry about.
Re:As much as could be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: I am not defending her any more than I'd defend the gangster used as a classical scapegoat. Neither of their hands are clean. Does she deserve to be fired? I don't know, maybe, but it wouldn't actually do anything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's scapegoating in that it's pinning the problem onto a single person, who ultimately isn't responsible for a systematic issue.
So if there's a lot of crime in a neighborhood then it's scapegoating to punish someone who commits a crime in that neighborhood?
Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue.
Doing nothing,as you seem to be advocating by agreeing with Obama, is also a pretty good way to let it continue.
Does she deserve to be fired? I don't know, maybe, but it wouldn't actually do anything.
The president doesn't make the laws nor does he determine the interpretation of the laws. He has a limited capacity to veto laws - and hopefully we'll see a lot of the in the next couple years. The president's power is to exercise discretion in the execution of the laws
Re: (Score:2)
Does she deserve to be fired ? She drove someone to suicide over a non crime. Yeah she shouldn't be in a position to repeat the action and clearly doesn't have the temperament for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
damned straight!
lets use the concept of 'maybe the next evil bastard will think twice before ruining a life for personal gain', here.
ie, DETERRENT.
that's what law enforcement is all about, right? RIGHT??
so lets use their tools on them. scare the shit out of them so that they will think twice next time before they fuck someone in the ass.
'they all do it' is NO excuse! they don't allow citizens to use that excuse when normal people ignore a law and do what they 'felt' was right.
Re:As much as could be expected (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for firing each and every participant in the systemic issue. Systematically.
However, we only happen to know of one or two at the moment, so let's start there and work our way out.
She's not a scapegoat, just a bad prosecutor (Score:2, Informative)
So to be clear, those choices that she made were not her choices, and its scapegoating to want her fired for making those choices because 'the system'.
Nope, she made the choice to load on bogus charges to try to force a plea bargain, that was her choice within her power. She also did a lot a press work around the same time promoting herself and making statements that called into question her grasp of legal principles like 'theft'.
She is not a scapegoat, she is an bad prosecutor.
Re: (Score:2)
It's scapegoating in that it's pinning the problem onto a single person, who ultimately isn't responsible for a systematic issue.
Yeah, they were just doing their job.
what she did was commonplace, it just doesn't usually happen to someone with whom you've heard of and sympathize with
Oh, so that makes it okay then.
Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue.
No. Saying "what she did was commonplace" is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue. Thanks for doing your part!
I am not defending her
Yes, yes you are. And you're in denial about it. If you knew what you were doing, you'd be a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they were just doing their job.
The correct reply is: "you know who ELSE was just doing their job?" :)
Re: (Score:2)
Was the prosecutor wearing 37 pieces of flair?
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I am not defending her any more than I'd defend the gangster used as a classical scapegoat. Neither of their hands are clean. Does she deserve to be fired? I don't know, maybe, but it wouldn't actually do anything.
So you do what you do with gangsters. You take her down, and let her off easy if she implicates her superiors. You don't just shrug and say, "Oh well."
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point except for this:
"Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue."
That doesn't make sense. If we get one bad prosecutor fired, that is a disincentive to the other prosecutors to be bad. Do you see it differently?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As much as could be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
The procecutor overreacted by bringing down a sledge hammer to swat a fly.
Humans aren't flies and this wasn't some accidental panic on the part of the prosecutor: she was abusing her power, with absolute disregard for anyone who might be hurt, in order to enhance her own personal political standing.
Re: (Score:3)
The prosecutor was indeed wrong. The charges leveled were well beyond the alleged act. Prosecutors are supposed to press reasonable charges. They should never press a charge that a reasonably knowledgeable observer feels sure will never stick if it goes to trial.
Re: (Score:1)
The whole "plea deal" construct would fall apart if prosecutors were supposed to press reasonable charges. In that case, the defendant could just assert his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial without being worse off.
The Department of "Justice" has been working hard on eviscerating the obstructive Civil Right amendments of the Constitution (not just the Sixth), and it would be a major setback if prosecutors were limited to reasonable charges.
It is important for the scheduling of legal, penitential, and c
Re: (Score:3)
They over-press with charges to guarantee a case is pleased out before trial (by reducing or removing charges for the plea).
It shouldn't happen of course, but it is very common.
Re: (Score:3)
A jaywalker also knows he's doing wrong. That doesn't absolve the prosecutor who tries to contort it into a terroristic threat and prosecute a felony.
I'm fine with prosecutors pressing jaywalking charges to jaywalkers.
Re:As much as could be expected (Score:4, Funny)
The prosecutor overreacted...
Now hold on a minute there pardner, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that there point. Unauthorized downloading of academic journal articles is a truly heinous crime. If anything, the decades in prison that he was facing were far too lenient - anything less than death by stoning would have been letting him off easy.
Re: (Score:3)
MIT, the organization whose access was used to download the documents, declined to press civil charge and according to the report [mit.edu] on MIT's involvement "MIT never requested that a criminal prosecution be brought against Aaron
Swartz." (page 13) and "MIT did inform the prosecution that it was not seeking punishment for Swartz, and it did inform the defense that it was not seeking any civil remedy from him." (page 14)
JSTOR, the organization whose documents were copied, declined to press civil charges. A quote i
Irrelevant [Re:As much as could be expected] (Score:2)
MIT, the organization whose access was used to download the documents, declined to press civil charge
Whether civil charges are pressed is completely irrelevant to indictment for criminal charges. If you break into my house but don't succeed in stealing anything of value, you can face criminal charges regardless of whether I sue you in civil court.
and according to the report [mit.edu] on MIT's involvement "MIT never requested that a criminal prosecution be brought against Aaron Swartz." (page 13) and "MIT did inform the prosecution that it was not seeking punishment for Swartz,
And whether an organization decides to "press charges" may be a factor, but is not the only factor in whether somebody is indicted for a crime.
and it did inform the defense that it was not seeking any civil remedy from him." (page 14). JSTOR, the organization whose documents were copied, declined to press civil charges.
Again, whether the parties involved seek civil remedies has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there was a crime that
Re: (Score:1)
Ahh please RT.com ? You might as well link to the weekly world news.
Note I am not saying this prosecutor isn't both a sadist and a sociopath, just that I wouldn't be shocked if RT ran an article about Lincoln actually being a crashlanded alien.
And if you note at the bottom of the page they had a link to a story claiming the U.S. shot down MH370.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much noise not enough signal, If you want to read RT you have to assume everything is garbage and then spend 10 times the time you spent reading checking the facts. At least with other news organs you only have to check what seems a little off or odd.
Note I have nothing against reading things like WWN or RT for entertainment but that's all they are entertainment and something to look at while waiting in a checkout line.
Re: (Score:2)
Pravda
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh
Pravda is the Russian word for truth
And just as follow on (Score:2)
RT has a very strong bias. It's actually worse than the national enquirer or the weekly world news, because it is trying to be propaganda and tell lies that will be taken seriously. Much like the Pravda of old, which is now a much better read because it isn't a propaganda organ.
Re: (Score:2)
Not my vote, kemo sabay.
Re:As much as could be expected (Score:5, Informative)
There was a law (amendment) proposed, it got shot down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also notice the last line on Wikipedia says:
"As of May 2014, Aaron's Law was stalled in committee, reportedly due to tech company Oracle's financial interests.[42]"
So, what does that make the record ? (Score:5, Interesting)
...for Whitehouse.gov as a platform to spur/enact popular initiatives?
0 for 15,000?
Do I believe that 5000 internet dorks signing a petition should compel action from the government? Not at all.
Do I believe that having such a forum should be useful to a government to see what things are 'catching the public's attention'? Sure.
Do I believe that Whitehouse.gov petition site was *mainly* meant as an anodyne to Obama supporters to make them *feel* connected when in effect it is actually meaningless? Absolutely. I believe the actual record of initiatives that came from this proves my point over what, 7 years?
Re: (Score:2)
...for Whitehouse.gov as a platform to spur/enact popular initiatives?
0 for 15,000?
The cell phone unlocking petition actually accomplished something. Then again, the government has never really liked phone companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Pathetic online petitions are a waste of time.
Compared to anonymous coward posts to /.?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see a bit more comment on whether the statement starting "Consistent with the terms we laid out when we began We the People" is true in response - if it is then srely the complains should be able the terms rather than about the response to this petition?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no need to invent words like Cronycapitalism. It is called Oligarchy.
Zero accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power. Because they can never be held accountable when they misuse that power and hurt people. No one in power is ever guilty of anything. Care and recklessness are rewarded equally.
It's easy to say you're for "openness" (and whatever other buzzwords) when you never have to actually live up to any sort of standards. Why should anyone listen or believe or trust? Apparently, we shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power.
And there is some truth to this. However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems. Neither of those things are true.
Re: (Score:2)
The government having less power may not always be the answer but it's almost never a problem. We managed to do very well for several centuries with much less government than we have now. (edit: Seeing as I am sure someone will pointlessly nitpick, I am including the colonial period)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Child labor laws are largely irrelevant due to rising standards of living. Families would put kids out on the street to fend for themselves at a much earlier age. Ask yourself what the alternative is letting the kid go hungry because they are having hard times ? Of course these days the question is likely moot due to reasons contained in the second response.
Environmental laws are a good bit of what moved our manufacturing to China. Hard to argue that isn't at best a mixed bag. It also decimated what were ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me leave you with a few questions then. Do you think Illegal immigrants follow any of our labor laws ? Why are they so willing to make the deal ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Idea is pretty basic. If you legislate in a manner that makes it harder to employ children or any people in particular have you really done people that need the work a favor ?
Re: (Score:2)
However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems.
Sometimes you can't solve problems. Less government power is the answer to not creating new problems.
When you have a non-government problem, you can often escape it or fix it for yourself or at least mitigate it somewhat. When it's the government causing problems, it's a lot harder to deal with.
Pierce, Buchanan, and now Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
..we do not believe this is the appropriate forum in which to do so.
Presumably if the White House believed that such a forum existed, it would have mentioned it. So, essentially, the White House is saying that no forum exists to "address agency personnel matters". But one of the main things the president is supposed to do is insure that good people are executing the laws and policies of the USA.
Sometimes I wonder if Obama wakes up in the morning, looks himself in the mirror, and says "How can I undermine the American public's faith in democracy?" People were angry with all the nonsense that was going on in the Bush presidency and they elected Obama with the hope that he would change it. But he hasn't. It's like he's trying his best to prove that democracy doesn't work.
Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan are widely regarded as some of the very worst presidents in the history of the USA. They were all about civility and comprise and the rule of law - pretty much just like Obama. But then Lincoln came along did what he had to do to get rid of slavery - civil war, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. And he's remembered as one of the best presidents in the history of the United States.
Obama hides behind bureaucracy in order to excuse his moral cowardice. Fine, he's gotta be who he is. But he shouldn't be surprised when he goes down in history with the likes of Pierce and Buchanan.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and makes it easier to stay insured (COBRA was a ripoff)
Oh, COBRA was a ripoff? Well then, I'm sure that you'll lose your verve for the ACA when I inform you that it would cost me just as much to get health care independently now as it did the last time I was offered COBRA coverage. So either COBRA was a pretty fair price, and your employer was really paying a lot for health care, or the ACA is a ripoff, just like COBRA. And you know it's a ripoff because the insurance companies are involved. You know why it costs so much to get that health care? Because the ins
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the constitution guarantees you right to petition government for redress of grievances. There is no guarantee for the government to address those grievances. They made a website, you can petition them, so the constitution is served. Move on citizen. If you like your congress representative, you can keep your congress representative. If you don't like your congress representative, tough luck, you are stuck with him anyway. Demagogracy 101.
translation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see the *cough*s. It was quite literally "fuck off" without any even remote veiling.
Change the policy (Score:4, Insightful)
You voted for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Joe Biden is the copyright industry's puppet and was paid to introduce hard prison time for copyright violation:
http://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/
Note the date. This was already known before Obama's first election. The copyright industry bought themselves the vice presidency.
And all of Slashdot, reddit, etc. looked away, nanana I can't hear you, and voted for that. You voted for this strong prosecution, which Biden implemented as instructed to. The White House are hypocrite psychopaths if they are denying it. The voters are huge hypocrites if they are complaining about it - they shouldn't have voted on this policy. And they will deny it and look away, and vote psychopaths into power again. How fucking convenient for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but Kodos looked equally fruity as a nutcase.
And for the record, I didn't vote for either. Even if I was able to I would not. Why bother? The choice you have is which dick screws you. Does that matter?
Didn't you notice? GOP, DEM, they're identical in all relevant factors. The only reason they make such a huge fuss over it is that they want to be the mugger robbing you instead of the other mugger over there. It's like walking down a bad neighborhood and having muggers on both sides of the road and you
Re: (Score:2)
There's one thing we can all be thankful for: unlike just about every other VP of a two term president, nobody's likely to nominate Biden to run for the presidency.
The petition system is truly ingenious. (Score:2)
The petition system is truly ingenious.
It's a way for the administration to line up 10-, 20-, 30-, 100-thousand people who think the administration is wrong, and then have delivered to them a customized message which tells the signers how wrong they are about things on a very specific topic.
The White House Petitions are designed to serve the administration, not the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
It does remind someone of the "suggestion box" you could find in some companies, doesn't it? Where you can dump your suggestions in which are being routinely ignored until someone comes up with a half thought through idea that they actually wanted to implement but didn't dare to, knowing that the resistance would be enormous, but with the suggestion they can then say "Hey, YOU wanted us to!"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with such things is that failures in the legal process leads to vigilantism. Say, how immune is a prosecutor to a .45?
Obama: NO! YOU CAN'T! (Score:2)
'nuff said
Re: (Score:2)
Yes he can!
Nobody said anything about DOING anything, though. Fuck, people, learn to read and understand the implied meaning.
Ok, the forum was not appropriate (Score:3)
What is the appropriate forum to get the agency to address these matters?
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from recent events, I think the correct way to be taken serious by a government is to make people grab weapons or suicide bomb belts and blow up parts of the inner city. Then you suddenly go from being ignored to being invited to ethical discussions about the future of the country.
Can we stop worshipping Swartz already? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they have not. This petition isn't about Carmen Ortiz, it is about more people trying to make a hero out of a fool. Carmen Ortiz worked hard to get to where she is, don't paint her as a super-villian just because Swartz crapped himself when he realized how stupid his choices were.
Re:Can we stop worshipping Swartz already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Carmen Ortiz worked hard to get to where she is,...
So did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
But what I don't get is the idea that there needs to be a high threshold for replacing people in positions of power. I mean, as a lower level scientist I could end up not getting my contract renewed for any number of reasons ranging from not quite enough available funding, to not churning out quite enough publications, to the boss deciding that my personality isn't quite the right fit for the team. If anything, we should have even higher standards for people in positions of power - if they so much as wear a pair of socks that doesn't match the rest of their ensemble then kick them to the curb and replace them with somebody better. If janitors need to lay awake in the wee hours of the morning with cold fear in the pits of their stomachs that they might not be able to feed their families because of inadequate job performance then high level government officials should fear much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
But what I don't get is the idea that there needs to be a high threshold for replacing people in positions of power
The case never went to court, it was only beginning to take shape when Swartz took the easy way out in hopes of making himself into some sort of twisted martyr. We will never be able to say whether or not Ortiz would have done a good job as a prosecutor or not as the case never went through. I'm not saying we need impossibly high standards for removing someone from their job, I'm merely saying we can't say whether or not she did a good job prosecuting this case as it never reached any kind of trial or ve
Re:Can we stop worshipping Swartz already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Swartz was an idiot, not a hero. Stop making him a religious idol. Has anyone criticized Carmen Ortiz for the prosecution that her office led on Whitey Bulger or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
No, they have not. This petition isn't about Carmen Ortiz, it is about more people trying to make a hero out of a fool. Carmen Ortiz worked hard to get to where she is, don't paint her as a super-villian just because Swartz crapped himself when he realized how stupid his choices were.
You're creating a false dichotomy where either Swartz was a hero or Ortiz is a hero. In fact, neither is a terribly respectable character.
The issue with Ortiz's prosecution was that she offered him a plea deal of 6 months with the alternative of prosecuting him with charges that would carry up to 50 years in jail and $1,000,000 in fines. If she thought the crime was worth 6 months in jail then she should have simply prosecuted it as such (and frankly should be forced to prosecute it as such since she obviously can't be trusted with any discretion).
She's scum. That doesn't mean that Swartz is some kind of hero.
Re: (Score:2)
95% of cases are handled like this. Prosecutor will charge everything under the moon to scare the victim into accepting a plea. It does not matter, what is the size of the sentence, your life is ruined forever. So they don't care how much they actually give you first time, just that you do some jail time and have a record. That's the goal. Tough on crime, so many evil people behind bars. Need to start the governor campaign early on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My point here though is that the case never made it to court. In fact it really was quite a ways from making it to trial.
That is part of why she is evil. Rather then pushing for it to go to trial she intentionally kept a Sword of Damocles over his head as a way to punish him, via threats of jail time and lawyer bills.
Re: (Score:3)
My point here though is that the case never made it to court. In fact it really was quite a ways from making it to trial. This makes it basically impossible to tell what she (or her office) would have presented in the trial that never happened. Calling her an evil person based on a trial that never happened is not exactly well connected to reality.
Yes it is. She charged him and then brought out the plea deal. When he refused she piled more charges on in an attempt to get him to take the deal. Had he not killed himself it's difficult to say where she might have stopped. She's nothing but scum for doing that. Literally, she is as valuable to our society as a piece of dog shit that I might find on the bottom of my shoe. Nothing more.
An honest prosecutor would have brought forth a set of charges that are proper for the crime, offered a plea deal (w
Re: (Score:2)
Governments need to make their jobs cushy, because a) they are already fraught with risk, b) they couldn't afford the salaries if they weren't this cushy. Protection from being fired is part of the job.
Re: (Score:2)
They control 50% of the money
...what? Troll better. Really.
Wealth (Score:2)
Women control over 50% of the wealth. I know you don't like this fact but it doesn't make it untrue.
That seems accurate, assuming you're talking about in the USA. A 2009 study in the Harvard Business Review said women controlled 51.3 percent of wealth in America. A Virginia Tech page, for comparison, says women control 60% of America's wealth (http://www.wlp.givingto.vt.edu/wealth/).
The reason is that, in general, women tend to outlive men. So the wealth tends to flow, eventually, toward women
Re: (Score:2)