Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

http://harpers.org/blog/2013/01/carmen-ortiz-strikes-out/

by pron • 14 years ago

383 264 14 years ago

This column is a little over the top in places, but it links to this interesting article on a retired federal judge who is familiar with Ortiz & co. commenting on the case.

http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...

Fishkins• 14 years ago

Why do they call it a prank? My impression is what was nothing of the sort.

watty• 14 years ago

Because it's a ridiculously sensational article.

> ...Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime.

cardamomo2• 14 years ago

Alternatively, to avoid labeling the JSTOR downloads as a hack, which has different connotations for Harpers' readers and the public in general as it does here.

Peaker• 14 years ago

It definitely wasn't a "hack", though I wouldn't call it a prank either.

BenoitEssiambre• 14 years ago

It's true that it didn't have the same intent as a prank. However, purely in terms of his actions, I can easily imagine students doing much more intrusive and ToS breaking things than Aaron did on an university network to execute a prank.

Downloading from a network in a manner that violates the network's ToS would make for a particularly tame prank.

DanBC6• 14 years ago

No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank.

'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.

raldi5• 14 years ago

> No-one got hurt. No damage was done.

If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right?

If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.

scott_s• 14 years ago

I think it still has the wrong connotations. I think it's reasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the case to interpret "prank" to mean that there was no political motivation behind it. That it is better than "federal crime" is a false dichotomy.

tzs• 14 years ago

Wouldn't MIT losing all JSTOR access for several days count as damage done? Given MIT's research focus and its size, it is hard to imagine how that could not have disrupted the work of a lot of researchers.

cardamomo2• 14 years ago

This is a very intelligent, informed summary of the mounting case against the prosecutors. The author minces no words when describing Ortiz' and Heymann's strategy of charging Swartz with a battery of preposterous charges with the express intent of making any action except accepting a plea bargain (and thereby pleading guilty to all charges) the only reasonable approach: "[T]hey assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him."

But what raises the deepest concern when I read this article is that the author continues on to describe Swartz's case not as a particularly bad example of prosecutorial oppression but rather as an exemplar of justice in the United States: "The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."

What can we do about this?

polemic• 14 years ago

This.

While Ortiz will be the convenient (and rightful, I suppose) scapegoat in this instance, she's a symptom of the problem and not the cause. There are far more fundamental problems with the DoJ, and until they're addressed (time and cost of mounting a defence, overly aggressive prosecutions, lack of oversight and discretion), nothing will change.

tunesmith2• 14 years ago

I know that "don't treat the symptoms! treat the root cause!" is a common, almost unassailable sentiment, but lately I've been thinking there are problems with it.

In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect on the cause behind it.

A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injury. So then you go and run on it, and it makes the knee injury worse. You treated the symptom, and nothing changed.

But there are definitely examples where treating the symptom does help. For instance, someone is temporarily depressed because of a unresolved situation in their lives. And yet, they cannot address the situation because the depression is in the way. So, they take an anti-depressant, and then maybe they can resolve their root cause, and then maybe they can go off the anti-depressant.

Someone like an Ortiz, yes, is a symptom of a deeper problem. But I'm not convinced it is like the pain in a knee, where treating it will make zero difference. A bum knee isn't exacerbated by the pain. But the system may be exacerbated by Ortiz. A bum knee doesn't become a bit less bum from witnessing the taking of a pain med. But if the system recognizes an Ortiz downfall and receives a data point of what "going to far" is, then maybe that would have an effect.

Probably not a sufficient effect, probably not enough, but I'm just pointing out that the fact that Ortiz is a symptom, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to believe that "nothing will change". Also not sufficient reason to believe that the symptom should not be treated.

btilly• 14 years ago

I only partially agree.

My personal belief is that when prosecutors know that there is a chance of cases blowing up and destroying their careers, as is happening here, they have an incentive to be careful. And likely will be more careful for some time. This is a good thing - even if it helps much less than fixing the system.

That is why in many, many corporate cultures there is an effective policy of responding to problems by publicly identifying a scapegoat and throwing the book at them. It is an easy action that makes a marginal difference for a short time.

So this is better than nothing. Unfortunately it is not very good. First of all the deterrent effect is only temporary. Secondly you get two-tiered justice where defendants who seem likely to have the potential to raise such a firestorm of protest are more protected than defendants who don't. Thirdly the identification of a scapegoat relieves pressure to come up with a better fix.

Therefore I am modestly in support of the current corrective process. I would like to see something better. I will encourage better things. I know the shortcomings of scapegoating. However it is better than nothing. If this is all that this case is likely to achieve, it was still a somewhat useful response.

fatbird4• 14 years ago

Urge your congressperson to support Lofgren's law as it stands. That would do one thing, which is defang the law they were using to bully Swartz.

pvaldes6• 14 years ago

"The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."

And it seems to be pretty common,

This is another example, a marine biologist bullied and with her life destroyed for "feed the whales". The history and treatment of this girl by another "Ortiz" really sucks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083331/Marine-biolo...

"Ms Black could receive a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a half million dollars in fines. Each of the feeding charges carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine."

pvaldes6• 14 years ago

After six long years of accusations and demands that Nancy plead guilty to crimes she did not commit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) out of Washington, D.C., went before a secret grand jury. Without any opportunity for Nancy or her attorneys to present evidence or cross-examine the prosecutor's witnesses, the DOJ attorneys obtained on January 4, 2012 an indictment charging Nancy with two felonies and two misdemeanors in the process of doing her research on orcas and operating a whale-watching boat.

meh01• 14 years ago

"Her prospects look grim. Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.)"...

And that's when everyone should stop reading. Issa is a tea party loon.

Vivtek3• 14 years ago

You can't deny the Tea Partiers know how to work a bandwagon, though. Plus Issa is far, far older than the Tea Party and he'll be in office after they're measuring the dustbin for the new curtains.

wglb• 14 years ago

Yes, but it looks like he is seriously going after her.

rosser• 14 years ago

Ad hominem.

rubiety• 14 years ago

Yep. "Genetic Fallacy" more specifically. Very widespread.

il• 14 years ago

It's all too easy to dismiss someone completely based on their politics, but this(and government overreach in general) is one of the issues that the left and right should be able to come together on.

Remember, Issa was one of the leading voices in Congress against SOPA.

alexqgb4• 14 years ago

Issa is corrupt as hell. I mean, he has a business empire that he runs from a different part of the floor on which he has his CA office. Even by the shady standards of Congress, this is pushing it. But he was on the right side of SOPA/PIPA, and he was there before it was the safe, obvious place to be. He's got brass and he's very aggressive. If I were Ortiz, I'd take him seriously.

eitland2• 14 years ago

Is corrupt the right word here? Doesn't corruption have to be linked to bribery in some form?

Vivtek3• 14 years ago

I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that!

Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out of control, when this is the way DoJ does everything it touches and everybody knows it.

malandrew4• 14 years ago

This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable at Nuremberg. Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann. They had the power and discretion to correct the course of the out of control prosecutorial train, but instead chose to proceed full steam ahead.

thoughtcriminal2• 14 years ago

Mother Theresa once said that when she looked upon the many she could do nothing, but when she focused on the one, she could do something.

The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.

asmithmd1• 14 years ago

Ortiz specifically has brought other cases that have made me furious. Check out this one where she is trying to seize a family owned budget motel. There is no complaint whatsoever against the owner, but about once every other year the cops bust some low-level drug deal. The motel is paid-off and owned by the son of the founder and is worth 1.5 million, therefore she saw an easy civil forfeiture target. She is out of control and not helping the people of Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...

cabalamat• 14 years ago

> Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann.

I agree. They should have everything possible bad happen to them. Both to ruin their lives -- which is what they deserve -- and to make them an example for others.

alexqgb4• 14 years ago

Really not getting the impression that Ortiz was a good soul trappend in a bad system. To the contrary, she seems to be the embodiment of the bad system. To the good souls who are actually trapped alongside her, she's a prime example of the problem they're facing, in that monsters like her are what gets promoted, leaving people who are better than her no choices beyond going along quietly or exiting altogether. I mean, just consider her deputy. When people talk about the bad driving out the good, this is what they mean.

Natsu6• 14 years ago

> Little to no commercial value?

Have you ever tried to sell a diamon, err, scholarly article?

aheilbut• 14 years ago

Rightly or wrongly, Elsevier makes a pretty decent business out of it.

whyenot• 14 years ago

Elsevier et al have done very well selling articles bundled as journal subscriptions. Claiming articles have no commercial value while at the same time railing against publishers is cognitive dissonance at its finest.

MichaelSalib19• 14 years ago

JSTOR sells access to its archive for $50K/year. That seems pretty damn valuable.

I think that if Swartz successfully released the JSTOR archive, their entire business would have withered and died. Once you can buy a DVD on the street for $3 that held the entire thing, it gets harder and harder for university libraries to justify paying $50K/year. Their customer base wouldn't dry up overnight but over a few years, you'd see library departments squeezed for cash (and they all are) killing their subscriptions. With JSTOR access drying up, grad students and professors would make do by torrenting or copying DVDs; it would be an open secret, a technically illegal but universally accepted practice.

I don't think Swartz could have profited from this scheme, but he could have destroyed a large amount of financial value; JSTOR's a $50million/year organization.

btipling• 14 years ago

I agree that the lionization of Aaron is maybe getting a little out of hand. He was an accomplished and notable young person, few would deny this, but let's keep it realistic.

hyperbovine• 14 years ago

The easiest way to be born a genius is to become rich or die.

Natsu6• 14 years ago

Which statements, specifically, do you see as being unrealistic?

Edit: I'd like to know what the downvoter is thinking, too, but I wonder if I'll get any answers.

moxie• 14 years ago

I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day.

So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable.

But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.

wavesounds• 14 years ago

I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.

warmwaffles2• 14 years ago

> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge.

Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.

MichaelSalib19• 14 years ago

I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends".

I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.

smsm425• 14 years ago

At least we can hope the successor will tread more carefully when it comes to prosecuting somebody that is obviously not a hardened criminal but an activist going too far in their zeal to correct the perceived injustice. Small win, but better than nothing.

monochromatic3• 14 years ago

Why is Ortiz "obviously disgusting"?

ahna3• 14 years ago

I've seen this sentiment expressed over and over here this week, and it's really frustrating to read.

Want to stop people speeding on a road? Issue tickets. In some sense, that's not fair -- people still do it and get away with it, why single out one person? But having a non-zero possibility of a negative consequence is a net disincentive to the behavior. Even if it's enforced somewhat randomly.

Hypothetically: let's suppose that our goal is to stop "the system" of prosecutors threatening multiple felonies against citizens for behavior that most other citizens do not consider worthy of a consequence as serious as jail time/felony conviction. Let us also assume that some prosecutors do this to get prestige/promotions. If there are well known examples of positive consequences, and no examples of negative consequences, then the incentives for our hypothetical prosecutor are pretty clear.

It seems fairly obvious that if Ortiz and Heynmann face seriously negative career consequences, it changes the cost/benefit calculation for other prosecutors, even those whose main concern is career advancement.

There aren't many ways to hold public officials accountable besides public outcry.

I do agree that the root problem is the human psyche. We have all kinds of bugs/heuristics (depending on how you look at it) for social behavior. These lead to group behaviors that us abstract thinkers find frustrating. Unfortunately, this isn't going to get fixed until 20+ years, and that's if you're on the optimistic side about transhumanism. So in the meantime we have to use the tools (and brains) that we have.

rhizome4• 14 years ago

As far as the prosecution goes, here's some interesting explorations:

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...

krutulis• 14 years ago

That is a fascinating account of some events related to the "investigation" of Aaron. I'm not sure whether they amount to attempted revenge and harassment or are the result of incompetence on the part of those leading the attack. Either way, the net effect appears to be an abuse of power that would have tormented anyone.

And: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-t...

temphn• 14 years ago

The press will never get everything 100% accurate, but let's look on the bright side. A week ago, many lawyers (example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339) were assuring us that seeing any accountability for Ortiz and Heymann would be a "fantasy", that this wasn't the way things worked, that hackers had to wise up and embrace their impotence.

That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the movement against SOPA/PIPA), we can see an embryonic new power arising in the Internet, a power which can drive mainstream media coverage which in turn drives political decision-making.

This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.

mpyne15• 14 years ago

> This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.

I've seen more prevaricating (and sometimes outright lying) this week from the hackers than from the lawyers so I, for one, hope that the lynch mob ceases immediately.

noonespecial• 14 years ago

I saw something different. In the end I don't even care about if "hackers were right". I saw the fact that when enough people get upset enough about what their "representatives" are doing ostensibly on their behalf, they can cause real change, even if that change is just removing a single individual from office.

Those in office, even the appointed ones, really do need to care about what the people they represent think. I find that refreshing.

betterunix7• 14 years ago

"Little to no commercial value?"

This is one thing is was absolutely correct: those articles had almost no chance of being sold at $20 a piece. In fact, the commercial value has little to do with the articles themselves, since JSTOR and journal publishers make the bulk of their money from subscriptions, which libraries will pay for regardless of the availability of articles by other means, and by offering search services, which Aaron was not preparing to offer. The claim that Aaron's plan would have caused any measurable harm to JSTOR or any of the publishers it contracts is dubious.

It is also worth noting that the government is not supposed to be in the business of indiscriminately protecting commercial interests. Even if we assume that sharing these articles via BitTorrent would have damaged JSTOR's business, so what? The purpose of academic publishers in our society is to make knowledge available on a widespread basis, and if BitTorrent does a better job we should have switched to BitTorrent long ago. Academic publishers are not like the RIAA or MPAA; where the music and movie businesses can claim that their profits pay for the entertainment they release, journal publishers cannot make such a claim, because the research they publish is paid for by someone else, the peer review process is voluntary, and many journals even have volunteer editors.

I agree that the characterization of Aaron's behavior as a "college prank" is unrealistic; a better characterization would have been "heroic."

d0mine• 14 years ago

You're misrepresenting the article. It explicitly states:

  > The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice 
  > system also know that it was a common one.

The tragedy highlighted the common issue.

dexter313• 14 years ago

Important part:

Prosecutors Ortiz and Stephen Heymann turned to a standard trick while pursuing the case, mounting a total of thirteen felony counts against Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime. Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining process. More to the point, they assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him. The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one.

mr_luc• 14 years ago

Thanks for highlighting that; I read the article and felt that this paragraph stood out for the right reasons.

I've read some negative comments about the article, which surprised me; as this paragraph proves, the article isn't painting Ortiz as a rogue exception to the rule.

kenthorvath• 14 years ago

Ortiz will answer for her actions, perhaps not as a matter of law, but certainly as a matter of common sense and decency.

No one should be exempt from behaving like a decent human being, and one does not need to break the law in order to be fired for executing poor judgment.

tosser23• 14 years ago

It is now taken as an article of truth that Ortiz drove him to suicide. Is there any direct evidence that he did it because of the prosecution or is it only assumed?

lhnz• 14 years ago

Not sure what the purpose of that question is as it seems fairly obvious that without Aaron around it would be impossible to prove with 100% certainty that the suicide was due to the prosecution.

However, I am sure you agree that it is highly-likely due to the aggressive nature of the prosecution and voiced opinions by his family and friends that this was having a very negative affect on his emotional well-being. That might be conjecture but it's better conjecture than believing he committed suicide for no new reason.

edit; I noticed you just down-voted me; I understand it's difficult to deal with being called out online. That said, I would like to point out that your implication that the burden of proof should be on proving Ortiz has some responsibility for his suicide in your insinuation that ”It's now taken as an article of truth that Ortiz drove [Aaron] to suicide” is false. There has been a lot more evidence that there the prosecution was over-reaching and that Swartz was affected negatively by this than there has been otherwise. Obviously your intention by asking that question was to create an easily discredited strawman and perhaps it's a shame I gave you the benefit of doubt when I responded...

DanBC6• 14 years ago

> Heymann responded by saying “Fine, we’ll lock him up.”

Cruel and barbaric. This comment is horrifying.

Many people commit suicide in prison. Being under suicide watch reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk. (I know someone who was under "level 2 observation" (a member of staff within arms reach at all times) in a MH hospital. They managed to self harm so severely they needed to be transported to a general hospital for several surgeries.)

America sends many people to prison. America has awful mental health care. The care for people with mental health problems is so awful that prisons are often the largest providers of mental health treatment.

"Prisons are the largest providers of mental health treatment" should be a statement that we should only read in dystopian science fiction.

monochromatic3• 14 years ago

On the other hand, if saying "my client is suicidal" got defense attorneys anywhere, the only result would be that suddenly every criminal is suicidal.

DanBC6• 14 years ago

Ideally you'd have mental health hospitals with a variety of security levels. Some of those hospitals are for people who pose no risk to others and who have never been involved in offending behaviour. Other hospitals are forensic, are part of the criminal justice system, and take people who are mentally disordered offenders. You have different levels or different wards - wards for people who pose a serious risk of harm to others; wards for people who pose little risk of harm to others but who are really ill and who would otherwise be in jail.

In the UK prisoners have a sentence. They serve the sentence, and then are released. A prisoner who develops a severe mental health problem is transferred to a secure[1] mental health unit (a forensic unit). They stop being a prisoner and become a patient. They get returned to jail when they are well. Some criminals are ill at the time of the offending behaviour, and get sent straight to secure hospitals. These people do not have a sentence. They just have to convince people that they're well. And once they've done that they get returned to jail to continue serving their sentence. So being a patient means things like forced medication, and a lack of information about when you're going to be released or what you need to do to get out.

I take your point though. I hope I haven't suggested that people can use mental ill health as an excuse for offending behaviour.

[1] Secure is a jargon word here, meaning units for people with some police involvement. There are plenty of locked wards, but they don't get called secure units. And there are 'section 136 places of safety' which used to be police cells (still are in many places) but which should really be somewhere therapeutic / clinical. (Section 136 is used by police to take people who are 'mad in public' to a place of safety to be assessed by a doctor.)

EDIT: Wow, wall of text. Sorry.

SagelyGuru• 14 years ago

Damage limitation action stations: 1) Protect and support Ortiz 2) If the going gets tough, throw Ortiz to the wolves 3) In either case, 'problem' solved, resume business as usual

betakappaphido• 14 years ago

4) Shred documents.

sparkie• 14 years ago

#2 Most likely. Ortiz isn't important enough to the status quo to risk significant damage. By "unfriending" her, the state will appease the wolves, at least until the next victim appears - and they repeat the process.

danbmil992• 14 years ago

Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago) came out strongly in his favor, speaking out against Ortiz and prosecutorial overreach.

I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on the right, that is supportive of civil liberties and is concerned about the ever-increasing power and overreach of the government.

philwelch2• 14 years ago

I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them.

This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't liked a single one of them!

danbmil992• 14 years ago

I agree that each side is apparently blind to the civil liberties abuses of their own proponents. If a president named Bush were doing what Obama is doing wrt drones, wiretapping, Justice dept overreach, deportations, and zealous prosecution of Marijuana laws (even when states have clearly taken a different path), I can only guess how many HuffPo articles a week would be foaming at the mouth.

What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death, the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush and Cheney's were inherited by Obama.

This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.

rexreed2• 14 years ago

If only it didn't take a suicide to reach this point where there is finally a conversation and criticism of prosecutorial overreach and looking at the human side of the equation.

lizzard• 14 years ago

I'm glad the coverage of Aaron's death continues to deepen.

amoxibos2• 14 years ago

Anonymous need to get active on her. No one will make her life hell like anonymous can. She will quit by her own will.

amoxibos2• 14 years ago

#oportiz

lordlicorice• 14 years ago

> Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining process. ... Prosecutors were also revealed to have offered a reduced sentence, but only if Swartz pleaded guilty to every charge

This is what really hit home for me. They weren't just filing court documents in a legal strategy to get a conviction. They were telling a man to his face that they expected him to plead guilty to patently insane trumped-up charges.

pavanky• 14 years ago

What is going after one person going to achieve ? The problem is with the system.

anonymouz4• 14 years ago

I've rarely read a more sensational and one-sided piece. At this point, the bending of facts to serve the idealization of Swartz and the demonization of Ortiz starts to seem like nothing more than throwing gasoline into the fire of an enraged lynch mob.

ucee0547• 14 years ago

Enraged lynch mobs are why you have democracy and justice systems and human rights rather than the Diktat of the King, which is what we used to have before enraged lynch mobs.

anonymouz4• 14 years ago

It is a fallacy to assume that just because some lynch mobs took part in an effort with ultimately positive outcome (it took much more than a mob to establish democracy or justice systems), all, or even most, of them are positive.

A vendetta against a prosecutor, carried by hugely one-sided, unreflected and self-reinforcing blog-posts does not even come close.

chris_wot2• 14 years ago

Not many lynch mobs care about human rights. Sheesh.

sociotech2• 14 years ago

It reads like a parody of journalism.

bane• 14 years ago

So serious question, what prevents Aaron's family from suing the pants off of the DOJ parties responsible?

sociotech2• 14 years ago

A rule (called prosecutorial immunity) without which it would be almost impossible for the criminal law to function. Would you prosecute Bernie Madoff knowing he could tie you up in court, personally, with millions of dollars' worth of lawyers?

Even without that rule, a tort law claim against Ortiz or Heymann would probably not succeed, absent some proof that their intent was to torment him emotionally. Lessig and bizarre bloggers like Danah Boyd seem to occasionally accuse them of that, but it all seems rather groundless.

drcube2• 14 years ago

I'm 100% behind changing the laws and punishing the overzealous prosecutor. Don't get me wrong.

But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed by the justice system every day get this kind of response, and not just when it's a handsome rich white kid like Aaron.

illuminate2• 14 years ago

It's easier to take on a specific cause than address every systemic ill at once.

"But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed by the justice system every day get this kind of response"

People are taking on the war on drugs, what else is clear-cut and concise enough to address? "Poverty" and "racism" are wayyyyyyyyyyy too complex for anyone to easily identify around it, and the conditions and systems built around both are evasive enough for politicians and lawmakers to blame the systems on "a few bad eggs".

drcube2• 14 years ago

Sure. I agree, it's a hard problem. Doesn't mean it shouldn't get attention.

jrockway• 14 years ago

It makes me sad how reactionary government is. Oritz was overreaching before Swartz killed himself. Why wasn't something done before someone got the death penalty for downloading a few free journal articles?

I'm happy to see the change and the backlash against Oritz, but I wish this happened sooner.

olefoo3• 14 years ago

Yes. We all wish that Aaron had not reached that conclusion. We don't know what he was thinking at that moment, and whether anyone could have said something to change his mind.

My personal view is that suicidal impulses are similar to septic fever; the causes are understood, the consequences are terrible, and both prophylaxis and treatment are effective.

But, it is not always possible to reach victims when they need help.

Beng the target of an unjust and overreaching prosecution is the sort of stressor that could provoke even a strongminded person to suicide.

at-fates-hands• 14 years ago

Wondering if anybody else is scared this is going to set a precedent for people who feel like they cannot endure a federal trial and simply opt for suicide instead.

Over the past several weeks, I've been completely numbed by all the outrage and media this event is generating. If I was a well known hacktivist and saw what has transpired here, it makes it look like being a martyr for your cause is considerably more beneficial than simply lawyering up and going through a trial.

jessaustin6• 14 years ago

If someone feels strongly enough about an issue to give his or her life to advance it, I'm not going to contradict that sentiment. On the scale of things, the media exaggerates far worse things (e.g. they'd have you believe that violent crime in the USA hasn't been dropping precipitously over the last two decades). Also, giving one's life for a cause is a much more ethical action than taking others' lives for that reason, but it seems quite a bit rarer.

(I know that Swartz is said to have suffered from depression which could be considered another factor in his suicide, but I'm specifically addressing this point which is unrelated to mental illness.)

malkia• 14 years ago

I hope this does not lead to another suicide. Really - this is becoming a grilling contest.

olefoo3• 14 years ago

It may be unfair to single out Ms. Ortiz, she is after all only one of many federal prosecutors; but reforming the american justice system is an urgent priority, and we must start somewhere. A society where justice is widely perceived to be available only to the most powerful and well-connected is one that is primed to fall prey to any number of severe and most likely violent pathologies.

The legitimacy of the legal system is the result of centuries of work by jurists, judges, legal scholars, politicians and others; each of whom added their effort to making it so that not only they believed the law had dealt fairly with those who came before it but also that it had appeared to be fair to the rest of society. When that legitimacy is eroded, for personal benefit, for career aspirations, to please those whose favor is sought, for any reason; it takes much less effort. But the damage is subtle, people give lip service to institutions long after they have become hollow shells of their former glory.

In this country, at this time; the law is an instrument of social control, of thievery ( read the literature on civil forfeiture, if that statement bothers you ), of vengeance, and only rarely and incidentally of justice. Most of us know this. But it is one of the truths that cannot be spoken in polite society.

At this time, most of us know but are unwilling to acknowledge, that the law is an outrageously powerful instrument that acts randomly and capriciously. If you happen to be of the wrong color, speak the wrong language, or practice the wrong religion in the wrong place at the wrong time; you can be given a status equivalent to Orwell's formulation of an 'unperson'. If you happen to cross the path of someone who has access to the controls of this fearsome legal apparatus, your guilt or innocence, your rightness or wrongness; is irrelevant. All that matters is whether they decide to take an interest in your case; if you are deemed a target, all that matters is what crime can be made to fit your situation.

It would seem axiomatic, that this is an untenable situation; that once this state obtains, it will not be long before the law becomes a disreputable joke, a sad reminder of former greatness, and a jungle in which everyone is a predator and fears becoming prey.

That is why the reform of our justice system is such an urgent matter. We have eroded the legitimacy of our courts to a degree that their proclaimed fairness is a dismal jest to anyone who has been in prolonged contact with them.

We have allowed our legal system to be infected with concepts of intrinsic guilt, of theft under color of law, of monarchical privilege, of illegal truths; all of which are antithetical to a functional and free society.

keeptrying• 14 years ago

Change happens behind a single event. That event becomes "the cause".

You can't change society by starting from an abstract concept like "justice".

We didnt get the civil rights movements from the concept of "slavery". We got it from a bus incident in which the conductor acted like every other bus conductor in the nation.

Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

Related Stories