Ortiz says suicide will not change handling of cases

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases

by chaostheory • 14 years ago

213 157 14 years ago

EvilLook2• 14 years ago

Yes, well, if it's one thing that we've learned it's that the American legal system is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes. It takes the action of the legislative, executive, or higher judicial bodies to actually change things.

visarga• 14 years ago

Plea bargaining has been here for many years. As bad as it can get, it is the default operating mode. Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. So what can we do ? Is it a good idea to ban plea bargaining? I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining, so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system.

Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?

Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field.

If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.

jacquesm• 14 years ago

> so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system.

It is the reverse. If you have too many cases to deal with because of absurd legislation that criminalizes a large portion of your population then you are already DDOS'ing your legal system. The 'lets try to route all requests straight to jail' option is not a solution for this problem.

The DDOS is cause, not effect, and it is the laws that cause the DDOS, not the fact that people have (in theory apparently) a right to a fair trial.

EvilLook2• 14 years ago

>I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining

Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is.

>Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it.

No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption.

>They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?

Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this...

>If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better.

This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.

msandford2• 14 years ago

Derekp7 came up with a great solution that I will generalize slightly: All cases which go to trial should have to be won entirely by the prosecution (in which case the proper punishment is meted out) or won completely by the defense (in which case no punishment happens). This would strongly encourage prosecutors to only pursue charges which they could actually make stick instead of whatever they can think up that might sorta be tangentially related or have other words in common with the alleged crimes of those they prosecute. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094293

darklajid• 14 years ago

Well.. Can she say something else? I mean - wouldn't any statement remotely similar to "In light of the recent events we will think about our approach and adapt our methods" basically admit guilt and having been wrong before?

In other words: Is this surprising, in any way?

wheelerwj4• 14 years ago

We are deeply distraught over the outcome of this case. We will be examining our procedures to ensure that we acted correctly. Our duty to the American people is to uphold justice for defendants as well as accusers. Mr. Swartz's death leaves us having unfulfilled our obligation to both Mr. Swartz and the American people and was not the intention of this office.

driverdan• 14 years ago

With Ortiz's political aspirations this seems like the worst response she could possibly make. It seems to me that the public would respond better to something like "we'll review our practices to ensure we're best serving the public." They could then just sweep it under the rug and wait for the public to forget. If it came up again they could then they could issue a statement along the lines of this one.

wheelerwj4• 14 years ago

That was my thought process. But she obviously thinks so highly of herself that she can stand up to the American public and defend her position, even though things obviously went sideways.

This is not someone we want in a higher office.

lkbm• 14 years ago

Wait, because she stands by principals rather than the whims of the public, we DON'T want her in office?

9/11 happens: people panic and demand action. School shooting happens: people panic and demand action. I want a leader who DOESN'T succumb to the panic.

genwin2• 14 years ago

Half the public agrees with "might makes right" and Obama is a centrist. I think Ortiz's office will continue to have carte blanche to extort plea bargains using disproportionate threats.

vijayr• 14 years ago

Which is worse? - saying "we'll review" and do nothing, or arrogantly saying "we were never wrong" and still do nothing. In the end though, it looks like nothing is going to change.

It would be nice to have a leader who says "Yes we were wrong, I apologize. Let me fix the system" and actually fix it.

The very least she could do, is stop making more statements.

klibertp4• 14 years ago

I live far away from USA, so I don't know any specifics, but I happen to live in a country where "the public" elected to power a party that openly tried to transform a country into a police state. It's debatable what impact their time in office had overall, but they gained popularity thanks to exactly the same stance Ortiz presents here and maintained it (popularity) for three years thanks to many similar cases. Granted, the victims were chosen much more wisely - a doctor, a politician, a beggar, to name a few - but handling of their cases was even worse, because they were used as a propaganda and displayed in the media from the very beginning, along with a video of breaking door and cuffing said doctor on the ground for example. The politician in question even committed suicide when the police tried to arrest her, and we were told that this was perfectly normal occurrence and that nothing is going to change.

And this is perfectly normal, European country we're talking about...

So no, I don't think this is going to negatively impact Ortiz career, it's possible that she's even saying this in hope of gaining popularity.

I know this seems improbable, but then winning the election by said party seemed improbable too in 2005 and then actually happened. It's easy to look at one's social circle and think it represents "the public". Well, it most often does not.

brador• 14 years ago

I guess...Greece?

farabove• 14 years ago

I guess Norway

welder• 14 years ago

You're exactly right. Many people in conservative states would interpret her response as tough on crime.

n0mad01• 14 years ago

I guess Hungary

betterunix6• 14 years ago

Perhaps she is trying to cater to the far-right, law-and-order types who say things like, "Aaron Swartz was committing a crime and he knew it, so of course he should be prosecuted, just like anyone else!" You see plenty of that attitude on HN.

jeffdavis3• 14 years ago

CYA is more likely.

Turing_Machine2• 14 years ago

She is an Obama appointee. In Massachusetts.

Not exactly a recipe for "far right".

saranagati• 14 years ago

By making herself look so deplorable it will take the attention away from how prosecutors and the judicial system works and instead focus on how SHE worked as a prosecutor in our judicial system.

With as much public outcry as there's been regarding this, I think it's inevitable that she will resign from her role as a prosecutor. By doing this though she may save Stephen Heymann's job and easily be able to land another (probably better paying) job.

marssaxman• 14 years ago

Of course not - that would be an admission that they did it wrong.

wheelerwj4• 14 years ago

How can they not admit they are wrong? A MAN DIED. something went wrong.

jlgreco3• 14 years ago

They are lawyers. To them, unlike normal empathetic humans, admitting guilt is not seen as a nice gesture and part of making amends, but rather just something you do if you are foolish.

oh_sigh6• 14 years ago

Chronically depressed people commit suicide frequently. I'd be interested in hearing your evidence that Aaron killed himself because of his prosecution, besides from the mere coincidence of the two events.

smsm42• 14 years ago

It's like you never have seen politician or lawyer in action. Of course they can. That's their job. They can say anything provided it is useful for them - and right now Ortiz feels it is useful for her to not admit any wrongdoing and rely on her superior to cover her. If the public would not put the pressure on those superiors, she very well might be right.

cschmidt• 14 years ago

"It may lead to the U.S. attorney’s office looking at each case on its own merits."

What a concept: prosecuting each case on its own merits.

wheelerwj4• 14 years ago

"We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently."

How can a suicide of a 26 year old man under prosecution by your office not warrant some sort of change? How can you not reflect and try for a better outcome. To not change suggests that this was an acceptable outcome... which is the point we are trying to make. Prosecution should not be so severe that suicide is a viable alternative.

TylerE4• 14 years ago

The justice department is not in the healthcare business.

Let's not shy too far from the facts here. Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.

olefoo4• 14 years ago

That's like saying that people who block traffic for ten minutes to make a point about nuclear weapons deserved to be charged under the conspiracy statutes with potential life sentences since it was near a federal facility...

There's a certain proportionality that's very definitely lacking in this case.

darkarmani3• 14 years ago

> He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.

Way to intentionally not understand the situation.

IheartApplesDix• 14 years ago

9/10

betterunix6• 14 years ago

"Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences."

Yes, it is obvious to anyone downloading academic papers that they are committing 13 crimes and could be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. After all, changing your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and ignoring JSTOR's TOS clearly add up to 13.

He should have read the law? Have you read the law? Are you sure you haven't committed any felonies today?

I seriously doubt that Aaron really considered the possibility of criminal action for what he did, and certainly not so many charges that he could have been legally imprisoned for the remainder of his adult life. A civil suit by JSTOR would have been a reasonable expectation, and note what Aaron did when faced with a civil suit: he returned a hard drive of files to JSTOR and settled the matter, without any suicidal actions.

Your sort of reasoning -- that he allegedly broke the law, therefore no mercy can be considered and the prosecutor was right to harass him -- is one of the most destructive far-right concepts to have been popularized in America. It is the line of reasoning that leads to teams of soldiers attacking civilian homes to serve a basic search-and-arrest warrant. It is the sort of reasoning that opens the door to the crushing tyranny of overly broad laws and abuses of the justice system. Allowing ourselves to fall victim to the logic that the law is perfect and absolute, that prosecutors have a moral duty to enforce all laws, opens us to a system where nobody is safe from the government.

fusiongyro3• 14 years ago

I have two responses.

The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves. Our community might be certain that his suicide was a result of the prosecution, and there may or may not be evidence of that, but all things being equal, simply being suicidal cannot be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The second response is that these people are lawyers. They're not going to openly admit to having done wrong even if it's obvious because it will only make their punishment that much swifter. Statements like the above are publicly made until it becomes clear that an act of contrition will reduce the penalty. That isn't obvious to Ortiz or her department right now, so there's no reason to expect them to attempt to publicly admit wrongdoing.

Note that this would be true even if Ortiz actually were wracked with guilt. These people are lawyers.

darkarmani3• 14 years ago

So what you are saying is that she is waiting for the plea bargain?

DanBC2• 14 years ago

> The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves.

When a suicidal criminal is caught you do need to prosecute them. That means that you need to keep them alive to be able to prosecute them. Justice is not served when suspects kill themselves. We still don't know whether what he did was a crime or not.

When no person is harmed, and there has been no physical damage, (but with some kind of monetary loss due to shutting off a connection) it's absurd to suggest that 35 / 50 years in prison is a suitable punishment. It's absurd to suggest that any time in prison is a suitable punishment. Note that this applies even if the suspect is not suicidal.

Using these kind of plea-bargaining tactics when you know the suspect is suicidal is cruel.

oh_sigh6• 14 years ago

Ah, so I guess it has been proven that Aaron committed suicide because of the prosecution.

He didn't commit suicide because he was, you know, chronically depressed for years. Obviously, people who are chronically depressed for years but are in great life circumstances never kill themselves(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace)

nemo2• 14 years ago

For the record, DFW wasn't in great life circumstances when he committed suicide. He'd switched his antidepressants that worked but had horrible side effects to another med which didn't work for depression and he fell in deep. When he switched back to the original meds. they no longer worked which left him feeling utterly hopeless in his depression.

WalterSear• 14 years ago

Whatever you say, "Baghdad" Ortiz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf#During...

ChristianMarks• 14 years ago

Not only won't they admit wrong doing, but they will encourage suicides wherever possible.

tomjen3• 14 years ago

Of course not. Psychopaths don't care about what happens to others, only to themselves.

olefoo4• 14 years ago

If you haven't already. Today is a very good day to write your Representative http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

And your Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...

And ask them why this person is allowed to wield the full might and power of the US Government.

If you want to ensure that this gets attention it's a matter of sustained pressure, and of getting both houses of Congress to ask the embarrassing and obvious questions of the Justice department.

cobrausn• 14 years ago

Well, there has been some push from at least one Senator (John Cornyn, R-TX). He does appear to be asking some embarrassing and obvious questions.

http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=InNews&C...

olefoo4• 14 years ago

Yes. However to be really effective the questions need to be coming from both sides of the aisle and from all over the country. That will only happen if you, yes you, reading this; go to your representatives and write, call, and send snail mail.

This is not a partisan issue, it cuts straight to the core of our system of government; when prosecutors misuse their position for political purposes it undermines our system of government and eats at the legitimacy of our institutions.

It's bad when done by Republicans like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leura_Canary and equally bad when done by Democrats like Ms. Ortiz.

ChuckMcM3• 14 years ago

And a pretty easy way to send your congress critter a post card is http://postcongress.io

That said, one wonders which audience Ms. Ortiz is attempting to court with this stance.

tlrobinson• 14 years ago

Are paper letters still taken more seriously than emails by most congresspeople?

enraged_camel5• 14 years ago

>>congress critter

I know this isn't Reddit, but this was one of the most hilariously appropriate uses of the word "critter" I've heard lately.

ck2• 14 years ago

I am suddenly understanding the phrase

"Don't make a federal case out of it!"

malandrew• 14 years ago

Personally, I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case. I want to know what was written and discussed among the prosecutors (Ortiz, Heynman and others in that office) and everyone else involved with this case (Secret Service). I think the Internet will do a much better job of investigating prosecutorial misconduct than any internal investigation could uncover.

Once someone assumes a public office they should assume they are now a public good working for the betterment of the society that appointed them. One of the rights, we the people, should have, is the ability to provide direct oversight; maybe not in real time, but at least post hoc.

nonamegiven• 14 years ago

"I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case."

Similar things have happened, although not always with the government's enthusiastic cooperation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers#Leak

FireBeyond2• 14 years ago

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.

enraged_camel5• 14 years ago

>>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.

jack-r-abbit3• 14 years ago

>>>>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

vermontdevil• 14 years ago

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.

azakai• 14 years ago

> 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?

FireBeyond2• 14 years ago

"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).

jeffdavis3• 14 years ago

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.

larrys2• 14 years ago

"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?

frere• 14 years ago

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.

larrys2• 14 years ago

"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).

noonespecial• 14 years ago

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.

temphn• 14 years ago

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.

tome• 14 years ago

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

ericjeepn• 14 years ago

"Many remark justice is blind; pity those in her sway, shocked to discover she is also deaf."

~DAVID MAMET, Faustus

popee• 14 years ago

What is her mission?

rdl• 14 years ago

I don't think the suicide itself should change how cases are handled, but the revelations about how inherently wrong the prosecution of Swartz was, should change how cases are handled.

You absolutely don't want other cases or issues to be advanced through people killing themselves, or threats of suicide.

You also don't want non-violent civil disobedience hacking to face $1.5mm in legal costs, $1mm in fines, and 13 felony counts and multiple years in prison, particularly when the injured party comes to a successful private resolution with the offender.

Also, the cases in the future should not be handled by USA Ortiz of AUSA Heymann, who should no longer be involved in the practice of law, particularly not as employees and representatives of the people of the United States.

lsiebert• 14 years ago

Congress critter is from MeFi, I Believe.

arbuge• 14 years ago

Precisely why she, and all prosecutors like her, need to go. They can't change - indeed, they can't find or admit fault with their unjust methods.

aswanson• 14 years ago

There is a non-trivial proportion of humanity that simply cannot change their mind, cannot admit when they are wrong. If you think long enough about it and follow a rule-based mindset absent objective feedback (as fields such as law allow), you can justify almost any action taken ad-infinitum, as long as you follow a rule book and pattern you have practiced for years. That said, mentally inagile, cognitive calcified people should be culled from our justice system ruthlessly. We need people who can think through proportion, harm, and justice on a dynamic basis.

jijji• 14 years ago

She should be disbarred for ethics violations.

philprx• 14 years ago

Adding insult to injury. Wow... nice, Department of _Justice_. Do that apply to justice to the dead to respect their memory?

linuxhansl• 14 years ago

She's toast and she knows it. She's trying to save her political career.

It doesn't even matter anymore whether she's right or wrong. Personally I feel that she mishandled this case (and that the whole system is pretty messed up), but the truth is somewhere between the two positions we keep hearing.

wisty• 14 years ago

I wish more people were pissed off at plea bargaining. Yes, I know people think, the US needs it. But there's plenty of countries without plea bargaining (or at least, with a greatly reduced plea bargaining system). IMO, it should simply result in a reduced sentence, at the discretion of the judge (as evidence of remorse, not a reward for making the court's job easier).

The government doesn't threaten you with a bigger sentence if you refuse to be unconstitutionally searched (if you tell the cops to come back if they get a warrant). You don't get a smaller sentence for waiving your right to a silence, or counsel. But you do get a smaller sentence for waiving a right to a fair trial. I can't really see how this is constitutional, but being forced to waive other rights isn't.

Yes, things would be easier if criminals were coerced (by the threat of a larger sentence) to let the police search them without a warrant, to answer everything the police asked, to not to lawyer up, and to confess their guilt without a trial. But it's not the way a free country works.

And you are punished with stiffer sentences. If criminals are getting off lightly (due to plea bargaining), then politicians will raise sentences. This means people who do nothing more than demand a fair trial will receive stiffer punishments than they deserve.

I can't see how a lack of fair trials serves justice either. It encourages lazy police work. And an unfair process turns people against the system. If people accept plea bargains, do they really see themselves a guilty, or simply persecuted by "the system"?

josephlord• 14 years ago

I largely agree with you though some sentence reduction for making the court's life easier, avoiding the cost (emotional, time and financial) to witnesses (including the victim) is appropriate it is a question of the magnitude. 10x sentence difference is undue pressure that is enough to make the innocent plead guilty (or worse). An expectation of 30%-50% sentence for pleading early is a significant reduction but not in most cases enough to make an innocent person plead guilty unless it crosses a threshold that allows a suspended sentence or community punishment (in which case the magnitude of any improper conviction is relatively low).

I'm in the UK were there is talk of cautiously introducing some form of plea bargaining. At the moment I think pleading guilty (and how early it is done) is just something taken into by the judge. There may be some deals on the charges brought when there is some discretion but I don't think the opportunities are that great.

Ortiz says suicide will not change handling of cases

Related Stories