AdamSmith Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Excellent Atlantic article by Clive Crook on mad prosecutorial overreach turned on Swartz: http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/the-death-of-aaron-swartz/267224/ Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 AS I can't agree to your evaluation on this article... The author states he or she doesn't know the details of the case but doesn't hesistate at all to judge prosecutors. I find it ironical and sad. I wish the author stated which country he or she is from??? Quote
AdamSmith Posted January 18, 2013 Author Posted January 18, 2013 hito, you can drive me nuts. The author makes no claims particular to the Swartz case, just verifiable statements about U.S. prosecutorial malpractice at large. The author is a well regarded Brit journalist, helped run The Economist for a long spell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Crook Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 He looks cute but I find you much hotter.. I think it was a good idea that you kept some distance from me rather than jumping into a marriage... I could have driven you mad... But to use the case he isn't familiar with as an example is not a rational thing to do IMHO... Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 I wish Aaron took a different course and fought in court. He could have made more money than he had spent on the trial with his talent and creativity later if he endured the trial. I see some changes are made in the government after his death. I don't like the ending part of this article though. It's a bit of speculation rather than a corroborated statement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/aaron-swartz-prosecutors_n_2735675.html Quote
Members Lucky Posted July 15, 2013 Members Posted July 15, 2013 What a ridiculous statement the author makes: "The more savage the penalties prosecutors can threaten, the more likely the defendant (guilty or innocent) is to speed things along by pleading guilty and accepting a light penalty. According to the Wall Street Journal, Swartz was offered the choice of pleading guilty and going to jail for six to eight months, or else going to trial and taking his chances." Separate the two remarks. Prosecutors cannot make "savage" charges that carry "savage" penalties without evidence. That's why we have courts and defense attorneys. If the penalties are "savage," it's not the prosecutor's fault as he did not enact them. The legislature did, and they were voted into office by people, many of whom want them to be "tough on crime." The fact that the defendant was offered a "light" penalty tells me that the prosecutor didn't think much of his case. So, because we have courts and defense attorneys, the right to a trial stands before every defendant. If you are innocent- take it! All of the above assumes that prosecutors are hard-asses who only want to cause grief for those charged with crimes. This is nonsense. They are people too. They have to live in the same community as the rest of us do. Prosecutors are too busy going after the really bad guys to waste time on the little guys who did nothing wrong or not much wrong, especially in this time of scarce resources in government, Don't expect to see them going gung ho on the little guy. Not only do they not have time or resources, but the jury won't stand for it. The prosecutors are the guys who prosecute the person who assaulted you, or robbed you. They go after gay bashers and worse. They are not the bad guys causing a defendant to commit suicide. If that happens, you can be darn sure that the guy had other problems before he even met a prosecutor. I know that someone will come up with an example of where the system went wrong and what I said above doesn't apply. That's because nothing in government is perfect. But overall, and overall by far, what I say is true. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted July 16, 2013 Members Posted July 16, 2013 All of the above assumes that prosecutors are hard-asses who only want to cause grief for those charged with crimes. This is nonsense. They are people too. They have to live in the same community as the rest of us do. Prosecutors are too busy going after the really bad guys to waste time on the little guys who did nothing wrong or not much wrong, especially in this time of scarce resources in government, Don't expect to see them going gung ho on the little guy. Not only do they not have time or resources, but the jury won't stand for it. I'm in no position to refute your observations as you have many years of legal experience (including litigation I assume) behind you. I also believe that you practiced in a big city where the legal system is under stress from the number of cases it is presented. That certainly must have a day-to-day affect on the system. I have only anecdotal information to the contrary. My son was a public defender in a small city of maybe 200,000 including the suburbs. He became very disillusioned with the system he worked in and left the profession for a life in the software industry. His disillusion sprang, in part, from watching young prosecutors railroad the young and the poor, either naive or in desperate circumstances, into jail time that was disproportionate, in my son's opinion, to what was fair and prudent given the circumstances and their previous records. Let me also say that my son is no bleeding-heart liberal but has always been rather conservative in his perspective. He certainly new hardened criminals from the poor, the desperate, and the naive. He defended both as public defenders are charged to do. On several occasions he would overhear the young prosecutors comparing or otherwise discussing with each other their conviction rates. They were looking ahead to advancing their careers in his opinion. Did it happen all the time or with all prosecutors? No, but it happened enough to sicken him to the system. The primary piece of advice my son gave me after his experience in the legal system was: If I ever get involved with it, hire the very best attorney I can afford even if I have to stretch to do it. Don't count on any mercy or even reasonableness in the system. It all depends on who you draw and who defends you. Quote
AdamSmith Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 Hereabouts one recalls Durham county prosecutor Mike Nifong going after the Duke lacrosse team in an overreach driven by what he believed would bolster his popularity with the community and help his chances at reelection. ihpguy 1 Quote
Members ihpguy Posted July 16, 2013 Members Posted July 16, 2013 No reason to spearate the remarks. They were already separated. From ***** : Separate the two remarks. Prosecutors cannot make "savage" charges that carry "savage" penalties without evidence. That's why we have courts and defense attorneys. If the penalties are "savage," it's not the prosecutor's fault as he did not enact them. The legislature did, and they were voted into office by people, many of whom want them to be "tough on crime." From The Atlantic: By and large, American prosecutors no longer fight their cases at trial. The new dispensation is justice by plea bargain. The more savage the penalties prosecutors can threaten, the more likely the defendant (guilty or innocent) is to speed things along by pleading guilty and accepting a light penalty. According to the Wall Street Journal, Swartz was offered the choice of pleading guilty and going to jail for six to eight months, or else going to trial and taking his chances. The multiple counts and their absurdly savage sentences are best seen, just as the family said, as instruments of intimidation. Although I am no legal scholar like some in these boards profess to be, it does seems as if Ms. Ortiz ramped up the pressure for political gain. Just one person's opinion. Quote
Members Lucky Posted July 16, 2013 Members Posted July 16, 2013 It's an adversarial system. The prosecutor does his job, the defense does his job, and then the judge and jury. I've see bad cops, bad judges, bad prosecutors and bad defense attorneys. The system is run by humans and mistakes get made. That's one reason why the appellate process is there. Why are the California prisons so overcrowded? Because politicians campaigned on a law and order platform and the people voted them in. Then they don't vote the money for the prisons to handle the increased flow. It's kind of like the Church opposing abortion but not helping the women raise the children they force on them under threat of hell. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 I can't agree with you on that. I have a female friend who got deserted by her boyfriend after knocking her up. A group of church goers helped her through her pregnancy and stayed with her during the delivery and took care of her until she was well enough. One church lady offered to raise the child if she couldn't raise the child on her own. I hope we can see more of that in our community too. She later met this nice christian guy who is being such a great dad for the kid. That kid is so cute and precious. It's kind of like the Church opposing abortion but not helping the women raise the children they force on them under threat of hell. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted July 18, 2013 Members Posted July 18, 2013 I can't agree with you on that. I have a female friend who got deserted by her boyfriend after knocking her up. A group of church goers helped her through her pregnancy and stayed with her during the delivery and took care of her until she was well enough. One church lady offered to raise the child if she couldn't raise the child on her own. I hope we can see more of that in our community too. She later met this nice christian guy who is being such a great dad for the kid. That kid is so cute and precious. There will always be individual counterexamples to any circumstance highlighted whatever it may be. That does not in and of itself invalidate that the circumstance may be prevalent. I would be more impressed if the counterexample went the other way -- that only one or two anecdotal cases can be reported that the curches and the pius had neglected children in need of help and women unable to manage care for children they could not afford to have. If that were the case there would be few children in need of a roof over their head, or suffering malnutrion. The good samaritans should be thanked and applauded and maybe even raised to sainthood for their efforts but they cannot keep the whole national boat afloat by themselves. I am not saying that many in churches do not help their neighbors, only that there are so many in need of help in all corners of our nation that relying only on volunteerism is not meeting the need. Consider that poverty often occurs in pockets and that makes it difficult for neighbor to help neighbor. Also, consider that poverty also occurs in cities where many people live anonymous lives not having deep relationship with others in the community. It takes all of us to do what we can. For some that means offering a helping hand, for others that means offering financial support to others that can offer the help. That financial support can be private or public. Quote
Members Lucky Posted July 19, 2013 Members Posted July 19, 2013 I have a Pentecostal relative who is one of the finest people I know. She's not preachy, but lives her life as an example of her beliefs. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Well I guess the document release is being delayed and not sure why this is necessary but we will see. http://gigaom.com/2013/07/19/mit-seeks-to-delay-release-of-documents-in-aaron-schwartz-hacking-case/ Quote
