The excerpt, containing new (to me, anyway) information, that makes this article worth posting:
Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.
The original title of this was actually something along the lines of "MIT rejected offer for no jail time for Swartz." Unfortunately, a mod changed it, meaning that finding out the reason I posted this takes some digging.
Wait, I thought the idea is that the prosecutor represents The People and not The Victim? It's very confusing to me how JSTOR and MIT are involved and yet not involved.
It's a longstanding legal debate, but in practice victims' opinions have a significant role in many plea bargains. Part of it, as far as I can tell, is that the U.S. doesn't have a purely protect-the-public conception of what the purpose of criminal law is, but also has a strong undercurrent of retributive justice. It's pretty common to hear people talk about a trial helping victims "achieve justice". So it's much easier for a prosecutor to sign off on a plea bargain if the victims support it than if they don't, even if their opposition wouldn't have legal standing.
And more recently there is some weak legal standing for victims' opinions on the matter. A number of states, and the federal government, have enacted "victims' rights" laws giving (alleged) victims some right to have their opinions heard in a case. The federal version [1] confers two rights relevant to having their opinion heard (though not necessarily followed) when negotiating plea bargains: 1) "The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding." and 2) "The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case."
Total guess: may be if both "victims" signed off on an agreement(whether it had legal standing or not) it would make it significantly more difficult for the prosecutors to move forward with the criminal case.
The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.
“The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,” Good told me. “His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.”
Coupling that Heymann was specifically warned about Swartz's mental state with his (Heymann's) previous prosecution of Jonathan James, leading to his suicide, has me seriously thinking this guy needs to see the other side of a defense table.
I'm sure there are laws protecting prosecutors from prosecution for actions carried out during the course of their duties, but those laws have to have limits. Having been forewarned that Aaron was a suicide risk, proceeding as the AUSA did reeks of criminal negligence, commonly defined as an act that is "careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant." (emphasis added)
Off topic: refresh the page twice, and you get a paywall until you clear your cookies. Curious tactic... and somewhat ironic given the subject of the article.
On topic: Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.¶ “There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,” Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests.
I'm a little unclear about what MIT's "institutional interests" were in regards to Aaron's case... can anyone clarify?
No, he's not. At least not in the case of Swarz or James.
What he is is a man who, among with others in the US Prosecutor's office, doesn't appear to have the necessary discretion to identify either appropriate targets for prosecution, nor appropriate measures of justice, which are required for his position.
Which I believe he should forfeit with extreme censure.
So if some girl breaks up with a guy who she knows has depression issues, for some silly reason, does that make her a murderer too? Aaron was responsible for his own actions.
That doesn't make the prosecutors good guys - far from it. But they didn't kill him.
So if some girl or boy with popularity in school verbally threatens me or accuse me of being fat, stupid, a Jew, a religious nut, a christian or atheist or whatever and bullys me into suicide it is not their fault? What Aaron did was great, moral and maybe illegal but that doesn't warrant the 35 years of federal prison. Maybe days.
And before you say anything about the persecutor doin his job the elected Nazi Hitler were just following orderz and the law.
They killed him. And they knew he was at suicide risk. I would end my life rather than going to federal prison until I'm 65 for freeing tax payers research. Federal cases 80% conviction rate.
I hate the game and the players willing to play the game.
Why are you mentioning the figure of 35 years? According to the WSJ, the prosecution was planning to push for seven years at trial, and were willing to offer six months in exchange for a guilty plea. It's also my impression that many people end up being released early, so the actual time spent in prison would've been shorter.
You're making it sound like no big deal. Maybe by that time, the damage was done. Anyway, the real issue is the Orwellian pressure tactics used by the state to destroy a relatively powerless individual.
If you read what I wrote, I didn't say anything about "fault", as there is plenty to find with the actions of the prosecutors. What I said is that they're not murderers.
Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.