Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkarmani | Hacker News Reader

> it seems somewhat ironic and counterproductive that she should face such harsh consequences

Losing her job is a harsh consequence??

When you're a US attorney, yes. It's not like there's some other federal government you can go work for. Her job market is not as liquid as ours.

I don't think it works that way, honestly. The majority of people at that level are so well off that they don't get hit that hard. They don't really get hit at all. They have a million opportunities after being let go. Even looking into someone like Nixon, where do you go from there. He received 2 millions to write his memoirs, was paid millions for interviews etc. I don't doubt it would drastically alter her career, at least from the path she was on. But she has a certain right to uphold a set of ethics, when prosecutors overstep their power, they are no more infallible than you or I. In that role, it's always on the table as a consequence. People keep referencing how she's one of the "good guys" without any real knowledge of her previous work. Her entire career may of been built on top of prosecutorial overreach. When you put away bad people, people don't care how you do it. She finally picked the wrong person to make an example of. But even if she's let go, believe me, she'll do just fine.

Seriously, you are equating job loss as a harsh consequence when she threatens 35 years of jail time to people?

Not so much, chances are she is taking a pay cut by working for the federal government.

Of course, but there are other reasons people work where they do besides money!

It's not simply losing a job. It's being targeted by the hateful vengeance of an Internet crowd that is so convinced of the truth of its accusations and that it knows all the relevant facts, that it doesn't even give her a chance to defend herself before casting the judgement over here.

I can only imagine that being in such a position causes a huge amount of stress. It seems very hypocritical to me to one the one hand blame her for driving Aaron Swartz into suicide, and then putting her under similar pressure based on possibly premature conclusions.

> It's being targeted by the hateful vengeance of an Internet crowd that is so convinced of the truth of its accusations and that it knows all the relevant facts, that it doesn't even give her a chance to defend herself before casting the judgement over here.

Versus being targeted by the full weight of the US attorney's office that is so convinced of the truth of its accusations and that it knows all the relevant facts that it piles on trumped up charges to force someone to not defend himself in court?

When the internet crowd has the ability to have her imprisoned against her will, you can compare the situations.

Similar pressure? In what world are they even comparable?

We are talking about firing someone, not even a weekend in prison. Give me a break.

We are talking about tens of thousands of people blaming her to be a major factor in someone's death, and wishing to force consequences on her without there being an opportunity for her to make her case.

I have never met either Aaron Swartz or her, but I do know that both, the prospect of a ruinous trial as well as the prospect of being blamed for someones death and being publically shamed out of my position by an angry mob would put me under a huge amount of psychological pressure.

And the worst possible "consequence" is that she has to find another job. Again, no comparison to what she was putting Swartz through.

Being forcibly removed (as in not asked to resign as is usual in the government "circles") would probably have a disastrous effect on the rest of her career, or lack thereof.

Yeah, again, no comparison.

It seems there is no point in arguing, since it gets continually ignored but once more: Being made responsible for the death of a person is a bit harsher than "getting fired".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com