"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."
Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.
Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.
7 years is far less than the maximum sentence so she's still correct in saying they didn't push for the maximum (pending other evidence that might come out).
What do you think his punishment should be if caught?
"Actually changing things" may involve "criticizing congress" but I expect it to be rather more complicated. I think that all of the players in this case should have exercised discretion. The fact that so many people (including the citizens of America) allowed this situation to occur is the tragedy.
I think that the Aaron Swartz tragedy is not an example of an acute failure in America's legal system that we can blame on any specific element: the prosecutor, the congress that passed the law, or the court system that allowed this legal case to proceed as long as it did. I think the legal case is an example of a complete breakdown of America's legal system. In America we have 3 general wings of government that all have a hand in the legal system:
Legislative (e.g. Congress) that writes the laws.
Executive (e.g. prosecutor) that prosecutes potential violations of the laws
Judicial (e.g. the court and judge) that decides whether potential violations of the law are actual violations
I think we can justifiably criticize Ortiz and congress and the judge and Aaron and The American People for their roles in this mess, and I expect that all of them will need to improve before the situation does.
All of the players had opportunities to exercise good judgement and they all failed when presented these opportunities.
Thank you! I think this is the first time I have read a comment on HN about this whole mess that actually puts some of the responsibility back on Aaron. He had several opportunities to exercise good judgement. Like the first time he had to alter his virtual appearance to regain access after he had been discovered and cut off. They didn't yet know who it was. That was a huge missed opportunity right there. It all would have been over.
It isn't, though. That she comes out with this attitude afterwards is absolutely self-serving and cannot be relied on as an accurate description of her motivations. The "hey, well, that was just the press release" claptrap should be completely disregarded as a mitigating rationale for the ass-covering bullshit that it is.
This leaves us with the "hey, Congress passed these laws, don't look at me," attitude that, as Jacques astutely points out, removes her agency from her actions.
The concept and practice of prosecutorial discretion, however, casts the lie to that position. Barthes and Derrida's "death of the author" is not a force in the law, so Ortiz attempting to play The Cog role should be seen as nothing more than sarcasm.
He never said it was always inappropriate to mention it, nor that those who mention it are always wrong, etc.
The popularity of "Godwin's Law" (especially this incorrect interpretation) has lead to a lot of people denying that anything in the US (or any online discussion) could be accurately compared to anything that happened in Germany.
Which is silly, but just another case of "when america does it, it's different."