It's important to not forget people who perform harmful, malicious acts while in power to prevent them (when possible) from obtaining power to do it again during the remainder of their lifetime. Checks and balances, actions have consequences, citizen responsibility, and all that jazz.
I didn't take this piece as "going after" Ms. Ortiz, but as "never forget", which seems like a fair approach to a public figure and their actions while in public office.
“On July 11, 2011, he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[15][91]”
So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict - because there’s no dispute that he did what he was accused of.
“On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury”
So a second grand jury thought he should be charged too.
“ prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison”
So he was offered 4 months of actual time in white collar prison.
“Swartz and his lead attorney rejected the deal, opting instead for a trial where prosecutors would be forced to justify their pursuit of him.[98][99]”
Uh, no. That’s not how it works. The prosecution doesn’t have to justify the case. They have to prove you committed the crime you are charged with. Whether you or the jury think it’s a waste of time is legally irrelevant.
And then Swartz took his life.
It’s not fair to pillory Ortiz when 1) 2 grand juries indicted Swartz 2) The prosecutor offered a reasonably fair deal (and there’s no indication it wasn’t up for negotiation) 3) We don’t know what sentence Ortiz would have actually recommended at sentencing.
I’m sorry, if Swartz killed himself because of this case - that’s just moronic - and Ortiz doesn’t deserve the blame. As a lawyer, I’d feel a hell of a lot more guilty if I was Swartz’s attorney than I would as Ortiz.
> So a grand jury of regular ole citizens decided to indict
As the old saying goes, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told them to.
Edit: I'm not sure how many are aware of how grand juries work.
The prosecutor presents evidence, but the defense is generally not allowed to present any evidence (the defense isn't even allowed to be in the room unless they are explicitly summoned). Grand jury proceedings are secret. If there is an indictment, the defense will not even be allowed to see what evidence was used.
Thus, it's not surprising that a manipulative prosecutor can sometimes get a grand jury to issue an indictment based on flimsy evidence, leading to the saying about them being persuaded to "indict a ham sandwich".
Most common law countries abolished grand juries long ago, and about half of the U.S. states no longer use them at all (even though they are still technically allowed).
In most cases grand juries are optional. The prosecutor does not need to use a grand jury to file charges. So, prosecutors use the grand jury as a way to pass the buck.
They are not (tv news cycle nuttiness aside)used to railroad the innocent.
We do know what sentence she would've recommended. She and Heymann were pushing for 35 years. More than many killers and rapists get, by decades at that. The prosecution even compared him to a rapist.
And let's not forget why he turned down the plea deal: HE WASN'T GUILTY OF ANYTHING. Jstor and MIT both didn't want a prosecution, and "MIT’s site license for JSTOR [allowed] for “unlimited” use of the JSTOR library." The prosecution claimed he was going to release the downloaded materials publically, which might have constituted copyright infringement, but he had not actually done so at the time of his voluntary surrender.
Thanks for the correction. I don’t know about federal court, but in (my) state court the judges really don’t care what the prosecutor wants. They go by the guidelines, the sentencing report, and how big of an asshole the defendant is. In my state Swartz would have gotten the usual - two years probation, restitution, no contact with victims.
Anyone do federal criminal work and can guess how the presentence report for Swartz might have read?
>if Swartz killed himself because of this case - that’s just moronic
All other arguments aside - calling the actions of someone with severe mental health issues moronic is the epitome of callousness. What's next, the R word?
I didn't take this piece as "going after" Ms. Ortiz, but as "never forget", which seems like a fair approach to a public figure and their actions while in public office.