Aaron Schwartz died for nothing. Ortiz is having an upward legal and political career, while an young and inspiring tech activist died. It didn't even push the envelope on free/open access science journals.
For whatever it's worth, that article repeats the false claim that Heymann was pursuing a 35 year sentence for Swartz; they were in fact seeking an order of magnitude less time, and were unlikely to get even that (Swartz's own lawyer, writing after his death, noted that even if convicted --- not itself a certainty --- he might not have faced any custodial time).
I write this not to downplay Ortiz and Heymann (I share the common HN sentiment about their behavior and culpability) but as a warning that if an article gets the basic fact that you don't work out sentences by multiplying the statutory maximum for an offense against the number of counts, there's likely other stuff they got wrong too, and this whole article is inside baseball.
Who knows where Ortiz and, more importantly, Heymann are headed now. It's worth keeping your eyes open.
There is the theoretical maximum sentence someone could receive, then there is the much shorter sentence they're likely to receive even if convicted, then there's the even shorter sentence if the prosecution fails to prove the most serious charges or the defendant takes a plea.
Prosecutors commonly scare monger using the theoretical maximum in their press releases or when trying to coerce a plea out of a defendant. It isn't any more likely then than it is when a reporter says it, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Swartz had exceptionally good representation. I'm confident they knew how to calculate a guideline sentence. For that matter: you could too; it's not rocket science. You'll be off on some particulars, but you'll get a sense of what the ballpark is. Go look up the federal sentencing guidelines.
> Ortiz is now the former prosecutor who is linked to the suicide of a once-in-a-generation talent and who fought Biden’s labor secretary nominee over his labor practices and lost.
regardless of whether that would have been more prudent, blame for over charging a young man to the point that he's suicidal is the factor I think we're most interested in
> Perhaps with the testimony of JSTOR he would've been acquitted.
Why? There's no rule that says that they need the victim's consent for criminal prosecution; the idea is that you have offended against the state, not a private actor (in which case the remedy would be civil, not criminal).
I didn't say the case would be dismissed; I said he had a decent chance of being acquitted. The victim testifying in the suspect's defense can have a powerful effect on a jury.
Assange, if convicted, is likely to actually get a long sentence.
Swartz's lawyers said that the prosecutors claimed that they thought the judge might go up to 7 years. That would be dependent on the prosecutors proving Swartz causes millions of dollars in damages. Swartz's lawyers thought that the provable damages would be much less, most likely resulting in probation.
Also unlike Assange Swartz had plea bargain offers. According to his lawyers prosecutors offered two deals. In one, Swartz would plead guilty and get a sentence of 4 months. In the other, Swartz would plead guilty, prosecutors would ask for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could ask the judge for a lower sentence (or just probation). The judge would then pick the sentence from the range [probation, 6 months].
Swartz, if convicted, was likely to get a sentence of a few months or just probation. His own lawyers thought probation was the most likely outcome.
See this article for details [1].
The 35 years number bandied about is a press release number. In press releases prosecutors calculate possible sentences using a method that is completely unrealistic unless the person being charged is essentially the Hitler of the part of the crime world they operate in. Here's an article on how such ridiculous numbers come about [2].
Having the infinite resources of the state aimed at you in an attempt to deprive you of your freedom and liberty, lock you in a cage, and forever brand you as a felon is a profound and traumatizing experience. The suggestion that this alone wouldn't be enough to drive someone to suicide, even before a conviction, is absolutely absurd. Its abundantly clear that neither you, or anyone else who downplays the trauma of being prosecuted has ever faced criminal charges or spent a day in jail.
> The 35 years number bandied about is a press release number. In press releases prosecutors calculate possible sentences using a method that is completely unrealistic unless the person being charged is essentially the Hitler of the part of the crime world they operate in.
In press releases, prosecutors calculate the maximum possible sentence using a method that is perfectly accurate: take the maximum sentences for each charge and sum them.
This is often not the probable sentence, but then they don't claim it is. It may not be what either side would argue the Sentencing Guidelines would justify, but:
(1) The facts relevant to sentencing guidelines are legally undecided at the time of press releases, and
(2) The Guidelines, while usually followed, are not mandatory, and both upward and downward departures within legal minimums and maximums are allowed. So assuming at least one charge without a mandatory minimum is charged, the legal outer limit is the only certain thing about the potential sentence.
