Google Analytics


Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Wired State Amazon

« Will the Copyleftists Stop Harassing Swartz's Prosecutor Now? | Main | The Fundamental Fallacies of Katy Pearce's Machinopology in Azerbaijan »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


3dblogger - just an idiot posting inflamatory crap to get traffic and ad impressions...


PR from 2011:

Catherine Fitzpatrick

My blog here is not about traffic or ad impressions, it's a small niche blog and I don't work at traffic. So that sort of remark comes to the wrong address and is just the usual troll from "Anonymous".

Yes, I mentioned the press release that technically mentions the 35 years in my other posts. So what? That's the prosecutor's *charge*; the charge is not the same thing as the *sentence*. This is the sort of machine thinking that we're very used to from the script kiddies unable to understand the organic justice system and literally taking every document that emerges in h ysterical isolation. But there is a give and take in the system. The prosecutor says one thing, the defense...defends. They say, no, that won't stick. The prosecutor tries to refine his case, adding charges in case he loses on the other charges (why you saw the superseding indictment). Then they bargain, they have discovery, testimony, witnesses, evidence. You know, *due process*. What is alien utterly to the machine minds of Anonymous.

The the JUDGE, a third party in this process applies the law and weights the evidence. He may dismiss the case or give probotion; he may give the six months indicated; he is hardly likely to give 7 years as there is no precedent for that harsh a sentence and no indication that Swartz, who did not steal for financial gain, was doing anything but making a political statement. And actually in political trials, judges are very careful not to try people for "thought crime" as that does not make a good case and then it gets appealed away easily.

So everything about all this literalizing of the case is wrong and misleading. He had an offer of six months. That's about what he would have served, maybe a year.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Follow on Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad