Laws only matter if you're not rich.
Laws only matter if you're not rich.
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/55039106
34 comments
-
Carmen Ortiz, the US AG overseeing, has arranged plea deals with leniency and then gone for harsher punishment with the judge.
Any ones other than Donald Gonczy?
If a prosecutor is trying to vigorously prosecute, that's not really an imbalance in the system. They're not supposed to be fair about it, any more than the defense counsel is supposed to be "fair" about both sides of the issue, while defending the person. The problem is when the prosecutor's vigor isn't matched on the defense side (which does happen for systemic reasons, and is a massive injustice).
Why do you think a prosecutor who tries to prosecute people is "the worst type of person" for the job? I would think the worst type would be someone who fabricates evidence or something, followed at some distance by someone who's not very vigorous about prosecuting real crime so that someone dangerous is kicking around loose on the street.
It sounds like in that one case, the prosecution recommended exactly the agreed-upon plea agreement, but also made statements at trial that were so aggressive that it amounted to undermining the plea agreement. And so, a judge fixed it, because that's injustice. That's how the system is supposed to work, I think. Is it more than just the one person?
Also what does any of this have to do with Democrats? Is she a Democrat? Where did that part come from?
-
There are quite a few examples of her stretching the limits of legality, yes.
They're not supposed to be fair about it
Well, this is where I firmly disagree, so we can end the discussion here. This is the sort of approach that benefits only the most wealthy, and firmly punishes anyone without the wealth to get the best lawyers possible.
To me, this is a perfect example of the complete disfunction of the justice system.
Also what does any of this have to do with Democrats?
She is a Democrat, yes, and an Obama appointee as part of the effort to appear tough on crime and appeal to the conservative voters. So its perfectly relevant IMO.
-
There are quite a few examples of her stretching the limits of legality, yes.
Such as? You said she "arranged plea deals with leniency" et cetera and I'm curious what the other ones were.
Well, this is where I firmly disagree, so we can end the discussion here. This is the sort of approach that benefits only the most wealthy, and firmly punishes anyone without the wealth to get the best lawyers possible.
Oh, I wasn't saying the system was at all fair. It's horribly rigged against defendants, with that as just one of the many ways. I'm just saying that the solution of having prosecutors not really try to prosecute, or decide the justice of the case themselves and then prosecute vigorously or not depending on whether they think before trial that the person is guilty, is not a good fix for that system, and it's weird to accuse a prosecutor of being "the worst kind" because she was prosecuting people at the limits of her ability.
I think properly funding and resourcing legal aid, getting rid of cash bail, and removing some of the tools like extended detention before a hearing that prosecutors use to put pressure on people, would all be necessary steps before we have something approaching justice. You just picked kind of a weird part of the system to identify as the problem, I think.
I won't make you continue to talk about it if you don't want.
-
I've got plenty to do aside from have a detailed discussion.
She is an extreme example of the exact issues being brought up. She chose to make this a case, local prosecutors intended to just drop it. JSTOR and MIT were going to drop it. She historically has pushed extreme narratives around evidence. There are plenty of cases out there showcasing her behavior, you're welcome to look them up. You can even find a few more references in another comment I made here
My opinion remains the same - I dont know that it would have made a difference. She wanted to make a name for herself, the people never mattered to her.
You can look up motel caswell. How she went after teamsters for picketing top chef WITH RACKETEERING charges. How federal judges have pointed out this was prosecutorial discretion, and how she wanted to make a name for herself.
But I have zero interest in a back and forth over my opinion of Ortiz and her role in Swartz's death. All to gain higher status for her political goals, what actually happened be damned.
-
I never asked for a detailed discussion. You said, "Carmen Ortiz, the US AG overseeing, has arranged plea deals with leniency and then gone for harsher punishment with the judge." and I asked for details, and you went all the way to Timbuktu in the ensuing discussion trying to avoid giving an additional example beyond Donald Gonczy. I didn't make you do that.
Of course the prosecution team fucked him. I'm not trying to stick up for them, they basically harassed him to death and fuck them for doing it. I just like the truth, and just because the "bad guys" you're presenting line up with who the bad guys are supposed to be, doesn't give you the right to be slanty about what happened. They offered him a six-month plea deal with flexibility for the judge to give less, but not more. That's what happened. Trying to lie about what happened because it lines up with how you want to perceive the outcome isn't doing Swartz any favors.
-
At no point did I lie about what happened, you can fuck right off with that.
-
You said:
The prosecutor has a history of agreeing to leniency in plea deals then going for incredibly harsh penalties after.
When I asked for details, you listed one case. She didn't go for incredibly harsh penalties in the case. She recommended what she agreed to recommend, but also criticized the defendant mercilessly in a statement, so much that the judge decided to go with something like 20% more than the recommended sentence. If there's only that one example (which, I'm going to assume after asking several times and getting subject-changes, is what there is), and it doesn't actually match what you said she "has a history of" in multiple plea deals, that's an inaccurate presentation of what happened to match your narrative. I.e. a lie. You might not like hearing that's what it is, and maybe I am unaware of more of the history that you just don't want to give me, but that's what it looks like to me.
-
You called me a liar, and at no point did I lie.
I dont have any interest in the kind of person that you are.
Goodbye.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34 comments