OK, I can't let a few of these comments stand uncorrected...
the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors.
Prosecutorial discretion has always been around. It's actually tied into the legal rules of professional responsibility. Prosecutors ethically cannot bring cases where they feel there is insufficient evidence, and they cannot be held liable when they do bring cases. (Except in rare cases where a prosecutor clearly goes out of bounds, such as bringing a case where there is no evidence. I will take this chance to point out that Swartz actually had done what the prosecutors claimed he had done.) These rules are to protect the citizens (from undue harassment) as well as to protect prosecutors (from claims of harassment).
We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.
While I understand their argument, I feel the need to point out (again) that Swartz was actually guilty. He admitted to it! Was the law too harsh? Most likely. But prosecutors (and the rest of the executive branch) and the courts do not write sentencing guidelines. (The US Sentencing Commission is part of the judicial branch, but individual trial judges themselves do not make up numbers off the top of their heads.)
the decision was upheld to engage the United States Department of Justice and its associated executive branches in a game of a similar nature, a game in which the only winning move is not to play.
1) As pointed out above, the DOJ has no control over sentencing guidelines. Don't like the law? Hack the US Sentencing Commission, not the executive.
2) Perhaps Anonymous should go back to grade school and learn the branches of government. The USSC is NOT part of the executive branch. It is the head of the judicial branch.
As a result of the FBI's infiltration and entrapment tactics, several more of our brethren now face similar disproportionate persecution, the balance of their lives hanging on the severely skewed scales of a broken justice system.
"The FBI caught us and is trying to punish us for things we did. WHAAAAAA!!!!!" Also, the FBI does not handle actual prosecutions. They work with prosecutors - who work in the Office of the US Attorney - but they do not file cases.
We have allowed the FBI and its masters in government -- both the puppet and the shadow government that controls it
*snicker*
This website was chosen due to the symbolic nature of its purpose -- the federal sentencing guidelines which enable prosecutors to cheat citizens of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial, by a jury of their peers -- the federal sentencing guidelines which are in clear violation of the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments.
Mandatory sentencing maximums and minimums have been found to be unconstitutional. Which is why they no longer exist.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). All sentencing guidelines are a range. There are criteria (developed by the US Sentencing Commission) that, when added together, provide a range of sentence. (For example (not related to Swartz's case), using a firearm in a crime adds a certain amount of time.) Once this range is determined, then prosecutors use them to determine an appropriate offer for a plea, which may be below the range provided by the statutory guidelines. The courts have nothing to do with this process, other than approving (or disapproving) a plea deal once the state and the defendant agree to one. If the defendant does not accept a plea and is convicted at trial, that range is used by the court to determine the sentence.
But again, I am going to repeat... The prosecutor and the court do not pull numbers out of their arse when calculating a sentence. Those numbers are set by an independent commission.
There must be reform of outdated and poorly-envisioned legislation, written to be so broadly applied as to make a felony crime out of violation of terms of service,
Got a problem with the laws? Talk to the legislative branch. (Since Anonymous has shown itself ignorant of the three branches of government in the US, that means Congress.)
and allowing for selective punishment.
I doubt Anonymous has considered the implications of this. Removing prosecutorial discretion and immunity would mean prosecutors would be civilly liable any time an investigation was started, but no charges were filed, or any time a person was brought to trial and acquitted. If such a case was true, no criminal case would ever be brought for fear of the consequences. Even the most cut-and-dry case would be at risk, since there is no way to know what a jury will do. (I sat in at a trial where the defendant was on video tape selling crack. He was acquitted because his face was partially in shadow, even though you could see most of it and you could hear his voice on the tape.)
There must be reform of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Since it doesn't exist, what do you want to reform?
There must be a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused,
Swartz was unlucky. He was caught violating a law that was intended to prosecute those who are a danger to others. But the law (as Anonymous points out later) is blind. It does not matter if you stole a loaf of bread for the thrill of it or to feed your starving family. The second would be an extenuating circumstance, but if the starting level of sentencing is high (which I believe it was in this case, since I think it was an anti-terrorism statute), even extenuating circumstances can only do so much.
mens rea.
Mens rea only means the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime. Motive is unconnected. If the word is "knowingly," "purposefully," or the like, all that matter is that the defendant knew what they were doing. Swartz knew he was downloading files and posting them. It does not matter why, only that he did it.
The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds.
Again, I have to laugh at Anonymous's idealism. Pre-trial bargains are what allows our courts to not be overflowing with cases. Also, no one took away Swartz's right to a trial. If he did not like the bargain being offered, he had a right to trial.
But I want to repeat that
Swartz was actually guilty. He broke the law, and he knew he was breaking the law when he did it. Do I give him credit for standing up for his ideals? Yes, very much so. But if he did not believe he was strong enough to face the consequences of his actions, he should not have done them.
