zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
fwiw, it appears one of the named here is a YC Alum: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=il https://www.linkedin.com/in/unrealdutch/

>>albrol+l5
Let's be fair to these individuals and not presume guilt.

In the US, it's "innocent until proven guilty".

Media is so quick to assume the person is guilty just because of an allegation.

>>tiffan+Hn
The federal government has a ridiculously high conviction rate: 99.96% [1]. They basically only bring the case if they have everything they need to convict.

1. https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2021/05/the-federal-convictio....

>>grumpl+hD
What portion of those convictions are plea bargains?

This article says 97%: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec...

Why are people so eager to confess their guilt instead of challenging the government to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury?

The answer is simple and stark: They’re being coerced.

>>tnorth+cF
This is a pretty silly argument. I'm not opining on whether or not prosecutions are coercive; I'm certain they are. But a lower conviction rate would be a bad thing: it would mean the DOJ was bringing more cases they weren't certain they would win, and even exoneration comes with immense costs to the accused.

>>tptace+nH
The argument around plea bargains is pretty simple. You have someone over a barrel: "Take the deal and go to prison for two or five years, or take a risk on a trial where you'll be put away for life. And btw, our conviction rate is 99.96%."

You'd be crazy not to take the deal, even if you're innocent. Thus, the conviction rate doesn't actually tell us much about how strong the federal cases actually are.

>>sdento+qN
That's not the structure of most plea bargains ("2 years vs. life") but more importantly, you don't have enough information in that hypothetical to determine how fair the system is, because you're not accounting for how liberally federal prosecutors bring cases. If they tend only to bring cases when they have overwhelming evidence --- which is the rap on federal prosecutors (not so much state) --- then you get the same outcome simply by dint of most people in plea negotiations being guilty. A good reason not to take a case to trial is your knowledge that you'll be destroyed at trial.

>>tptace+hQ
'In 2011, Swartz was arrested by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after connecting a computer to the MIT network in an unmarked and unlocked closet, and setting it to download academic journal articles systematically from JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT.[13][14] Federal prosecutors, led by Carmen Ortiz, later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[15] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release.[16] Swartz declined a plea bargain under which he would have served six months in federal prison.[17] Two days after the prosecution rejected a counter-offer by Swartz, he was found dead by suicide in his Brooklyn apartment.[18][19] In 2013, Swartz was inducted posthumously into the Internet Hall of Fame.[20]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

>>sdento+eM1
Yeah, Swartz's liability has been wildly misreported. He faced nothing resembling 35 years, as the prosecutors themselves acknowledged during the dispute. His own lawyer believed he was unlikely to face custodial time even if convicted given the guidelines for the charges. This has been discussed ad nauseam on HN and I'll spare you a repeat of it; the search bar will avail.