|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 09:34 AM EST |
I think that you will find that piling on charges is a very
common thing to do when there is some matter of doubt (or
dishonesty) in the prosecutions case. I see it all the time
in the news paper and I know some people who have had it
happen to them. The solid commission of a crime seems to
get a solid charge for prosecution. The seemingly more
nebulous crimes seem to get the 'throw the charges against
the wall and see what sticks' type of prosecution.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:20 AM EST |
So if a bank robber, shoots someone during the commission of the robbery, and
then takes a hostage across state lines, and is later caught, the federal
prosecutor should only charge the suspect with murder?
I know that what Swartz did wasn't as serious as all that, but its just an
illustration of why prosecutors file multiple charges. Unfortunately we'll
never know if the charges Ortiz was bringing would have stuck, but that would
have been for a judge and jury to decide. I'm not saying that the public is not
entitled to hear the reasons for bringing these charges, but I question whether
the public is willing to give Ortiz a fair shake upon hearing the reasons.
You've already decided that she made the wrong decision. My question is why?
In your opinion, did Swartz not break the law? Do you believe the law itself is
flawed? Is it within Ortiz's scope of responsibility to ignore laws if she
wants? Would the world have even blinked an eye if Swartz had taken the six
month plea deal? In other words, is this only a big deal because of the tragic
turn of events?
My opinion is that a young man, apparently troubled, took his life, and people
are angry at the tragedy and looking for someone to blame.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
