Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#21

Post by politician »

tcuk wrote: post #15
politician wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of?

I think the answer is obviously 'no'. But I also believe that your question is exactly what is bad about the situation. It is a total red herring to the issue at hand. Let me expand: He should have pleaded guilty to the crimes, because it is in my opinion, that he did infact break current laws, and that 6 months + felony, is not life ending sentence, far from it. Consider this: I also believe the laws in which he bro…

When you say "because it is in my opinion that in fact X," what you've said is simply that "in your opinion X". I point that out because Aaron apparently had a different opinion that led him to make a different choice. I find it strange that posing a question which you and Aaron answer differently in order to probe your rational is "a total red herring".

I respect that you don't believe these laws are just. One such power that helps society push back against such laws is jury nullification - the right to for a jury to say "not guilty" regardless of what the law claims.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#22

Post by anigbrowl »

politician wrote: post #14
tcuk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%, your reasoning is sound. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation, and that if more people could hold this opinion, more reform against the laws that so many disagree with would actually happen.

Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of?

No, but if there's prima facie evidence of criminal activity (such as the surveillance video, being caught red-handed with the laptop), then maybe you should consider it. Effectively the government was asking him to face up to the fact that whatever his views about the ethics of JSTOR were, the way he acted upon them (breaking into a wiring closet etc.) was illegal. It's not like anybody contests the facts of what he did.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#23

Post by corin_ »

suprgeek wrote: post #19
waterlesscloud wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT didn't kill Aaron. But their decision to be the roadblock to a plea deal because it didn't include time in prison is shameful, and there is definitely some heavy responsibility on the heads of those at MIT who rejected that deal.

Everyone involved in the case had been made aware of Aaron's depression http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/he_ll_be_safe_in_jail_fed... They knew that this (suicide) was a risk if they kept hounding the guy - yet the Prosecutors and MIT both kept going at it - for the sake of political gain (prosecutors).

Devil's advocate: if we felt the punishment was fair then would we think the prosecutors should have been leniant because the accused person was depressed? For example if we were having this conversation about a murderer or a rapist.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#24

Post by mc32 »

politician wrote: post #17
sethist wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His father's words may be a little too strong, but they're not entirely off-base either. Yes, they are off base. He deserves leeway due to the untold grief he is enduring, but a statement like that is ridiculous. Thousands of people a day go to jail a day, many of them for breaking unjust laws, and very few of them kill themselves. He was killed by depression/mental illness not by the government. The charges likely e…

a: In a drive-by shooting, the driver is often charged along with the shooter; even when the driver insists that he didn't know what was going to happen. b: The defense attorney claimed that he made Stephen Heymann aware of the suicide risk early in the case. If Heymann was aware of the risk and pushed ahead anyway, is he a contributor in the same sense that the driver of the car is a contributor? Why or why not?

Are you saying one should not sue, or at least weigh heavily, people's mental state prior to launching a lawsuit?

Is that current procedure, run mental evaluations before suing? Lots of people have mental breakdowns before and during trials. The trials proceed so long as people are 'mentally competent' to stand trial.

If something like this were allowed, people would pretty much abuse the system and claim mental anguish, etc. to avoid facing a trial.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#25

Post by tcuk »

I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to be reformed on this merit alone.

It may very well be that there is need for reform in these laws, but does that give Aaron the right to break them? And if so, does this lead precedence for others to behave similarly without consequence? If so, where do we draw the line in what constitutes which laws are allowed to be bypassed? How does this not lead to massive abuse?

I do not believe that no matter how wrong we think the laws are, in a democratic society, we must act in appropriate ways to cause reform. This is because edge cases like this where laws are broken that perhaps shouldn't exist, are never real reasons to change how we prosecute people.

There is so much confusion within this whole situation:

1) Reform on the laws 2) Reform on how we prosecute people 3) Termination of prosecutors involved

Each of the above needs to be clearly defined, and a case made against each one. I don't believe this case by itself causes for reform in prosecution, or termination of prosecutors.

I only believe this case should cause reform in specific laws, and that it's said a man felt his only option to cause reform was to break the law, which ultimately ended in him taking his whole life.

I see similarities between this and the Anders Breveik case in equal but opposite ways, where 20 years life sentence was said by many to be absurd for his crime, and many called for reform, when in fact the Norwegian system is extremely effective, and this was just an edge case.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#26

Post by sethist »

politician wrote: post #17
sethist wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His father's words may be a little too strong, but they're not entirely off-base either. Yes, they are off base. He deserves leeway due to the untold grief he is enduring, but a statement like that is ridiculous. Thousands of people a day go to jail a day, many of them for breaking unjust laws, and very few of them kill themselves. He was killed by depression/mental illness not by the government. The charges likely e…

a: In a drive-by shooting, the driver is often charged along with the shooter; even when the driver insists that he didn't know what was going to happen. b: The defense attorney claimed that he made Stephen Heymann aware of the suicide risk early in the case. If Heymann was aware of the risk and pushed ahead anyway, is he a contributor in the same sense that the driver of the car is a contributor? Why or why not?

Regarding your second point, are you suggesting the legal system should go easy on criminals who may be suicidal?

I just think it is foolish to start blaming every entity that could have contributed to his mental state. Hypothetically speaking, if he had recently broken up with someone or was fired from a job would we claim that they killed him? No, they would simply be catalysts that might have contributed to his ultimate decision.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#27

Post by politician »

mc32 wrote: post #24
politician wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a: In a drive-by shooting, the driver is often charged along with the shooter; even when the driver insists that he didn't know what was going to happen. b: The defense attorney claimed that he made Stephen Heymann aware of the suicide risk early in the case. If Heymann was aware of the risk and pushed ahead anyway, is he a contributor in the same sense that the driver of the car is a contributor? Why or why not?

Are you saying one should not sue, or at least weigh heavily, people's mental state prior to launching a lawsuit? Is that current procedure, run mental evaluations before suing? Lots of people have mental breakdowns before and during trials. The trials proceed so long as people are 'mentally competent' to stand trial. If something like this were allowed, people would pretty much abuse the system and claim mental angu…

Aren't you aware that we already do take into account the mental states of defendants - the mentally challenged, the insane?

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#28

Post by anigbrowl »

politician wrote: post #21
tcuk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer is obviously 'no'. But I also believe that your question is exactly what is bad about the situation. It is a total red herring to the issue at hand. Let me expand: He should have pleaded guilty to the crimes, because it is in my opinion, that he did infact break current laws, and that 6 months + felony, is not life ending sentence, far from it. Consider this: I also believe the laws in which he bro…

When you say "because it is in my opinion that in fact X," what you've said is simply that "in your opinion X". I point that out because Aaron apparently had a different opinion that led him to make a different choice. I find it strange that posing a question which you and Aaron answer differently in order to probe your rational is "a total red herring". I respect that you don't believe these laws are just. One such…

It doesn't matter what aaronsw's opinion was; it's still illegal to break intoa w riing closet and attach our computer to someone else's network without permission. If you found someone doing that in a typical workplace, you'd call the cops too. I think my local library should be open 24/7 but that doesn't give me the right to remove the door by the hinges.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#29

Post by mc32 »

politician wrote: post #27
mc32 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying one should not sue, or at least weigh heavily, people's mental state prior to launching a lawsuit? Is that current procedure, run mental evaluations before suing? Lots of people have mental breakdowns before and during trials. The trials proceed so long as people are 'mentally competent' to stand trial. If something like this were allowed, people would pretty much abuse the system and claim mental angu…

Aren't you aware that we already do take into account the mental states of defendants - the mentally challenged, the insane?

In extreme cases, yes. People are put on suicide watches, but the trials proceed. The bar for being considered 'insane' and 'mentally unfit' is very high. You have people who would colloquially be considered 'crazy' go to trial, represent themselves, etc.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#30

Post by Adam503 »

clarky07 wrote: post #11

I really feel for his family, but I just can't blame his death on the Government. Did they handle this poorly and overreach greatly? Yes. Did they kill him? No. He was offered a plea deal for 6 months in prison. Nobody in their right mind kills themselves over 6 months in jail or the prospect of being a felon. Obviously being labeled a felon and 6 months in jail sucks, but it's not like he couldn't get a job because…

Aaron Swartz was not a very big guy at all. Aaron Swartz would have been raped within moments of walking in a Federal Prison. Aaron Swartz prison stay would have been 6 months of non-stop prison rape.

Impending prison rape is exactly the sort of thing reasonable people commit suicide about. All the time.

Post reply on HN