I'm not sure I understand. It reads like you're blaming a suicide victim for dying before he received a verdict instead of the people who put him in that position, but I'd rather not assume your intention.

Blaming suicides on people other than the suicidal person is something I also rather not assume people would intend.

> And he physically broke into an IDF at MIT to do this.

Worse has been done for pranks with little to no consequence.

Somehow the "well Jimmy did it too and he didn't get in trouble!" defense isn't a strong one.

Not a defense for his actions, but meant as a way to illustrate how disproportionate the response was for what he actually did. I'm working off memory here, so maybe I'm wrong, but from what he was really be pursued for should have been a civil matter at worst.

In the case of _pranks at MIT_, which has a rich history of outrageous pranks, I'd hoped it would have affected their reaction to it, much as one would hope that students wouldn't get arrested for breaking an entering if they did it to assemble a Volkswagen in someone's office.

Crucial to note is that Aaron _wasn't_ an MIT student. Most of those "pranks" were students. Aaron was trespassing, though MIT decided they did not want him to be prosecuted.

Horrible position to take. He was bullied and bullies deserve to be punished.

Recent suicide of 9 year old because bullying had sparked debate in our office. And most agreed her bullies and parents of bullies should be charged criminally.

> And let’s not forget he killed himself before any kind of sentence was given. For all we know he could have been found innocent.

He was hounded to death by a prosecutor. The fact that the prosecutor lied to him is hardly a defense.

It's shocking how many people on HN seem to assume that Swartz was an idiot.

He had good legal representation and it couldn't have been as easy to mislead him as people here keep suggesting.

So, what, he killed himself to cynically manipulate public opinion?

I simply don't find it very realistic that he killed himself over the possibility of spending 6 months in prison.

He was threatened with prison and then he killed himself. I doubt it was the only factor, but you'll need some sort of compelling evidence to argue that it wasn't the main factor.

I find the fact that we're talking about 4 or 0-6 months to be very compelling evidence.

What sort of a person kills themselves over 4 months in prison?

For starters, your numbers are wrong. At one point he was charged with 13 felonies potentially totaling more than 50 years of prison time. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-go...

And you keep saying he couldn't have hanged himself over these charges. Given that he was threatened with prison time, and shortly after hanged himself, what's your counter-theory? He was murdered by the CIA? He was totally fine with the changes, but he just got real sad all of a sudden? There is no reasonable circumstance where this wasn't the major factor in his suicide.

My numbers aren’t wrong. They’re the plea deals he was offered. Two deals, 4 months in prison or 6 months and opportunity to argue for a lower sentence in front of the judge.

You’re the one giving incorrect numbers, he couldn’t possibly have been sentenced to 50 years.

According to his attorneys, the prosecutors believed that the most they could achieve at trial would have been 7 years. A very different number from 50 years.

I suggest you look into the case a little before making statements like this. Techdirt may not be the best source either.

He'd already rejected the plea bargain. He was going to stand trial at that point.

> According to his attorneys, the prosecutors believed that the most they could achieve at trial would have been 7 years. A very different number from 50 years.

And a lot more than 6 months.

You still haven't answered my question. If he didn't kill himself because he feared prison, then what happened?