I just see so much focus on needing to identify a catalyst (which doesn't affect most people) instead of the pre-existing mental health issue of the person. I think this hampers the necessary conversations to be had on suicide.
This is itself presumptive and I think largely wrong. Like most things it's a combination of factors. No doubt Aaron was struggling with depression, but facing federal prison with a trial defense costing $1.5M (even if acquitted in the end) is enough pressure to break even an otherwise healthy person.
I don't understand the need for people to frame this as you are.
I suspect Aaron would be alive today if the prosecution had shown some discretion. In this specific case, it would also have been the right/just thing as well as the legally correct thing.
Then perhaps the bigger issue, to me, is that this level of analysis is not given to other people, where it should be as well.
even if the family sued the state civilly there would be nothing for the state to defend against
I think this would have acquitted Aaron Swartz (though he likely would have been acquitted anyway since they didn't even allege improper motive iirc).
In his case he accessed journals that were available to him via MIT's open network. There is the second issue of his trespassing in a closet to leave a laptop on the network, but that would have been minor when compared to the string of felonies they charged him with which was tied to the CFAA.
This seems like a good restriction to me at first glance.