http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
Multiple prosecutors (Ortiz, Heymann), the judge (Gorton), and institutions (MIT, JSTOR) wantonly pursued an extreme perversion of justice in full knowledge of Swartz's mental state.
But either way, what do you think the response from the legal system should be in this situation? Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? I think that is a huge can of worms. Authorities should certainly work to protect people in their custody to prevent suicide, but I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that they have a responsibility to be more lenient against potentially suicidal defendants.
Certainly not judicious exercise of their discretion.
All for a victimless crime.
And rather than express some modicum of sympathy you point out the humour in the situation. (What humour, I'm not even going to begin to ask.)
I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
>2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way
>3: : involving trickery or deception
The overall quote agreed with me, but you removed that extra context to make it agree with you.
You also did a good job of avoiding giving a definitive answer to my question because you realize your answer sets a difficult precedent. Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?
I'll offer you another opportunity with your own question:
Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?
I answered the question in the first comment.
What is JSTOR doing on that list? After Swartz was identified and arrested, JSTOR said that they would not pursue a civil case against him, and they were not interested in seeing him criminally prosecuted. As far as they were concerned the downloading had stopped and the matter was done.
It is not attempting to be a justification for what happened to him. It is demonstrating that Swartz was not acting rationally. You shouldn't blame someone for triggering an irrational response by another person. And it isn't victim-blaming to say someone is dead because of their mental illness anymore than it is victim-blaming to say someone is dead because they had cancer.
>Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful.
You are the one being reductive and equating all mental health issues to suicide. I am talking about one specific person with mental health issues. Talking about Swartz's mental health history is important. If he got the help he needed at the right time he might still be alive. Talking about that aspect of the story can help save the lives of people who feel similarly trapped as he felt.