Again: given a full warning of the problem, judge and prosecutors expressed extreme indifference.

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.

Not funny as in humor, but definition 2 and 3 of "funny"[1]:

>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?

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny

You're doing an equally good job of avoiding expressing any empathy and human concern your response instead with again defending your own position and word choice.

I'll offer you another opportunity with your own question:

Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?

My empathy is going to the people who are alive and suffering from similar mental health issues today that could be helped if we told the truth about why Swartz is dead.

I answered the question in the first comment.