:quote: In the abstract he had very valid points, but in the context of that specific thread I think he did a pretty effective job at convincing people that

* Aaron did something wrong * JSTOR backing out doesn't really mean anything * the prosecution is justified in trying to make an example of him * Aaron probably won't serve serious time, this is just a scare tactic :/quote:

All but one of those are correct though. Why is this a bad thing? Even the one that isn't (point 3) is close to an accurate recital of one of the goals of the U.S. justice system (to deter crime by making the perceived risk of conviction unacceptably high).

I don't see any of those as being correct tbh.

Wrong - morally not, legally maybe. JSTOR backing out - MIT didn't back out. An example is justified - absolutely not, given that the act is not morally wrong. Aaron won't serve serious time - well, we're seeing the time he's serving now. He's lost his life and he isn't the first under these circumstances.

Well for a legal prosecutor "legally wrong" is the point that matters (and it's this way for a very important reason).

Likewise the state prosecutes in some situations even if the "victim" doesn't want to press charges, as the responsibility of the state extends far beyond just the party that was allegedly wronged.

I've mentioned it elsewhere but it's well enough to reiterate: Even know we know that there was a plea offer actually on the table for a 6-8 month prison sentence, even with the failure of the legal fund drive for Aaron. That is not "serious time", is well in line with first-time offenders where the offender doesn't cause major damage, etc. Aaron didn't want to accept the offer because he would still be a "Felon", but that was his choice to make.

And also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, many, many people have faced Federal charges and not killed themselves. It was only 50 years ago that poor sharecroppers were having fire hoses turned on them, flaming crosses, and being strung up and killed for simply trying to be judged on their actions.

So I would like to think we can maintain perspective on what types of government abuse might reasonably lead to someone taking their own life, and then look at what was going on here, and honestly compare.

The prosecutors were told he was a suicide risk.

“The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,” Good told me. “His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit...

Bradley Manning was claimed to be a suicide risk and thereby placed on suicide prevention watch, under conditions so severe that the military judge overseeing the case later gave a reduction on any eventual sentence based on his initial treatment. So no matter what you do you're apparently going to make somebody very unhappy.

Heymann's actions were unpalatable, but it's based on its own merits (using high-pressure tactics more appropriate for drug lords), not because someone else claimed he might later kill himself. Either way, Good was Swartz's own attorney, not a psychiatrist.

What I find much more concerning is that plea deal involving no jail time had been reached, and fell apart because of MIT. a) Why was MIT concerned that he serve time behind bars, and b) Why did the prosecution care that much what MIT thinks?

Oh please, like the way Schwartz or Manning were treated are the only two options?

If you don't think Heymann sees this as a win then you're beyond naive.