7 ms·

Whether we're comfortable calling it as such or not, this should be considered a culpable murder. Suicide is the reasonably foreseeable outcome of being caprici

Whether we're comfortable calling it as such or not, this should be considered a culpable murder. Suicide is the reasonably foreseeable outcome of being capriciously targeted by the overwhelming violence of the government. I am so sorry for the loss. Aaron was clearly a hugely valuable human being.

annadane 6y ago
I agree. I'm not fond of the apologists. Swarz deserved to be treated better
- arp242 6y ago
  I don't think anyone here really disagrees with that.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Aaron committed suicide because he was suicidal, not because of the prosecution. He admitted to thinking about suicide and being depressed multiple times in the past even before the prosecution. At the very least, no reasonable person would commit suicide before the outcome of the trial was even decided(e.g. Slobodan Praljak) The prosecution against him was unwarranted from an ethical perspective, but that doesn't mean it alone drove him to suicide. Laying the blame solely on external factors for a suicide does an extreme disservice to the understanding of depression and mental illness.
- jupiterboy 6y ago
  In principle, I agree with your comment, but there is a significant difference in the contributory factor and in your responsibility and duty of care when your job is to participate in the direction of threats, imprisonment and violence towards individuals.
slg 6y ago
I agree that the prosecutors were unnecessarily aggressive in the way they want after Aaron in this case. However it is a dangerous precedent to set that anyone who does something that might be seen as a catalyst for suicide can be found culpable in a murder. If someone gets fired for their job and commits suicide, is their boss liable? If someone is dumped by their significant other and commits suicide, is their former partner liable? This also isn't getting into the problem this presents for the legal system. Does someone fabricating suicidal thoughts force the government's hand into a lighter sentence? Also suicide is never a "reasonably foreseeable outcome" when someone is faced with a 6 month jail sentence. There are literally millions of people in jail in this country for longer sentences that never consider suicide. Anyone who thinks throwing away the 50 years post jail sentence is worth not having to endure a rough few months is not in a good mental state. This country does a horrible job helping people with mental health issues. That is generally what kills people who die by suicide. It isn't whatever event is ultimately the impetus for the action.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > However it is a dangerous precedent to set that anyone who does something that might be seen as a catalyst for suicide can be found culpable in a murder. Most people don't have such inescapable power underlying their threats. The government is a good deal more fearsome than most individuals who aren't directly threatening murder in the traditional sense. > Also suicide is never a "reasonably foreseeable outcome" when someone is faced with a 6 month jail sentence. It's a bit disingenuous to call it a threat of 6 months in jail. That was a plea bargain offer with other strings attached, that came after Swartz was threatened with up to 35 years and then more charges were added bringing the potential up to 50 years. By the time the 6 month offer was made, Swartz had already been subject to more abuse and harassment than his actions could have ever justified. He was deep into a Kafkaesque nightmare before the prosecution offered the first shreds of mercy.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    > Swartz was threatened with up to 35 years and then more charges were added bringing the potential up to 50 years This never happened.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      There are copious news reports from the time that state the charges filed against him carried those maximum penalties. It happened. The prosecutors did eventually state that they would not seek maximum penalties, but that's not a guarantee, and it's not something that was communicated at the time the charges were initially brought against him.
      - ryanlol 6y ago
        > There are copious news reports from the time that state the charges filed against him carried those maximum penalties Yes, and those reports fail to accurately communicate the possible range of punishments that Swartz could’ve received. At the time the prosecutors claimed that Swartz could’ve faced at most 7 years. A very harsh, but unlikely sentence.

annadane 6y ago

I agree. I'm not fond of the apologists. Swarz deserved to be treated better

arp242 6y ago
I don't think anyone here really disagrees with that.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Aaron committed suicide because he was suicidal, not because of the prosecution. He admitted to thinking about suicide and being depressed multiple times in the past even before the prosecution. At the very least, no reasonable person would commit suicide before the outcome of the trial was even decided(e.g. Slobodan Praljak) The prosecution against him was unwarranted from an ethical perspective, but that doesn't mean it alone drove him to suicide. Laying the blame solely on external factors for a suicide does an extreme disservice to the understanding of depression and mental illness.

jupiterboy 6y ago
In principle, I agree with your comment, but there is a significant difference in the contributory factor and in your responsibility and duty of care when your job is to participate in the direction of threats, imprisonment and violence towards individuals.

slg 6y ago

I agree that the prosecutors were unnecessarily aggressive in the way they want after Aaron in this case. However it is a dangerous precedent to set that anyone who does something that might be seen as a catalyst for suicide can be found culpable in a murder. If someone gets fired for their job and commits suicide, is their boss liable? If someone is dumped by their significant other and commits suicide, is their former partner liable? This also isn't getting into the problem this presents for the legal system. Does someone fabricating suicidal thoughts force the government's hand into a lighter sentence? Also suicide is never a "reasonably foreseeable outcome" when someone is faced with a 6 month jail sentence. There are literally millions of people in jail in this country for longer sentences that never consider suicide. Anyone who thinks throwing away the 50 years post jail sentence is worth not having to endure a rough few months is not in a good mental state. This country does a horrible job helping people with mental health issues. That is generally what kills people who die by suicide. It isn't whatever event is ultimately the impetus for the action.

wtallis 6y ago
> However it is a dangerous precedent to set that anyone who does something that might be seen as a catalyst for suicide can be found culpable in a murder. Most people don't have such inescapable power underlying their threats. The government is a good deal more fearsome than most individuals who aren't directly threatening murder in the traditional sense. > Also suicide is never a "reasonably foreseeable outcome" when someone is faced with a 6 month jail sentence. It's a bit disingenuous to call it a threat of 6 months in jail. That was a plea bargain offer with other strings attached, that came after Swartz was threatened with up to 35 years and then more charges were added bringing the potential up to 50 years. By the time the 6 month offer was made, Swartz had already been subject to more abuse and harassment than his actions could have ever justified. He was deep into a Kafkaesque nightmare before the prosecution offered the first shreds of mercy.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  > Swartz was threatened with up to 35 years and then more charges were added bringing the potential up to 50 years This never happened.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    There are copious news reports from the time that state the charges filed against him carried those maximum penalties. It happened. The prosecutors did eventually state that they would not seek maximum penalties, but that's not a guarantee, and it's not something that was communicated at the time the charges were initially brought against him.
    - ryanlol 6y ago
      > There are copious news reports from the time that state the charges filed against him carried those maximum penalties Yes, and those reports fail to accurately communicate the possible range of punishments that Swartz could’ve received. At the time the prosecutors claimed that Swartz could’ve faced at most 7 years. A very harsh, but unlikely sentence.