3 ms·

So Aaron's other suicidal episodes, when no one was prosecuting him, aren't relevant to his final suicidal episode? Surely, the prosecution weighed on him, but

So Aaron's other suicidal episodes, when no one was prosecuting him, aren't relevant to his final suicidal episode? Surely, the prosecution weighed on him, but no mentally healthy person would choose to commit suicide before the outcome of the charges was even determined. It's not clear to me how one assigns blame for suicide in most cases, or what the options are for prosecutors. If a quasi-suicidal person cuts me off on the highway and I give them the middle finger, and they go home and commit suicide because of it - am I culpable? If, generally, a prosecutor thinks that a person is not mentally stable enough to face trial for their crimes without commiting suicide, are they just allowed to get away with what they want? Or should they be involuntarily committed?

michaelmrose 5y ago
I don't think threatening to wield what we now know is a poorly constructed law to put someone in prison for nearly the rest of their natural life is the same as giving someone the finger. He faced up to 35 years in prison for doing what many of us consider an effort to make the world a better place based on his own moral principals.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  He was offered a 6 month sentence in a low security facility
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    To admit guilt instead of actually defending himself in court. There is something implicitly wrong about getting a different sentence as punishment for actually having your day in court.
    - xadhominemx 5y ago
      Ok so you acknowledge that he was not actually facing a long prison sentence? And yes pleading guilty carries a lower sentence in part because you are rewarded for accepting responsibility for your actions.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        He was indeed facing a long prison sentence if he chose to defend himself and rewarding people for pleading guilty makes no sense. You aren't accepting responsibility you are literally making a self serving bet that you will probably lose your case and thereby serve a lesser sentence by taking a plea. Unfortunately innocent people make that same calculation and sometimes accept a short sentence rather than fearing a sentence that represents basically an end to their normal life. If you are innocent or believe as is in fact the case here that the governments position is legally incorrect you shouldn't face punishment for arguing that in front of a judge. For innocent people whom are inevitably convicted every day in any justice system this represents a punishment for asserting innocence. The fact that you think this is normal is just a sign that our entire society is itself abnormal and broken.
- tzs 5y ago
  He wasn't actually facing 35 years. DoJ press releases don't take into account a couple of aspects of sentences when they come up with a number. First, they ignore that actual sentencing takes into account assorted aggravating and mitigating factors. To get the maximum on a charge you have to have several aggravating factors and few mitigating factors. Basically, if it is possible that someone could receive 20 years, say, for a given charge--even if to get 20 years they would pretty much have to be that crime's equivalent of Al Capone, then they are going to say 20 years on every press release involving that crime even if it concerns the mildest possible instance of it. Second, there are often multiple charges that could apply to the same act and would require largely the same elements of proof. Prosecutors can charge you with all of them and let the jury decide which, if any, to convict you of. Many of these are grouped for sentencing, so that if you are convicted of more than one in the same group you only get sentenced for one of them. Grouping is ignored in the press releases. If you are charged with three things, with a max of 10 years each (and remember, that 10 years is already greatly exaggerated as described earlier), the press release is going to say you are facing up to 30 years. This really needs to be changed. The DoJ knows what facts they intend to try and prove about your particular instances of the crimes they are charging you with. They are perfectly capable of looking at the aggravating factors for the charge, comparing to what they are trying to prove, and figuring out the real maximum for your case. They are certainly also capable of dealing with grouping. I can't see any good reason they should not do so, and so put realistic maximums in their press releases. Here's a good article on how press release sentences are misleading [1]. Here's an article that looks at it specifically in the context of Swartz [2]. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... [2] http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aa...
munk-a 5y ago
> So Aaron's other suicidal episodes, when no one was prosecuting him, aren't relevant to his final suicidal episode? They absolutely are. Suicidal episodes are usually kept quite quiet - people you're extremely close to may have attempted suicide without ever telling you about it due to the societal shame and perception of weakness. As a general rule, it's a good idea to not emotionally abuse people or induce unnecessary mental stress on anyone since you're not going to be aware of how they're doing internally and, honestly, trying to emotionally abuse people, even when they're able to take it, is just being an abusive ass. I think your example of flipping a bird on the highway is honestly a good thing for more people to keep in mind in their daily lives - if someone is feeling particularly vulnerable then lashing out at them could tip the balance and you don't want that on your conscience - but I think legally speaking it'll always be a matter of judgement on the specifics. In the highway example it's likely that your bird barely nudged a needle that was already on the brink - while, when it comes to the legal system, prosecutors regularly use emotional abuse to expedite confessions and coerce defendants - as a society I think we tend toward a view where once someone is charged with a crime they are segregated into a different class of people who are unworthy of common respect, we need to change that.
kelnos 5y ago
I consider the state of my mental health to be pretty solidly strong, but if I was facing an overzealous prosecutor telling me (convincingly) I was certainly going to jail for a very long time, I might take my own life. It's disturbing and sobering to think about it, but there it is. I think the question here is: would Aaron Swartz have committed suicide at that particular time if not for the prosecutorial overreach he was mired in? I suspect the answer there is pretty safely: no. Would someone else in his position perhaps not have committed suicide in that situation? Sure. But he did, and it was clearly in no small part due to the circumstances he was in. I'm fine assigning much of the blame to the persecution he suffered under the US government. They wanted to make an example of him, by using a poorly-written, over-broad law that has traditionally been applied selectively depending on the needs of law enforcement. And sometimes when you put people in that position, they can't take it. If you don't agree, I guess that's fine, but quibbling about semantics here is just in poor taste and not particularly productive. > If, generally, a prosecutor thinks that a person is not mentally stable enough to face trial for their crimes without commiting suicide, are they just allowed to get away with what they want? Of course not, and this kind of question makes me feel like you're arguing in poor taste. Prosecutors have a ton of latitude in how they handle cases. Swartz was not some violent criminal who needed to be taught a lesson and be held up as an example to others. He was just a flawed human who believed scientific research (much of it funded by public, taxpayer money) shouldn't be locked up behind a corporation's paywall. The zeal in which this case was prosecuted far exceeded the "crime". But in general, if a person is a suicide risk during any kind of court proceeding, yes, actions should be taken to ensure that they won't (or aren't able to) commit suicide. If that means being put in a hospital under observation, sure, though that extreme may not have been necessary to save Swartz. We have an obligation as a society to treat everyone with respect and care, even -- especially -- those we've accused of crimes. We're very far off from that ideal, of course.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  > I consider the state of my mental health to be pretty solidly strong, but if I was facing an overzealous prosecutor telling me (convincingly) I was certainly going to jail for a very long time, I might take my own life. Aaron was offered a 6 month sentence in a low security facility

michaelmrose 5y ago

I don't think threatening to wield what we now know is a poorly constructed law to put someone in prison for nearly the rest of their natural life is the same as giving someone the finger. He faced up to 35 years in prison for doing what many of us consider an effort to make the world a better place based on his own moral principals.

xadhominemx 5y ago
He was offered a 6 month sentence in a low security facility
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  To admit guilt instead of actually defending himself in court. There is something implicitly wrong about getting a different sentence as punishment for actually having your day in court.
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    Ok so you acknowledge that he was not actually facing a long prison sentence? And yes pleading guilty carries a lower sentence in part because you are rewarded for accepting responsibility for your actions.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      He was indeed facing a long prison sentence if he chose to defend himself and rewarding people for pleading guilty makes no sense. You aren't accepting responsibility you are literally making a self serving bet that you will probably lose your case and thereby serve a lesser sentence by taking a plea. Unfortunately innocent people make that same calculation and sometimes accept a short sentence rather than fearing a sentence that represents basically an end to their normal life. If you are innocent or believe as is in fact the case here that the governments position is legally incorrect you shouldn't face punishment for arguing that in front of a judge. For innocent people whom are inevitably convicted every day in any justice system this represents a punishment for asserting innocence. The fact that you think this is normal is just a sign that our entire society is itself abnormal and broken.
tzs 5y ago
He wasn't actually facing 35 years. DoJ press releases don't take into account a couple of aspects of sentences when they come up with a number. First, they ignore that actual sentencing takes into account assorted aggravating and mitigating factors. To get the maximum on a charge you have to have several aggravating factors and few mitigating factors. Basically, if it is possible that someone could receive 20 years, say, for a given charge--even if to get 20 years they would pretty much have to be that crime's equivalent of Al Capone, then they are going to say 20 years on every press release involving that crime even if it concerns the mildest possible instance of it. Second, there are often multiple charges that could apply to the same act and would require largely the same elements of proof. Prosecutors can charge you with all of them and let the jury decide which, if any, to convict you of. Many of these are grouped for sentencing, so that if you are convicted of more than one in the same group you only get sentenced for one of them. Grouping is ignored in the press releases. If you are charged with three things, with a max of 10 years each (and remember, that 10 years is already greatly exaggerated as described earlier), the press release is going to say you are facing up to 30 years. This really needs to be changed. The DoJ knows what facts they intend to try and prove about your particular instances of the crimes they are charging you with. They are perfectly capable of looking at the aggravating factors for the charge, comparing to what they are trying to prove, and figuring out the real maximum for your case. They are certainly also capable of dealing with grouping. I can't see any good reason they should not do so, and so put realistic maximums in their press releases. Here's a good article on how press release sentences are misleading [1]. Here's an article that looks at it specifically in the context of Swartz [2]. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... [2] http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aa...

munk-a 5y ago

> So Aaron's other suicidal episodes, when no one was prosecuting him, aren't relevant to his final suicidal episode? They absolutely are. Suicidal episodes are usually kept quite quiet - people you're extremely close to may have attempted suicide without ever telling you about it due to the societal shame and perception of weakness. As a general rule, it's a good idea to not emotionally abuse people or induce unnecessary mental stress on anyone since you're not going to be aware of how they're doing internally and, honestly, trying to emotionally abuse people, even when they're able to take it, is just being an abusive ass. I think your example of flipping a bird on the highway is honestly a good thing for more people to keep in mind in their daily lives - if someone is feeling particularly vulnerable then lashing out at them could tip the balance and you don't want that on your conscience - but I think legally speaking it'll always be a matter of judgement on the specifics. In the highway example it's likely that your bird barely nudged a needle that was already on the brink - while, when it comes to the legal system, prosecutors regularly use emotional abuse to expedite confessions and coerce defendants - as a society I think we tend toward a view where once someone is charged with a crime they are segregated into a different class of people who are unworthy of common respect, we need to change that.

kelnos 5y ago

I consider the state of my mental health to be pretty solidly strong, but if I was facing an overzealous prosecutor telling me (convincingly) I was certainly going to jail for a very long time, I might take my own life. It's disturbing and sobering to think about it, but there it is. I think the question here is: would Aaron Swartz have committed suicide at that particular time if not for the prosecutorial overreach he was mired in? I suspect the answer there is pretty safely: no. Would someone else in his position perhaps not have committed suicide in that situation? Sure. But he did, and it was clearly in no small part due to the circumstances he was in. I'm fine assigning much of the blame to the persecution he suffered under the US government. They wanted to make an example of him, by using a poorly-written, over-broad law that has traditionally been applied selectively depending on the needs of law enforcement. And sometimes when you put people in that position, they can't take it. If you don't agree, I guess that's fine, but quibbling about semantics here is just in poor taste and not particularly productive. > If, generally, a prosecutor thinks that a person is not mentally stable enough to face trial for their crimes without commiting suicide, are they just allowed to get away with what they want? Of course not, and this kind of question makes me feel like you're arguing in poor taste. Prosecutors have a ton of latitude in how they handle cases. Swartz was not some violent criminal who needed to be taught a lesson and be held up as an example to others. He was just a flawed human who believed scientific research (much of it funded by public, taxpayer money) shouldn't be locked up behind a corporation's paywall. The zeal in which this case was prosecuted far exceeded the "crime". But in general, if a person is a suicide risk during any kind of court proceeding, yes, actions should be taken to ensure that they won't (or aren't able to) commit suicide. If that means being put in a hospital under observation, sure, though that extreme may not have been necessary to save Swartz. We have an obligation as a society to treat everyone with respect and care, even -- especially -- those we've accused of crimes. We're very far off from that ideal, of course.

xadhominemx 5y ago
> I consider the state of my mental health to be pretty solidly strong, but if I was facing an overzealous prosecutor telling me (convincingly) I was certainly going to jail for a very long time, I might take my own life. Aaron was offered a 6 month sentence in a low security facility