I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished,

I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to be reformed on this merit alone. It may very well be that there is need for reform in these laws, but does that give Aaron the right to break them? And if so, does this lead precedence for others to behave similarly without consequence? If so, where do we draw the line in what constitutes which laws are allowed to be bypassed? How does this not lead to massive abuse? I do not believe that no matter how wrong we think the laws are, in a democratic society, we must act in appropriate ways to cause reform. This is because edge cases like this where laws are broken that perhaps shouldn't exist, are never real reasons to change how we prosecute people. There is so much confusion within this whole situation: 1) Reform on the laws 2) Reform on how we prosecute people 3) Termination of prosecutors involved Each of the above needs to be clearly defined, and a case made against each one. I don't believe this case by itself causes for reform in prosecution, or termination of prosecutors. I only believe this case should cause reform in specific laws, and that it's said a man felt his only option to cause reform was to break the law, which ultimately ended in him taking his whole life. I see similarities between this and the Anders Breveik case in equal but opposite ways, where 20 years life sentence was said by many to be absurd for his crime, and many called for reform, when in fact the Norwegian system is extremely effective, and this was just an edge case.