6 ms·

>>I'm so glad to hear they had just the right environment for Aaron waiting to lovingly receive him. However horrible that might have been, it would have been

• jacquesm 14y ago
  You mean the alternative of him being set free? You're arguing from a false dichotomy here, there are a lot more options than the ones that you see, and most of them are arguably a lot better than the ones you put forward.
  • wilfra 14y ago
    I mean the alternative of him being dead. Yes, there were other alternatives and jail certainly wasn't the best one. My point is simply that it would have been better than what ultimately happened, so given that, it's not so terrible the prosecutor suggested it.
    • jacquesm 14y ago
      > I mean the alternative of him being dead. I got what you meant, but what ultimately did happen is not relevant when you're speculating, what should have happened is and the prosecutors suggestion is moronic. Part of the whole idea of having a justice system is that you do what's best for society. Putting otherwise superbly functioning human beings naked in a rubber room is such a spectacular waste of human potential that I really have a problem just contemplating such things, it is like having my head defiled.
      • wilfra 14y ago
        Preventing him from killing himself, by any means necessary, would have been best for society. If he were in a psychiatric hospital the treatment wouldn't have been much different. They also use rubber rooms and cameras, if necessary. Outside of those two options, I'm not sure what you are implying could/should have been done. Was the prosecutor supposed to follow Aaron around 24/7 and physically stop him from hurting himself?
        • hackinthebochs 14y ago
          >Preventing him from killing himself, by any means necessary, would have been best for society. Please explain this one to me. I would love to see what you come up with. I can think of about a thousand reasons why it isn't.
        • Volpe 14y ago
          Or not pursue charges based on politics, and instead focus on the 'good of society'. Step back a bit. They charges didn't even need to be pursued. What "good" was ever going to come of it in any possible situation where charges were pursued?
          • wilfra 14y ago
            That's got nothing to do with how the prosecutor should respond to being told he is suicidal. I agree he shouldn't have been prosecuted.
            • Volpe 14y ago
              ... Yes it is. If I think these charges probably aren't going to do anything good, and they could kill someone, I might consider not pursuing them (being reasonable)... Easy to say this in hindsight, but it is not unrelated.
        • mpyne 14y ago
          > Was the prosecutor supposed to follow Aaron around 24/7 and physically stop him from hurting himself? I think the prosecution was simply supposed to not charge him at all because despite the fact that aaronsw's actions would have led to any other random computer geek being arrested with nary a second thought on HN, this computer geek is more deserving. After all, he's just trying to "do the right thing". Hell, in fact the prosecutor should be ashamed of daring bring any charge against someone who only went out of his way to visit some other campus than his own, evade a 1-file-at-a-time control, evade an IP ban, evade a MAC ban, evade a Wifi ban, and hide his face while trespassing in an unlocked server room, where the only reason he even got caught at all was because he simply wouldn't give up. Next thing you know they'll probably start ticketing jaywalkers.
      • philwelch 14y ago
        "otherwise superbly functioning"--highly functioning people don't kill themselves, not even in aaronsw's situation.
        • hackinthebochs 14y ago
          So we define proper mental health as people who would not ever kill themselves? How convenient for you.
          • philwelch 14y ago
            That's how it's usually defined, maybe with the exception of terminal illness or mortal injury.
            • hackinthebochs 14y ago
              And it doesn't bother you how circular that is? 1. Anyone who would kill themselves is not mentally well 2. We cannot allow you to kill yourself because you're not mentally well
              • philwelch 14y ago
                There are exceptions; can you argue that this is one of them or do you just enjoy disagreeing with people?
                • hackinthebochs 14y ago
                  I'm not sure what point you're making regarding exceptions. But I don't believe those exceptions are enough. Being able to remove someone's right because you don't like how they choose to exercise it is no right at all. Either you believe in a right or you don't.
                  • philwelch 14y ago
                    I didn't say anything about rights.
• hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Says fucking who? No really. Why do some people think they get to decide what level of inhuman treatment is enough that choosing to end one's own life is the rational choice? If one does not have the right to end their own life, one was never truly free. The concept of physically restraining someone from committing suicide is completely antithetical to the idea of man being free. You cannot believe in one while advocating for the other.
  • zende 14y ago
    > The concept of physically restraining someone from committing suicide is completely antithetical to the idea of man being free. You cannot believe in one while advocating for the other. Suggesting that you put someone in a "rubber room" is a bit ridiculous, but it's normal to put someone that is suicidal under suicide watch. Keep in mind that mental health can be a huge factor in someone being suicidal. In other words, they're not thinking straight, so it's fair to help them during that time. Having the right to end your life is different than others trying to help you through a challenging time and show you that there are other ways out.
    • hackinthebochs 14y ago
      >Keep in mind that mental health can be a huge factor in someone being suicidal. In other words, they're not thinking straight, so it's fair to help them during that time. Using the mental health angle to deny someone their most basic right is fraught with issues. Mental health is often defined in terms of conforming to the standard behavior under various measures. We define mentally unhealthy as sufficiently deviant behavior and use that as a rationale for restricting that behavior. This is a thinly veiled attempt at forcing conformity under a scientific premise. Unless one can be demonstrated to be out of touch with reality, we have no right to physically intervene with someone exercising their right to self-determination. If you believe this right has caveats, then you simply never believed in it to begin with.
      • zende 14y ago
        How do you "demonstrate one is out of touch reality"? That's just as difficult to define. My argument is that there's no black or white answer.