4 ms·

>they offerred Swartz a plea deal that would have sent him to jail for three months Why didn't he take that?

• niggler 14y ago
  To take the plea deal, he would have had to admit guilt (Heymann insisted on it) Summary: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/aaron-swartz-s-unbending-prosecutors-insisted-on-prison-time.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/aaron-swart...
  • t0 14y ago
    Wasn't he though? In hindsight this still seems like a better deal as opposed to what actually happened.
    • niggler 14y ago
      Never having been through a similar situation, I cannot say what I would do if I were in his shoes. I believe that he didn't believe that what he did warranted decades of jail time. I believe that the prosecutor believed that his crimes did justify jail time. But your statement reflects two facts: that he did end up committing suicide (not known a priori) and that he chose not to accept guilt when he didn't believe he was guilty (and I fully suspect you've never been in that type of situation at the severity of the Swartz case, so it's hard to definitively state that you would just take the jail time)
    • enraged_camel 14y ago
      As others have said, he would also be branded a felon, which in the US is enough to ruin most people's professional careers - not to mention a host of other very strict restrictions.
      • signed0 14y ago
        Aaron wasn't most people though, and it's not as if his profession was one that would be ruined by a criminal record.
        • Helianthus 14y ago
          He wasn't most people _because_ he wasn't the sort to submit to such a demeaning choice.
        • enraged_camel 14y ago
          It's not just about profession. Being labeled a felon is a serious pain in the ass and follows you for the rest of your life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States Besides all the restrictions, there's also the stigma attached to it.
          • jlgreco 14y ago
            That housing rental one is huge. Most people forget about that one. It has the potential to seriously effect your quality of life.
            • rdl 14y ago
              In practice he would have been fine.
              • jlgreco 14y ago
                I would not be so sure. Stardom fades fast, particularly considering the fandom around him really only kicked it up a notch after he died. Check out the general sentiment of him on HN before he died; most people thought he was whinging. Maybe he could find some people to help him out 5 years from now. Maybe even 10 or 20, but for how long would he be able to rely on that?
                • rdl 14y ago
    • InclinedPlane 14y ago
      Was he? He was never tried, and neither a court nor a jury made a finding either way. The evidence that is publicly available doesn't back up some of the charges against him and at best is ambiguous as to whether his actions would result in even a 3 months prison sentence, if anything, if he had had the chance to have his case heard in court. Especially given that with his earlier work with PACER it's quite likely that his goal with JSTOR was to gain access to and release documents which, legally, should have been in the public domain. Besides which, whether or not he violated the law is only partially relevant as the morality of the law is also at issue. How would you feel if your only option was to plead guilty to a law you felt was unjust?
• jacquesm 14y ago
  It was that + branding him a felon.
• mtgx 14y ago
  He wasn't guilty. Why would a prosecutor give someone an option between 30 years and 3 months - unless they know they have nothing to hold him on, but think they may get lucky and just accept the 3 months period and "admit he was guilty"? Either he's a dangerous criminal who deserves 30 years in jail, or it's nothing, and the only reason they ask him to accept 3 months is because they would look foolish asking him to accept anything less than that (like say weeks or days).
  • jacalata 14y ago
    What wasn't he guilty of?
    • monsterix 14y ago
      Can you enlist some of those things you think he was guilty of? Leaving aside the fact that he was actually trying to forcefully give people (you and I) back what they already owned.
      • sneak 14y ago
        This presupposes that one can own information in the first place.
        • monsterix 14y ago
          Well research papers that were funded by people's money - sure why not?
          • metaphorm 14y ago
            you should research the background of this case more. the jstor documents in question were already in the public domain.
    • Peaker 14y ago
      The frivolous charges of wire fraud, damaging computer systems with wrecklessness, etc.
• olefoo 14y ago
  A FELONY CONVICTION and three months in jail. If you take the law and legal status seriously, you don't just accept being disenfranchised lying down. nb. disenfranchised both literally and figuratively in this case.
• mverwijs 14y ago
  As I (a dutchman) understand US law a plea bargain is only that. A bargain that has the prosecution make a plea to the judge. The judge, however, is free to ignore that plea. There is no guarantee whatsoever that a judge will follow the recommendation in the plea. He/She could still have thrown the book at Swartz.
  • mpyne 14y ago
    The plea bargain can be made conditional on acceptance by the judge though.