3 ms·

MIT did not on its own "cause" Aaron to commit suicide, but MIT certainly did play a role in the events that led up to the suicide. Perhaps MIT had no reason t

MIT did not on its own "cause" Aaron to commit suicide, but MIT certainly did play a role in the events that led up to the suicide. Perhaps MIT had no reason to defend Aaron, but what reason did they have to help the prosecution -- why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it? MIT deserves its share of the blame.

ericcumbee 13y ago
if someone broke into my Network Closet, I would not need a subpoena.
- betterunix 13y ago
  OK, then you would receive your share of the blame if that person killed themselves after being hounded by the prosecutors you aided.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    So the US should stop prosecuting crimes if there is a worry that person might be mentally unstable?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      If you are the aggrieved party, and the punishment the law is meting out is ridiculously out of proportion to the harm done to you, you have some responsibility to speak up.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      No, but the US absolutely should stop using plea-bargaining as a way to bully people into not going to trial, and then retaliating against people who dare to exercise their right to a trial by adding additional charges against them after plea bargaining. While we are at it, we should reign in the cost of actually exercising the right to a trial -- Aaron lost his fortune defending himself from the government, which is more than most Americans could hope to do. See, the problem here is that we are talking about giving aid to overly aggressive prosecutors, whose entire careers are devoted to undermining civil rights and destroying their targets. If that is the sort of prosecution you are aiding, yes, you should share in the blame for what happens to the prosecutor's victims.
      - baddox 13y ago
        I think it is fairly uncontroversial to say that the US criminal justice system is a joke. Very few cases go to court (and thus juries) because of the huge amount of power lea bargaining gives to the state.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      We already factor mental stability into both sentencing and convictions.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        I find that hard to believe. Many prison systems are now the largest providers of mental health services in their various states because so many people with mental illness are imprisoned.
- sampo 13y ago
  The closet was not locked, so there was no need to break into it. This is common knowledge about the case, also found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    >Opening a closed door or window is a >breaking, even if they are unlocked. http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/8100-breaking-and-entering.pdf http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtco...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    So is it your position that trespassing on other's property is now OK if they forget to lock the door?
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      Trespassing is the whole substantial crime in this case, and it should have ended with an arrest by the Cambridge PD and a fine.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        You may have left out the part where Aaron was on the MIT subnet despite being kicked off repeatedly... I don't agree with felony charges but nor was this an instance of mere physical trespassing.
    - GigabyteCoin 13y ago
      Sampo is just stating the facts as far as I can tell.
pdonis 13y ago
why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it? Because they didn't know what was going on and needed help to figure it out. It's all laid out in the Abelson report. If you're looking for a key juncture at which MIT made a mistake, I would ask why they didn't make a statement similar to the one JSTOR made after the civil settlement: basically saying "we're satisfied that this is resolved and don't have any interest in further legal actions being taken". (I'm not sure this would actually have stopped the prosecutors, since they seemed bound and determined to "get" Swartz no matter what, but at least it would have been something.)

ericcumbee 13y ago

if someone broke into my Network Closet, I would not need a subpoena.

betterunix 13y ago
OK, then you would receive your share of the blame if that person killed themselves after being hounded by the prosecutors you aided.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  So the US should stop prosecuting crimes if there is a worry that person might be mentally unstable?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    If you are the aggrieved party, and the punishment the law is meting out is ridiculously out of proportion to the harm done to you, you have some responsibility to speak up.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    No, but the US absolutely should stop using plea-bargaining as a way to bully people into not going to trial, and then retaliating against people who dare to exercise their right to a trial by adding additional charges against them after plea bargaining. While we are at it, we should reign in the cost of actually exercising the right to a trial -- Aaron lost his fortune defending himself from the government, which is more than most Americans could hope to do. See, the problem here is that we are talking about giving aid to overly aggressive prosecutors, whose entire careers are devoted to undermining civil rights and destroying their targets. If that is the sort of prosecution you are aiding, yes, you should share in the blame for what happens to the prosecutor's victims.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I think it is fairly uncontroversial to say that the US criminal justice system is a joke. Very few cases go to court (and thus juries) because of the huge amount of power lea bargaining gives to the state.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    We already factor mental stability into both sentencing and convictions.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      I find that hard to believe. Many prison systems are now the largest providers of mental health services in their various states because so many people with mental illness are imprisoned.
sampo 13y ago
The closet was not locked, so there was no need to break into it. This is common knowledge about the case, also found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  >Opening a closed door or window is a >breaking, even if they are unlocked. http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/8100-breaking-and-entering.pdf http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtco...
- mpyne 13y ago
  So is it your position that trespassing on other's property is now OK if they forget to lock the door?
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Trespassing is the whole substantial crime in this case, and it should have ended with an arrest by the Cambridge PD and a fine.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      You may have left out the part where Aaron was on the MIT subnet despite being kicked off repeatedly... I don't agree with felony charges but nor was this an instance of mere physical trespassing.
  - GigabyteCoin 13y ago
    Sampo is just stating the facts as far as I can tell.

pdonis 13y ago

why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it? Because they didn't know what was going on and needed help to figure it out. It's all laid out in the Abelson report. If you're looking for a key juncture at which MIT made a mistake, I would ask why they didn't make a statement similar to the one JSTOR made after the civil settlement: basically saying "we're satisfied that this is resolved and don't have any interest in further legal actions being taken". (I'm not sure this would actually have stopped the prosecutors, since they seemed bound and determined to "get" Swartz no matter what, but at least it would have been something.)