Reddit Cofounder kills himself.

35 years? Seriously?

Going for the jugular like that is bullshit, especially since celebrity frequently gets you the exact opposite.

As for killing himself, he apparently has had a history of depression, and this whole thing had been going on for about two years. I could see that looking pretty hopeless.

tldr; it really says something about our justice system that they went to all that trouble for something so small. They should have backed the fuck off when MIT and JSTOR decided they didn't care. That is what happens in most cases, I want to know what made this one special?

edited 15th Jan '13 10:35:29 PM by Barkey

Yes, say the person who killed himself is undeserving of sympathy. Whether or not he actually did anything, suicide is still a serious thing that a person pretty much only turns to when in their absolute darkest of hours and is engulfed by overwhelming and inescapable hopelessness. So, quite frankly, saying he doesn't deserve sympathy (or, rather, not very much sympathy—same difference either way) is pretty damn heartless.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Again. Going for the jugular is standard. It's to entice a plea to a lesser charge, for lesser time, and a lesser sentence. Celebrities get lesser sentences because they always do this.*

It's essentially a punishment to take the charges to trial. If you're found guilty, you "wasted" the courts time and are "punished" for it. Swartz was offered a plea. I can pretty much guarantee it. And the fact that it was going to go to trial says he turned the plea down because he didn't think he did anything wrong, or he thought he could beat the charges. One or the other.

And if the jury agreed that the charges are bullshit(and all it would take is one of twelve), then he'd be okay.*

---

I never said that. Re-read it.

I said if the reason for his suicide(which we'll never really know unless he left a note) is for that one specific reason, then my sympathy for him is less than it would normally be. Because that reason would be beyond retarded, if his expert witness is to be believed...

---

Edit:

It needs to be pointed out, Barkey, that MIT cared. They wanted the charges filed. JSTOR didn't care about the files downloaded. MIT cared about their access being restricted due to Swartz's actions, and thus asked for the charges to be filed in the first place...

edited 15th Jan '13 10:47:52 PM by Swish

Never mind the fact that the legal fees had already pushed him to bankruptcy even if he was vindicated of all charges...

I think there's plenty of room for sympathy for the guy, the court system basically destroyed his fucking life over something pretty trivial.

The court system didn't destroy his life. Swartz destroyed his own life by doing something stupid and illegal to get something trivial.

Wow aren't you heart?

hashtagsarestupid

His trial was not "normal" practice for what he did. Our court systems aren't known for being very proportional at the best of times, but the treatment he received was absolutely overkill, and I find it hard to believe that it was just typical overzealousness motivating the prosecution.

30+ years for such a petty crime is ridiculous, that's like giving someone 20 years for marijuana useage prosecution.

edited 15th Jan '13 11:37:16 PM by Barkey

It is becoming "Normal Practice". 97% case in america now solved through plea-bargain not jury. Prosecutor had incentive to "punish" people who refuse plea bargain.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/the-death-of-aaron-swartz/267224/

Other example :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html

This is where using prison as a distinctive threat instead of other available sentences is a bit... weird. Let alone long sentences for... what? Petty theft?

Are you guys sure you're happy with private prisons?

Again. He committed fraud. There's 20 years for the wire fraud alone(18 USC 1343). And 20 years from the three 18 USC 1030 charges(10, 5, 5, respectively). The United States Code is rather clear on what the sentencing for every federal offense is. Contact your US Representative if you don't like the sentence, and ask them to change it...

But one can't blame the US Attorney for "overcharging" Swartz, because the Grand Jury agreed there was enough evidence to bring the charges for trail.

edited 16th Jan '13 12:15:05 AM by Swish

@Barkey: I'm pretty sure that he pissed them off and they were trying to "make an example" of him. He did a stupid thing but (IMO) misdemeanor-level stupid, not "possible 35-50 year sentence" thing.

He probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that even if found guilty, but still. He was (I heard) willing to plead to a misdemeanor, but not a felony.

@Swish: Grand juries generally rubber-stamp everything a prosecutor hands them, so that doesn't mean jack.

edited 16th Jan '13 12:16:26 AM by Morven

A brighter future for a darker age.

I agree. But prosecutors won't take a case to trial unless they're 90% sure they'll win to begin with... The idea that Swartz did nothing wrong*

seems rather asinine.

edited 16th Jan '13 12:20:08 AM by Swish

Any DA who tries to make an example with a convection needs to discplined and made an example of.

hashtagsarestupid

I think anyone who wants to make an example of anyone else needs to be made an example of. Unless this sentence counts as "wanting to make an example of someone".

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Pedantic point - Swartz wasn't the co-founder of Reddit. He founded Infogami, which later got merged with Reddit. He was a big player in the former site, but he didn't come up with it in the first place. Not that this changes anything either way (very smart, very troubled dude gets eaten alive by the legal system, it is tragic), just getting the facts straight.

edited 16th Jan '13 2:14:37 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

^^Agreed.

Yes I know some people argue it's wrong to make examples of people who make examples of people. But it's like the having the death penalty for murders. It's okay to make examples out of people who make examples of other people as they made example out of other people and the punishment should fit the crime. People who make examples out of other people deserve to be made an example out of. Besides it set an example.

edited 16th Jan '13 2:23:45 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Ok, I know little about law (well, court trial anyway), but this catches my eye:

If prosecutors only take a case to trial when they're sure that they'll win what's with the "overcharging" practice? If you're overcharging someone, aren't you charging them with something more serious that the court is less likely to find the defendant guilty of? If that's the case why do they overcharge someone instead of charging the them with the right charges that has the highest chance of succeeding to begin with? This doesn't make sense to me.

edited 16th Jan '13 4:30:39 AM by IraTheSquire

Oh, I see now...The media was reporting it, guess I should have looked better into it...

So is this an example of Cowboy BeBop at His Computer?

@Swish

Couldnt the DA have dropped the case? I mean didnt Steve Jobs and Paul Wozniack hack into a bunch of telephones and basically made free calls and shit? They were never prosecuted...

There also this article Revealed: Aaron Swartz prosecutor 'drove another hacker to suicide in 2008 after he named him in a cyber crime case'

edited 16th Jan '13 5:28:43 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

OK... one more, and there's a pattern forming...

Hmmm... why do I think this particular prosecutor has just made himself of interest to Anonymous in a bad way? I hope for his sake he only has the usual, boring skeletons in his closet. <_<

Heymann's name was the main one that kept coming up... but, hey... the more the merrier. And, he's a he.

edited 16th Jan '13 10:24:24 AM by Euodiachloris

I was actually having coffee with a lawyer friend this morning after work, and I asked him for his take on this.

The way he explained it to me was that career criminal prosecutors are usually massive assholes power tripping on their ability to tear apart a persons life.(His law specialty is international trade law and regulations, he works for the port authority here in town, and practices patent law when things are slow) He stated that prosecutorial firms tend to be the places that attract the most vicious career prosecutors, and that the US Attorneys office is the most vicious of them all.

TLDR: Even other lawyers think federal prosecutors are pieces of shit.

^

Herself.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:38:49 AM by Barkey

Reminds me of SAW.

But too bad for her... she is gonna get a lot of negative attention now and not from the nicest bunch...

Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann: accountability for prosecutorial abuse

It seems like this might destroy her future career as a polititian because Republicans are going after her and it seems democrats are not backing her up. I guess the lesson from all this is: Dont be an asshole when you dont have to be one.

edited 16th Jan '13 8:26:15 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

@Barkley: Thats horrible =/

Even if they don't have a good case, they try to intimidate the suspect into a deal with absurd charges. Sort of a "do you really want to roll the dice?" Of course the deal for giving up is about what they should be getting for being found guilty in the first place, the punishment for being found guilty has bloated into macabre hilarity, and the legal fees alone are likely to impoverish most people by virtue of trying at all regardless of outcome, so...

I'd believe that in a second if Nancy Grace is any indication...

edited 16th Jan '13 2:17:54 PM by Pykrete

To me it seems like this guy was specifically targeted for harsh treatment in general.

Really his crimes were ultimately very petty.

Blood thirsty nature of the prosecuters aside it really does look like they wanted to "Make an Example" of him.

The only outcome that I can see coming from this is more uproar in the online community and spurring groups like the Anons to protest or strike back.

edited 16th Jan '13 6:34:30 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?