[makecheck]

Sentencing a criminal to jail is theoretically supposed to be for the good of society. So in a case like this, they'd better ask themselves if society would ultimately benefit from having him behind bars.

The actual damage done here was negligible, especially considering the questionable locking-down of the content in the first place (i.e. maybe it should always have been free, and it was still valued at only $50,000 by the school, not $1 million). Swartz maybe did something stupid, but his ability to contribute to society is still far greater out of jail than in. There is also every bit of evidence to suggest that his intent is to contribute positively to society.

In other words, if he serves more than a few months in jail for this, or is actually asked to pay a million dollars, I will be incredibly disheartened by the "legal" system.

[idoh]

The two main theories of justice in the US is retribution and deterrence. Applying these two theories to the case here it isn't totally unreasonable for him to be punished.

I feel that deterrence is a stronger argument here - maybe you are right in that he'll be a net positive anyway as a free man, but there is some validity in that it will make the next guy who wants to secretly install laptops in server closets to think twice.

[blake8086]

He could argue that he created $50,000 of value since now there's 2 copies.

(and maybe pay the fine with 20 copies of the database)

[Iv]

I smell a way to solve the debt crisis here...

[aero142]

Oh, how I wish you were right about "for the good of society". I completely agree with you. However, a large section of the rest of the world talks a lot about "justice", which as far as I can tell means do they deserve to go to jail, which usually gets simplified to, did they break the law.

[sigzero]

He did something stupid? He knowingly and willfully tried to go around the University block. I don't think I would send him to jail. A HEFTY fine and some community service would do.