[temphn]

True or False: a federal prosecutor decided to charge Aaron Swartz with 35 years in federal prison for downloading pdfs from JSTOR [1].

True or False: Lawrence Lessig, Alex Stamos (an expert witness) and Swartz's own family said that the overzealous and vastly disproportionate prosecution was the principal factor in his suicide.

The real witch-hunt was led by Carmen Ortiz and Steve Heymann and ended in Swartz's death. Witches don't exist, and the evil hacker of their imagination did not exist. Your proposal to be "better than this" seems to mean remaining silent, averting our eyes, and pretending that this was some act of nature like a mudslide. As for whether we should have done something beforehand: how could we have? Lessig himself said that the government had effectively muzzled Swartz to prevent him from defending himself online or alerting others to the severity of his situation.

There were specific people here to blame. If you believe the US Attorney's charges were merited, that they should not face discipline, that seeing a sitting US prosecutor forced to resign would not have the requisite "deterrent effect", or that we should all remain silent and accept this -- just say so. Otherwise your critique is contentless, and a recommendation for Aaron's death to be meaningless.

[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-gov...

EDIT:

  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052033

  And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as 
  that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let 
  someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is 
  unjust.

OK, pretty clear where you stand. You are not really arguing against "overreaction", you actually think he should have been found guilty. What you are not taking into account is the direct personal responsibility of the prosecutor for the disproportionality of the charges.

[rprasad]

I believe this is a per se example of what potatolicious was referring to.

Lessig, Stamos, and Swartz are what is legally known as "biased" toward Aaron's case. Naturally, MIT, JSTOR, and various persons in the federal government have differing opinions.

Aaron wasn't the target of a witch hunt; that would imply that he wasn't guilty of anything. He was--he admits to what he did. His defense was an MLK/Ghandi defense (i.e., civil disobedience).

Lessig himself said that the government had effectively muzzled Swartz to prevent him from defending himself online or alerting others to the severity of his situation.

Which clearly isn't true, since HN, reddit, and the interweb in general has been discussing this case nearly non-stop since the charges were dropped.

that seeing a sitting US prosecutor forced to resign would not have the requisite "deterrent effect"

This is a fantasy, both in the likelihood of occuring and its desired effect. People outside of the tech world simply don't think that way.

[temphn]

  This is a fantasy, both in the likelihood of occuring

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-aaron-...

  Hacktivist's suicide intensifies criticism of U.S. attorney, MIT

  But his suicide by hanging Friday has also stoked a 
  politically malignant aftermath for the prosecutors 
  pursuing 13 felony charges against him in a trial that was 
  set to begin in a month. Some said his death could be a 
  watershed moment in the ongoing intellectual property 
  debate over the things people share and create, and how 
  they share and create them. 

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/13/the-brilliant-mind-righteous-...

  You should know his death is a good reason to revisit the 
  1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the law under which he 
  was prosecuted, since it is far too broad, and to take a 
  hard look at Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, 
  whose office prosecuted Aaron with such recklessly 
  disproportionate vigor, and who is reportedly considering a 
  run for governor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732458150457823...

  To some in the Internet community, it was a Robin Hood-like 
  stunt.Prosecutors disagreed and threatened to put him in 
  prison for more than three decades.

  Mr. Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, first discussed a 
  possible plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen 
  Heymann last fall. In an interview Sunday, he said he was 
  told at the time that Mr. Swartz would need to plead guilty 
  to every count, and the government would insist on prison 
  time. Mr. Peters said he spoke to Mr. Heymann again last 
  Wednesday in another attempt to find a compromise. The 
  prosecutor, he said, didn't budge.

  Mr. Heymann didn't reply to requests for comment Sunday.

  The Massachusetts U.S. attorney's office declined to 
  comment Sunday, saying it wanted to respect the family's 
  privacy. But in a press release from July 2011 when the 
  charges in the case were announced, U.S. Attorney Carmen 
  Ortiz said, "Stealing is stealing, whether you use a 
  computer command or a crowbar."

No comment from Heymann. A "hard look" at Ortiz. Politically malignant aftermath. Doesn't sound good.

This is a CAT-4 shitstorm. Getting phone calls from the Wall Street Journal about why your aggressive prosecution caused the death of a young computer genius is not what Heymann and Ortiz signed up for. They were gunning for Bostonian of the Year, stuff like that. So already there is a deterrent effect. If and when the politicians get involved and call for an investigation into disproportionate sentencing, it will kick up to CAT-5. Moreover, there are 2300 articles like that on Google News now. Go check. The more calls for resignation, the more she becomes a public embarrassment to Obama, the more likely she is to be put on leave.

Now, pretty much everything else you've posted in these threads has been either trivially wrong ("federal prosecutors have no discretion") or a naked argument in favor of unlimited state power. But this is at least a prediction about a future outcome.

So let's make a bet. Prediction: Carmen Ortiz will be at a minimum put on administrative leave and will likely be forced to resign by the end of February. If I win, you never darken Hacker News' doorstep again. If you win, I in turn stop posting and you can push HN towards what appears to be your ideal venue: a space for lawyers rather than hackers, a space for people who sympathize with the federal prosecutor who hounded a hacker to his death.

Deal?

PS:

1) JSTOR is not on the same side as MIT. And MIT by their recent statement is not on the same side as the prosecutor.

2) Aaron never admitted guilt/plead guilty.

3) The charges weren't "dropped", they were rendered moot by his death.