Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcwhite | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, lick that boot!

> Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people go to prison each year in the US and don't feel the need to kill themselves

Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming)

> Would we blame that person's ex?

I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would?

Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful.

View on HN

>Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming)

It is not attempting to be a justification for what happened to him. It is demonstrating that Swartz was not acting rationally. You shouldn't blame someone for triggering an irrational response by another person. And it isn't victim-blaming to say someone is dead because of their mental illness anymore than it is victim-blaming to say someone is dead because they had cancer.

>Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful.

You are the one being reductive and equating all mental health issues to suicide. I am talking about one specific person with mental health issues. Talking about Swartz's mental health history is important. If he got the help he needed at the right time he might still be alive. Talking about that aspect of the story can help save the lives of people who feel similarly trapped as he felt.

Andy Good, Swartz's initial lawyer, told The Boston Globe: "I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk. His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, 'Fine, we'll lock him up.'

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz

Multiple prosecutors (Ortiz, Heymann), the judge (Gorton), and institutions (MIT, JSTOR) wantonly pursued an extreme perversion of justice in full knowledge of Swartz's mental state.

Funny that you left out the next couple of sentences in that quote: "I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway."

But either way, what do you think the response from the legal system should be in this situation? Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? I think that is a huge can of worms. Authorities should certainly work to protect people in their custody to prevent suicide, but I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that they have a responsibility to be more lenient against potentially suicidal defendants.

Again: given a full warning of the problem, judge and prosecutors expressed extreme indifference.

Certainly not judicious exercise of their discretion.

All for a victimless crime.

And rather than express some modicum of sympathy you point out the humour in the situation. (What humour, I'm not even going to begin to ask.)

I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.

Not funny as in humor, but definition 2 and 3 of "funny"[1]:

>2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way

>3: : involving trickery or deception

The overall quote agreed with me, but you removed that extra context to make it agree with you.

You also did a good job of avoiding giving a definitive answer to my question because you realize your answer sets a difficult precedent. Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny

You're doing an equally good job of avoiding expressing any empathy and human concern your response instead with again defending your own position and word choice.

I'll offer you another opportunity with your own question:

Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?

My empathy is going to the people who are alive and suffering from similar mental health issues today that could be helped if we told the truth about why Swartz is dead.

I answered the question in the first comment.

> Multiple prosecutors (Ortiz, Heymann), the judge (Gorton), and institutions (MIT, JSTOR) wantonly pursued an extreme perversion of justice in full knowledge of Swartz's mental state.

What is JSTOR doing on that list? After Swartz was identified and arrested, JSTOR said that they would not pursue a civil case against him, and they were not interested in seeing him criminally prosecuted. As far as they were concerned the downloading had stopped and the matter was done.

I'd hope it would encourage them to be slightly less passive white knights in future.

Reads better without the first line.

(And yes, I often fight the temptation to insert a line such as that where it's richly deserved. Usually successfully. If I can't, I try to at least be creative and somewhat indirect.)

> I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would?

In fact, we have!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jessica-haban-domestic-violen...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com