Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

The best response is buried in http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... in the paragraph:

"The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk," Good told me. "His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, 'Fine, we’ll lock him up.' I'm not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless."

If there is ANY truth to this at all, then firing the prosecutors is not enough. They had a prosecutor who was dealing with a suicide risk, who had triggered a previous suicide due to being overly aggressive, and the standard response was to offer to lock the person up??

That's manslaughter in my books. And if the system had justice (it does not) it would be so prosecuted.

View on HN

To be fair, putting a suicide risk in protective custody is a reasonable middle ground between not prosecuting suicidal individuals and, as was done in this case, leaving them to fend for themselves.

He must get dozens of false claims of this as well, I'd have thought.

I doubt that lawyers are falsely in the habit of claiming that their clients are suicide risks. But even if so, if it comes up very often then a reasonable procedure to handle it can still be worked out. Jail time for a person who is not a flight risk and is still presumed innocent does not, in my books, qualify as a reasonable procedure.

So your response to someone who is presumed innocent and afraid of prison is to put them in jail? Perhaps we understand "presumed innocent" differently, because that does not seem very fair to me.

More likely he was suggesting a mental health facility where Swartz could receive a psychological/psychiatric evaluation and, if appropriate, treatment.

I find your interpretation very unlikely. Especially considering that Heymann likely does not have authority to send Swartz to such a facility, but does have a convenient jail available.

I'll bite. What should a prosecutor do when the defendent is a suicide risk?

Treat the situation more delicately. Instead of ball-busting the shit out of him, show a little compassion. That doesn't necessarily mean dropping any charges or "going easy" on him, just showing a little compassion and attempting to make the whole ordeal less painful. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty; there should be no punishment of any kind until after the conviction.

Well for starters... Not go out of their way to make examples out of people, especially out of people previously identified as suicide risks.

One of the main problems is that once the prosecutors become lenient with suicide risks then every person prosecuted says they're a suicide risk.

unfortunate for the people that really are at risk.

A psychiatric evaluation of whether the defendant is able to stand trial would seem to be warranted.

Also a rethink of how much punishment is warranted.

This is a very complicated situation.

Let's suppose that last Thursday the prosecutor (or whoever had the power) decided that there was a big suicide chance and Aaron Swartz were locked in a psychiatric hospital under suicide watch for his own safety.

I'm sure that it would have been a very big outrage, and most of the people would have say that it was an exaggeration and just an excuse to punish him, and claimed for his immediate liberation.

Given Aaron's history of depression, past blog posts about suicide, the stress of the trial, etc, I am sure that most people would not have been outraged. As long as the psychiatric hospital is believed to be impartial, their judgement would have seemed reasonable.

However the call to actually lock him up in the hospital CANNOT come from someone involved in the legal process against him. Allowing THAT would just lead to further abuses of power.

The other point in there that struck me was that JSTOR signed off on a deal with no prison, but MIT wouldsn't.

I agree.

I expect that at some point Abelson will get to the bottom of that one and name names. I don't expect a pretty response.

Under Massachusetts law, only a blood relative, spouse, or guardian can apply for a civil commitment order. A prosecutor can only get a suicide watch in a jail or prison.

If the parents knew he was suicidal, why in god's name didn't they seek medical attention?

This one needs a post of it's own, not to live under some thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com