I’m not nitpicking. It’s simply objectively incorrect to say he was sentenced (he wasn’t) or that it was 35 years (off by 70x compared to the plea deal). Could you argue that a six month plea deal was itself too much? Absolutely, and I would agree with that, especially given that MIT never asked for charges. But you can argue that plenty well with the facts and not resort to repeating lies.
Sure, he likely wouldn’t have got the maximum sentence, but that’s just distracting from the point that prosecution by the regime was what led to his suicide.
Okay, so where am I wrong? And I’ve been avoiding saying this so far because it feels disrespectful towards the dead, but his suicide was not a foreseeable consequence of being prosecuted. Most people don’t react to the prospect of time behind bars by killing themselves. So saying that his prosecution led to his suicide is a stretch at best. It would have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
You’re not wrong that he wasn’t convicted when he committed suicide. I’m just saying I don’t see why you think that’s the relevant part of the story. We don’t know what the details were or why he chose to commit suicide as a result of this prosecution. Saying most people don’t react that way just serves to deflect the blame from the state. He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would’ve very likely been alive today. This man is a victim of the US regime plain and simple.
I’m just saying I don’t see why you think that’s the relevant part of the story.
I’m not talking about the story as a whole. I’m talking about this particular tweet. And this particular tweet has a substantial piece of it that is outright false.
He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would’ve very likely been alive today.
Maybe, but that was not foreseeable. He likely had an underlying condition that they did not know of. I don’t see grounds to blame the state for his death when they had no idea that he would commit suicide in response. There are obviously greater systemic problems with the US’s prison system and treatment of people post-prison, but millions of people go through that ordeal without committing suicide.
You’re correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I’ve explained I don’t see that as the key point.
Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic. Your state has a history of aggressively prosecuting and harassing people to make examples of them. Two examples are Assange and Manning being tortured with solitary confinement. It’s almost certain that Swartz was put under psychological duress that led to his suicide. US is particularly sadistic when it comes to political dissidents.
You’re correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I’ve explained I don’t see that as the key point.
I feel like saying he had already been sentenced and overstating that sentence by 70 times is a major factual error, but maybe that’s just me.
Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic.
I’m not victim blaming. I’m pointing out that prosecutorial decisions shouldn’t be criticized based on factors that are unknowable. I’ll put it this way. Put yourself in the prosecutor’s shoes, deciding whether to prosecute. Would you have ever consider possible suicide as a top factor? And if you say yes, when should anyone ever be prosecuted?
The fact that the regime went after Swartz even though the university did not want to press charges clearly demonstrates this was a malicious prosecution. Furthermore, as somebody else in the thread notes, this isn’t the first time a person being prosecuted by the regime ended up committing suicide. Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that two random people just happened to have predisposition to suicide.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the legal system in US is fair and equal. This is clearly contradicted by mountains of evidence to the contrary. Apply the same logic you would apply if this case happened in China.
The fact that the regime went after Swartz even though the university did not want to press charges clearly demonstrates this was a malicious prosecution.
Why? To be clear, MIT adopted a neutral stance.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that two random people just happened to have predisposition to suicide.
Doesn’t seem like a stretch to me. It’s not like people who are susceptible to suicide are unheard particularly rare. They get confronted by the prospect of a prison sentence. Maybe they’re not thinking so clearly. They then kill themselves. I’m perfectly willing to take the system to task when it hands out absurd punishments, but how is that the fault of the justice system?
Your argument is based on the assumption that the legal system in US is fair and equal.
The system isn’t equal, but Aaron Swartz was not the type of person that the system is biased against.
I’m not nitpicking. It’s simply objectively incorrect to say he was sentenced (he wasn’t) or that it was 35 years (off by 70x compared to the plea deal). Could you argue that a six month plea deal was itself too much? Absolutely, and I would agree with that, especially given that MIT never asked for charges. But you can argue that plenty well with the facts and not resort to repeating lies.
Sure, he likely wouldn’t have got the maximum sentence, but that’s just distracting from the point that prosecution by the regime was what led to his suicide.
Okay, so where am I wrong? And I’ve been avoiding saying this so far because it feels disrespectful towards the dead, but his suicide was not a foreseeable consequence of being prosecuted. Most people don’t react to the prospect of time behind bars by killing themselves. So saying that his prosecution led to his suicide is a stretch at best. It would have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
You’re not wrong that he wasn’t convicted when he committed suicide. I’m just saying I don’t see why you think that’s the relevant part of the story. We don’t know what the details were or why he chose to commit suicide as a result of this prosecution. Saying most people don’t react that way just serves to deflect the blame from the state. He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would’ve very likely been alive today. This man is a victim of the US regime plain and simple.
I’m not talking about the story as a whole. I’m talking about this particular tweet. And this particular tweet has a substantial piece of it that is outright false.
Maybe, but that was not foreseeable. He likely had an underlying condition that they did not know of. I don’t see grounds to blame the state for his death when they had no idea that he would commit suicide in response. There are obviously greater systemic problems with the US’s prison system and treatment of people post-prison, but millions of people go through that ordeal without committing suicide.
You’re correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I’ve explained I don’t see that as the key point.
Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic. Your state has a history of aggressively prosecuting and harassing people to make examples of them. Two examples are Assange and Manning being tortured with solitary confinement. It’s almost certain that Swartz was put under psychological duress that led to his suicide. US is particularly sadistic when it comes to political dissidents.
I feel like saying he had already been sentenced and overstating that sentence by 70 times is a major factual error, but maybe that’s just me.
I’m not victim blaming. I’m pointing out that prosecutorial decisions shouldn’t be criticized based on factors that are unknowable. I’ll put it this way. Put yourself in the prosecutor’s shoes, deciding whether to prosecute. Would you have ever consider possible suicide as a top factor? And if you say yes, when should anyone ever be prosecuted?
The fact that the regime went after Swartz even though the university did not want to press charges clearly demonstrates this was a malicious prosecution. Furthermore, as somebody else in the thread notes, this isn’t the first time a person being prosecuted by the regime ended up committing suicide. Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that two random people just happened to have predisposition to suicide.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the legal system in US is fair and equal. This is clearly contradicted by mountains of evidence to the contrary. Apply the same logic you would apply if this case happened in China.
Why? To be clear, MIT adopted a neutral stance.
Doesn’t seem like a stretch to me. It’s not like people who are susceptible to suicide are unheard particularly rare. They get confronted by the prospect of a prison sentence. Maybe they’re not thinking so clearly. They then kill themselves. I’m perfectly willing to take the system to task when it hands out absurd punishments, but how is that the fault of the justice system?
The system isn’t equal, but Aaron Swartz was not the type of person that the system is biased against.