• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    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.

    • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      -21 year ago

      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.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        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.

        • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          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?

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            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.

            • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              -31 year ago

              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.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                Why? To be clear, MIT adopted a neutral stance.

                What was the goal of the prosecution?

                Doesn’t seem like a stretch to me. It’s not like people who are susceptible to suicide are unheard particularly rare.

                You were literally just telling me this is rare in a previous comment:

                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.

                So which is it?

                The system isn’t equal, but Aaron Swartz was not the type of person that the system is biased against.

                Seems to me that political activists like Swartz are precisely the demographic that the system is biased against.

                • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -31 year ago

                  What was the goal of the prosecution?

                  From what I understand, Aaron planted a laptop in an MIT networking closet and had it slurping down journal content. That’s just not okay. Presumably they didn’t want to let him off without some consequences.

                  So which is it?

                  Given the number of people going through the justice system, some are going to be suicidal. Now could you answer the questions I posed: “how is that the fault of the justice system?” and “Would you have ever consider possible suicide as a top factor?”

                  Seems to me that political activists like Swartz are precisely the demographic that the system is biased against.

                  It’s mostly biased against people who live in poverty. They are often unable to mount an effective legal defense. Technically the state is supposed to supply a public defense lawyer if the accused cannot afford one, but public defenders are notoriously overworked. This has led to a situation where public defenders often push the accused to take plea deals regardless of guilt simply because they lack the time to put together an effective defense. Aaron Swartz would have been able to raise an effective legal defense.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 year ago

                    That’s just not okay. Presumably they didn’t want to let him off without some consequences.

                    Seems like the university, who would presumably be the victim here, seemed ok with it. What message in particular do you think the regime was trying to send by going after such activity?

                    Given the number of people going through the justice system, some are going to be suicidal.

                    And they just happen to be political activists.

                    It’s mostly biased against people who live in poverty.

                    People in poverty are exploited as slave labor. US drug laws in particular are designed specifically to round up poor minorities so that they can be enslaved. This is a pretty well documented fact by the way. However, that’s far from the only demographic that the regime goes after. People like Swartz are prosecuted because of their ideas, and it’s absurd to claim they can mount an effective legal defence against the power of the regime.