Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>they offerred Swartz a plea deal that would have sent him to jail for three months

Why didn't he take that?




He wasn't guilty. Why would a prosecutor give someone an option between 30 years and 3 months - unless they know they have nothing to hold him on, but think they may get lucky and just accept the 3 months period and "admit he was guilty"?

Either he's a dangerous criminal who deserves 30 years in jail, or it's nothing, and the only reason they ask him to accept 3 months is because they would look foolish asking him to accept anything less than that (like say weeks or days).


What wasn't he guilty of?


Wire fraud.

If you shoplift from a store wearing a fake mustache, and saying your name is "Mickey Mouse", you aren't committing fraud, just shoplifting. If you download documents with an anonymous name ("Gary Host", not the name of a MIT student / staff member) and an anonymous MAC address (once again - not passing yourself off as anything other than a guest) you are guilty of copyright infringement, not wire fraud. Using a script to rapidly change your name / MAC address might be a different matter, as you are pretending to be a crowd of people (and it's hard to respond to). But there's nothing he did to circumvent the security that was intended to make a material misrepresentation, he simply did the equivalent of using his hotmail account to create a new account once his gmail was banned.

For things like fraud, there's no hard and fast laws. The courts use a thing called "common sense" (or precedent, which is using a previous judge's common sense). The bar for fraud is pretty high - he had to have misled the victim, and that misrepresentation must have made them behave differently (among other requirements). Had he used his own name, and used a new laptop instead of spoofing his MAC address, he would still have been able to download the documents.

But that's just my opinion, and IANAL.


The frivolous charges of wire fraud, damaging computer systems with wrecklessness, etc.


he wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused of. an innocent man shouldn't accept a plea. that is a coerced confession and one of the worst forms of tyranny.


Can you enlist some of those things you think he was guilty of? Leaving aside the fact that he was actually trying to forcefully give people (you and I) back what they already owned.


This presupposes that one can own information in the first place.


Well research papers that were funded by people's money - sure why not?


you should research the background of this case more. the jstor documents in question were already in the public domain.


To take the plea deal, he would have had to admit guilt (Heymann insisted on it)

Summary: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/aaron-swart...


Wasn't he though? In hindsight this still seems like a better deal as opposed to what actually happened.


Was he? He was never tried, and neither a court nor a jury made a finding either way. The evidence that is publicly available doesn't back up some of the charges against him and at best is ambiguous as to whether his actions would result in even a 3 months prison sentence, if anything, if he had had the chance to have his case heard in court. Especially given that with his earlier work with PACER it's quite likely that his goal with JSTOR was to gain access to and release documents which, legally, should have been in the public domain.

Besides which, whether or not he violated the law is only partially relevant as the morality of the law is also at issue. How would you feel if your only option was to plead guilty to a law you felt was unjust?


Never having been through a similar situation, I cannot say what I would do if I were in his shoes. I believe that he didn't believe that what he did warranted decades of jail time. I believe that the prosecutor believed that his crimes did justify jail time.

But your statement reflects two facts: that he did end up committing suicide (not known a priori) and that he chose not to accept guilt when he didn't believe he was guilty (and I fully suspect you've never been in that type of situation at the severity of the Swartz case, so it's hard to definitively state that you would just take the jail time)


As others have said, he would also be branded a felon, which in the US is enough to ruin most people's professional careers - not to mention a host of other very strict restrictions.


Aaron wasn't most people though, and it's not as if his profession was one that would be ruined by a criminal record.


It's not just about profession. Being labeled a felon is a serious pain in the ass and follows you for the rest of your life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States

Besides all the restrictions, there's also the stigma attached to it.


That housing rental one is huge. Most people forget about that one. It has the potential to seriously effect your quality of life.


In practice he would have been fine.


I would not be so sure. Stardom fades fast, particularly considering the fandom around him really only kicked it up a notch after he died. Check out the general sentiment of him on HN before he died; most people thought he was whinging.

Maybe he could find some people to help him out 5 years from now. Maybe even 10 or 20, but for how long would he be able to rely on that?


Enough to not worry about getting someone to rent an apartment to or for him, at least. And expunging a non-violent felony after some period of time isn't that hard.


He wasn't most people _because_ he wasn't the sort to submit to such a demeaning choice.


A FELONY CONVICTION and three months in jail.

If you take the law and legal status seriously, you don't just accept being disenfranchised lying down.

nb. disenfranchised both literally and figuratively in this case.


It was that + branding him a felon.


As I (a dutchman) understand US law a plea bargain is only that. A bargain that has the prosecution make a plea to the judge.

The judge, however, is free to ignore that plea.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that a judge will follow the recommendation in the plea. He/She could still have thrown the book at Swartz.


The plea bargain can be made conditional on acceptance by the judge though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: