|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 02:39 PM EST |
"Mr. Swartz's lawyer had informed them that his client was a suicide risk
very early on in the investigation."
That may be so, but while the Prosecutor may have been ridiculously heavy
handed, to allow the accused's alleged mental state to dictate the charges is
not on.
You can't have a situation where people threaten suicide unless charges are
reduced or dismissed.
The accused can be remanded for psychiatric reports and the Judge may take these
into account.
If the charges are not appropriate the Judge may dismiss or suggest that the
Prosecutor amend the charges.
Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with Aaron Schwart's views on freedom
of information, nevertheless his repeated actions were in direct conflict with
the spirit, if not the law, of JSTOR/MIT's open model.
If he felt that strongly about the situation, he could have lobbied for other
solutions.
That he suffered from depression is sad, but it did not give him (or anyone)
carte blanche to deliberately and repeatedly ignore JSTOR/MIT's tacit rules on
downloading material.
Ethics is a sword that cuts both ways.
Mac
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
