|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 08:40 PM EST |
It is without doubt that sufferers
of mental issues have a
disproportionate negative reaction
to criminal justice systems. In
many countries, many of these types
of cases are diverted from criminal
prosecution to health care. I
suggest a clinical diagnosis of
depression and threat of suicide
should have encouraged prosecutors
to carefully consider their actions.
Yes, we should absolutely consider
the mental health of the accused.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tanstaafl on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 04:50 PM EST |
... that cuts both ways, but let us keep in mind that the Law is intended to
keep personalities out of Governance. the ideal is that we are a government of
laws, not men; the implication is that one is punished for the laws one
violates, not for what one might do, or even certainly intended to do.
my understanding is that Swartz violated jstor terms of service, which offerers
like jstor hope to enforce like contracts. his supposed intent (and, given his
history, i would say likely intent) was to distribute the documents he
downloaded publicly. since he was caught before any such distribution could
occur, however, he could not be charged with copyright violation. that means
that the prosecutor was threatening Swartz with 35 years to life, plus a
$1,000,000.00 fine, for violating the terms of service "contract" with
jstor.
now, a lot of times, the only way to get a Bad Guy is to charge him with
something relatively innocuous (e.g., income tax evasion for Al Capone). even
in those cases, however, the sentence can't go beyond that which any other
violator of the same law would get. painful though it may be to honest folks
who want to "throw the book" at creeps, lawbreakers must be punished
only for the laws they can be convicted of breaking. if it's OK to whack
somebody just because he's a scumbag, then that same logic can be used by the
State against U because they happen to think that *U* are a scumbag.
finally, think about what could happen if U had a friend and his family visit
your home, and unbeknownst to U, one of his kids did something that violates the
terms of service U have with your ISP. the CFAA could then be used to threaten
U with 35 years to life (and don't forget the $1,000,000.00 kicker), because the
legal system is all about precedent.
the price of liberty, it has been noted, is eternal vigilance. i think this is
one of the things for which we have to be on the lookout.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
