Funny that you left out the next couple of sentences in that quote: "I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway."

But either way, what do you think the response from the legal system should be in this situation? Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing? I think that is a huge can of worms. Authorities should certainly work to protect people in their custody to prevent suicide, but I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that they have a responsibility to be more lenient against potentially suicidal defendants.

Again: given a full warning of the problem, judge and prosecutors expressed extreme indifference.

Certainly not judicious exercise of their discretion.

All for a victimless crime.

And rather than express some modicum of sympathy you point out the humour in the situation. (What humour, I'm not even going to begin to ask.)

I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.

Not funny as in humor, but definition 2 and 3 of "funny"[1]:

>2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way

>3: : involving trickery or deception

The overall quote agreed with me, but you removed that extra context to make it agree with you.

You also did a good job of avoiding giving a definitive answer to my question because you realize your answer sets a difficult precedent. Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funny

You're doing an equally good job of avoiding expressing any empathy and human concern your response instead with again defending your own position and word choice.

I'll offer you another opportunity with your own question:

Should "my client is a suicide risk" be a path to reduced sentencing?

My empathy is going to the people who are alive and suffering from similar mental health issues today that could be helped if we told the truth about why Swartz is dead.

I answered the question in the first comment.

> Multiple prosecutors (Ortiz, Heymann), the judge (Gorton), and institutions (MIT, JSTOR) wantonly pursued an extreme perversion of justice in full knowledge of Swartz's mental state.

What is JSTOR doing on that list? After Swartz was identified and arrested, JSTOR said that they would not pursue a civil case against him, and they were not interested in seeing him criminally prosecuted. As far as they were concerned the downloading had stopped and the matter was done.

I'd hope it would encourage them to be slightly less passive white knights in future.