All the available evidence says "no". This is just how our our system treats absolutely anyone who presents a prosecutor with a chance to shine up their resume.
The only reason we seem to be hearing about Swartz, Manning, the Duke Lacross Team, et al. is that they have a socio-economic standing that most of the victims of this particular brand of "justice" do not.
Manning is a Private First Class (E-3) in the U.S. Army, he's better off than someone in a ghetto I guess but he had no better socioeconomic standing than many other individuals who can commit computer crime.
His infamy is due to the particulars of his case and because the hacktivists have latched onto him as a rallying point because of the association with WikiLeaks.
I was considering Manning's association with WikiLeaks and thus the larger 'free information' [1] online concern as part of his social standing. Because as soon as he became the name behind that leak, it was.
As opposed to, say, the less-visible alleged members of Anonymous and Lulzsec who are likely facing the same exact sort of prosecution 'strategy' as Swartz [2], but because they aren't or are lesser parts of those crowds, no-one's paying much attention. Even though, criminals though they may be, it's just as likely their prosecutors are pursuing their cases with that same lack of justice or proportionality.
[1] in the FOIA sense, not in the piracy sense.
[2] I definitely draw a distinction between Manning and Swartz's prosecutions, as Manning being enlisted, gives the prosecution a distinct ability to go so much further with it.
The only reason we seem to be hearing about Swartz, Manning, the Duke Lacross Team, et al. is that they have a socio-economic standing that most of the victims of this particular brand of "justice" do not.