[caption id="attachment_17925" align="alignright" width="254"]
Aaron Swartz[/caption]From a legal viewpoint, however, the Aaron Swartz issue becomes a particularly tough one to navigate. More than anything, this is due to the sharp discrepancy between the need for reasoned legal analysis on one side and the blind desire of many to champion a modern-day Robin Hood on the other. To be very clear, the untimely end of any life, young or old, will always harbor tragedy. But when the act of a single suicide prompts such widespread calls for legal reform, we enter a different realm entirely… and not always for the better.
From the moment word broke of his death on the morning of January 11, many supporters were all too prepared to brand Mr. Swartz a martyr and weaponize his death as an instrument for legal and political reform. Those who had hailed him as a larger-than-life visionary hero just days earlier now absolved him of the very free will exercised in the taking of his own life… preferring instead to frame his final conscious act as that of a defenseless drone, too weak to fight, and effectively killed by the ulterior motives of a vindictive government machine. But why? Have they done so for Aaron’s sake… or for their own?
Should we be angry over the death of Aaron Swartz? Hell yes. In many ways, his persecution seems symptomatic of far deeper fractures in the existing system. But we should also be conscious to honor the memory of a pioneering spirit rather than rendering such a unique mind a mere victim for the sake of a quick political benefit.
In January 2011, Mr. Swartz was arrested and charged with numerous federal violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – primarily the unauthorized use of a computer used for interstate commerce. His offense: the alleged unauthorized physical entry into an area from which he had been repeatedly forbidden and the use of a self-written computer program capable of downloading massive amounts of copyrighted academic material from the JSTOR database. His stated intent, which never came to pass, was to freely distribute these materials at a later date. By statute, the charges carried a maximum penalty of thirty-five years in prison.
The CFAA has long been criticized as dangerously over-vague in its language, a fact that Swartz’s most vocal supporters have taken to heart. The truth is, while many still argue over their personal perceptions of the relevant facts in this particular case, we will now never know if federal prosecutors would have met their burden before a judge and jury. However, to infer that the prosecutorial pursuit – as overzealous as it might have been – was an unfounded effort to bully an American citizen into submission without merit is, to say the least, without merit.
Did Swartz’s actions amount to violations of federal law warranting a conviction? This is precisely the question that both parties were preparing to argue before the court. Like any other accused, Swartz maintained every right to present evidence in his defense. Indeed, the evidence against him seems dubious, at best. But to turn Swartz’s conscious decision to end his own life, rather than stand tall and fight for his innocence, into a presumption of federal bullying disrespects both the man and the life. Sympathy is one thing, but when we take that sympathy to the extreme and allow ourselves to presume malice from the process itself, then we undermine the entire integrity of the justice system.
Some contend that a thirty-five year prison sentence is inherently disproportionate to Swartz’s alleged crimes … and any court would assuredly agree. While some suggest the extreme penalty is further evidence of coercion, in reality, Swartz never faced anything close to a statutory maximum sentence for his alleged offenses. Statutory maximums will always seem excessive when viewed through the lens of a specific incident, as they are drafted to encompass even the most egregious violations of the law. Such penalties represent the extremes to which the system may permissibly go, only when warranted by the severity of the crime and the underlying circumstances of the accused. Even had Swartz declined the offered plea bargain and defended himself before the court, the minimal monetary value of the goods in question, coupled with his lack of any prior criminal record, would render the possibility of a lengthy sentence virtually nonexistent.
The problem with widespread misinformation to the contrary is that it is always going to be most readily embraced by those who most desperately wish to embrace it. That is to say, those who would rather rail against the machine than trust in the underlying equity of legal principles… those with the strongest commitment to preconceived activist ideals, to the exclusion of rational discourse… those who turn conspiracy theory and government distrust into sport.
The sad truth is we will never know whether the federal prosecution of Aaron Swartz was fair and justified because he did not see it through to the end, as we all desperately wish he had. Federal prosecutors may very well have been over-eager to pursue this matter, and perhaps even to make an example of Swartz by the only means available to them. Their conduct over the course of the trial would have surely been intensely scrutinized in the court of public opinion. But lost in the outrage is one key factor: Swartz was never convicted. Those who seek to decry government wrongdoing in the filing of charges by arguing his ultimate innocence willfully pervert the process out of anger, not logic.
A finding of “not guilty” after trial should be a vindicating symbol of a system that worked, not a bitter implication that the trial itself was without merit from conception. We as individuals are allowed our opinions, but it is the jury that is charged with the facts. Sadly, in this tragic instance, such a jury will never be assembled. Unfortunately, Swartz’s death now ensures that he will never be acquitted either. In the ensuing purgatory, we have all built our own versions of reality, oftentimes devoid of suitable evidentiary support on either side. We have manufactured our own version of an outcome we deem “inevitable”, colored by our own existing prejudices, and used it to further fuel our disdain.
But for those of us who still believe in the immense power of law to equalize men and remedy injustice, even from within, Swartz’s death is perhaps an even greater tragedy. With properly focused scrutiny, United States v. Swartz could have proved a catalyst for long sought computer crime reform. It would not have been easy; real progress seldom is. But it would have been a more fitting legacy to a man whose commitment and vision truly changed the world. In an age of big talk by small people, Aaron Swartz walked the walk. Perhaps it is time we follow his lead… not by polarizing one man as a modern-day martyr but by rallying together around the ideas that made him great.
About the Author
Craig Kyzar is an award-winning journalist and international attorney. After graduating from NYU Law School and enjoying eight years of legal practice in Manhattan, Craig is now heavily involved in nonprofit work dedicated to enhancing children’s literacy skills and connecting economically disadvantaged youth with a life-changing love of reading. When not frolicking in fiction and playing with poetry, Craig’s editorial columns and articles are regularly featured across several news outlets, providing uniquely provocative views on legal, political and humanitarian issues.
I believe that all thins will be re evaluated or looked back upon. Today people are still talking about how Marilyn Monroe died. Many say it was suicide and others say it was a hit. Politics and Corruption go hand in hand. Just because we have no proof of things by way of a legal courts definition does not mean we cant find truth. Don't deceive yourselves by putting men and woman in high places on a pedestal or look to them like they are Gods. Life, Spirit and Love is much larger than that. Good men have lived and died and the great men LIVE FOREVER>
ReplyDeleteVery well said, Michell. It seems human nature to visit and revisit issues through new lenses as public opinion shifts. The benefit of the legal system, albeit not necessarily the fallible men and women entrusted with running it, is that it aspires to operate on fact in achieving justice and vindication.
ReplyDeleteAs I suggest in the article, we all have our own truths, to which we should always be entitled - and even those can ebb and flow with time. But when those self-held truths (be they religious, political, or otherwise) are imposed on others with the illusory weight of fact, that is when humanity so often comes to blows.
Perhaps we should aspire to put no man on a pedestal but rather embrace the greatness of their ideas as a human collective.