No. No, no, no, no, no. I will miss Aaron more than I can say -- he was a great guy, an excellent developer, and one hell of an activist -- but a pardon does not do anything valuable. It doesn't bring him back, it doesn't make the world a better place, and most importantly, it doesn't stop this shit from happening in the future. We need to make sure that no one is ever in a position like this again, and make some serious changes. Being exonerated feels great when you're alive, but Aaron won't feel that now; let's follow in his footsteps and make this world a better place.
No. Prosecutors pay attention to pardons. It's a bit of slap in the face. That's what these prosecutors deserve. A clear sign that they overreached.
Prosecutors also often run for office later in their career (see Elliot Spitzer). They use their conviction history to show how badass they are. These prosecutors need to have the privilege of adding "convicted high-profile hackers" to their resume revoked.
If pardoning isn't appropriate in this case, a simple statement from the president or Department of Justice would be welcome.
I disagree. It would provide a formal acknowledgment from our government that it was wrong to prosecute Aaron for his crimes with the severity that it did, and if worded thoughtfully, could establish some limiting precedent for how far future crimes like these should be prosecuted.
It's true that the laws themselves need to change, but I think you're underestimating the impact of a President's words.
President Obama has the power to issue a posthumous pardon of Mr. Swartz (even though he was never tried or convicted).
This kinda says it all. He can't be pardoned, having never been convicted. While there are many good and beneficial things that can be done, this one is impossible.
In that case, Ford pardoned Nixon to prevent a trial, where a conviction was still possible. In this case, there will never be a trial, and hence, no possibility of a conviction. It's a well-meaning sentiment, but a pardon is not applicable here. Better to lobby against the laws Swartz was accused of violating.
Nixon's acceptance was seen as a admission of guilt. I am not sure it would be wise to petition for a pardon, not only for a crime that may not have been committed, but for a crime that many at this site feel should be legal behavior.
That Slate article doesn't say what you think it says.
A pre-emptive pardon can only be issued for someone in danger of being convicted of a crime; it is essentially a grant of immunity. A dead defendant who was merely charged with a crime can never be convicted of the crime, so a dead defendant cannot be pre-emptively pardoned.
In the USA, the power of presidential pardon includes the power to offer amnesties. And amnesties certainly can be given to people who have never been convicted.
Pardon = the defendant is forgiven his crime and released from prison, but the fact of being guilty of the crime remains, i.e., the defendant is forgiven for his bad acts.
Amnesty = the defendant is cleared of legal guilt for the crime and the fact of having committed the crime is also cleared, i.e., it is as if the defendant never committed a crime at all.
Pre-emptive amnesty is more simply referred to as "immunity."
How about if instead we have 11 January as "Aaron Swartz Freedom to Connect" day, or something like that, dedicated to free speech and free expression. Stuff Aaron would have done himself, even if the federal prosecution had never happened. Combined with a formal apology from President Obama and the AG, and removal of Ortiz and several other prosecutors within the Boston office.
He does not need a pardon. A pardon means that you did the crime, you are guilty -- also, it is usually conditional on your confession and statement of regret.
Martin Luther King never asked to be pardoned for his acts of civil disobedience.
The truth to be trumpeted is that he is "guilty" -- Aaron violated some very minor rules, and that we should admire him for that.
Everything did go away for Aaron Swartz, because he's dead.
You aren't going to discourage people from suicide by being harder on the dead. And I don't think it's at all cool to imply that he got what was coming to him.
Obama is not friendly to our point of view. He has been an enemy of free information. He goes after whistle blowers with full force. He has threatened reporters with espionage. He wants Bradley Manning to die in jail.
Pvt. Manning leaked classified information while serving as a member of the armed forces. Members of the US Military are subject to significantly higher standards of conduct than are civilians.
Pvt. Manning should consider himself lucky that he's dealing with Obama rather than Bush/Cheney, or it is likely that he would be facing charges of treason and a death penalty rather than just life imprisonment.
Zero percent change of happening: you cannot pardon someone who was not adjudicated guilty of a crime (by conviction or by a guilty plea).
Aaron died before his case was finally adjudicated (i.e, until all appeals were exhausted), so like the Enron guy, in the eyes of the law, he is not and never can be guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
Again, for emphasis: you cannot pardon someone without a conviction.
That's not what the Constitution says. The presidential pardon power isn't limited by this situation. The President is the only one who can decide who get's pardoned and under what circumstances (except for cases of impeachment).
From the source:
[the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
"Acceptance, as well as delivery, of a pardon is essential to its validity; if rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, the court has no power to force it on him. [...]
There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it [...].
The facts, which involve the effect of a pardon of the President of the United States tendered to one who has not been convicted of a crime nor admitted the commission thereof, and also the necessity of acceptance of a pardon in order to make it effective are stated in the opinion."
- Burduck v. United States, 236 US 79 (1915), Supreme Court of the United States, internal citations and quotes omitted.
Nixon was pardoned against future charges. The dead can have no future criminal charges. A pardon would be the same as the government just issuing a formal apology.
Right - the government shouldn't "pardon" him, they should apologize for the manner in which they prosecuted him. (I'm not sure they should apologize for prosecuting him at all, though.)
Many people don't realize that programmers are far more sensitive than the average person. We ran away from people, and escaped into the wonderful world of computing because everything synchronizes, there is harmony and greatness in mathematics. And when we deal with the slightest form of human offence, it's as if the other person is our own mind, telling us that we are a burden to society, and it is our time to be killed, as simply as the body tells cells out-of-place to die.
Programmers need to disconnect and not let the external environment become part of us. Sometimes I let other people's minds become part of my mind. I think it's a profound glimpse into how programmers can use our motor neurons to actually "be" a compiler in software, and to anticipate how it works.
Unconsciously we do the same things with other humans, and there are ways that humans can take over that process and their disapproval of us is like our own mind finding disapproval for a system inside it that must be destroyed. With the proper scenarios, make programmers suicidal, when they can utter the proper dark magic incantation, we do a cost benefit analysis and decide that suicide does remove the defective systems. rm -rf /
I think the takeaway here is that some of the best programmers tend to have serious problems separating the directives of self from the directives of others. You have to learn that we are not computers, and the good of the many is not always preferable to the good of the few.
I don't like the stereoyype of the nerdy recluse programmer. Sure there are many of them, but just as many socially-comfortable programmers. The generalizations can be harmful and lead people away from the stigma, and away from the field.
It's interesting to hear how young programmers come to grips with issues that are fundamentally social. Programming has often been characterized as a solitary or deeply individual discipline (even PG's Hackers & Painters nods to that, after all, most painters aren't known for their group efforts :P ).
That said, I think this is an unfortunate frame of reference both for programmers and for the world at large to understand the sorts of creative works with which we wrestle.
By and large, software is utilitarian and designed to help someone, somewhere, do something. Consequently all of the things we do as programmers are at their core, social (even if the act of programming may not always be).
And there are sciences and arts related to how we as humans relate to each other, communicate, and negotiate our varying wants and needs.
So, yes, you're right that we need to be more humane to each other, but i wish that there were a better awareness of what that actually entails, and how we can do a better job.
I'm amazed at how sadly inconclusive the "You are not your code" discussion has gone, as an example. Likewise, I appreciate the sentiment you are expressing, although i agree with others that you are generalizing unfairly (i certainly don't fit into the characterization you describe)
