Posthumously pardon Aaron Swartz
petitions.whitehouse.gov
petitions.whitehouse.gov
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.
It's true that the laws themselves need to change, but I think you're underestimating the impact of a President's words.
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.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
but I don't think he should be, it really solves nothing in this case.
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.
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."
They shouldn't be placed in the position of having the opportunity to "excuse" his activity.
Rather, they should have to explain their own.
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.
We sadly cannot do anything for Aaron now.
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.
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.
From the source: [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2
It's fair to argue that there is no precedent, but that just means it hasn't happened before, not that it cannot happen.
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.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/case.html
This is not without precedent.
There is no precedent for pardoning a dead person who was not convicted of a crime because it is a legal impossibility as described above.
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.
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)