You can now read 10 articles a month for free. Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

letters | RECONSIDERING NUANCES IN THE AARON SWARTZ CASE

US attorney’s notion that ‘stealing is stealing’ is senseless

Joan Vennochi may have found a law professor who thinks the charges “were pretty much what any good federal prosecutor would have charged” (“Swartz case is sad, but not an overreach,” Op-ed, Jan. 17), but we agree with the outpouring of comments by law professors with an opposing view.

In a legalistically senseless assertion, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s declaration that “stealing is stealing” declines to differentiate between cases where personal gain is the motive and cases such as Aaron Swartz’s, where there was no profit motive and where the alleged victim did not want charges pursued. By her reasoning, we guess Ortiz would also wipe away first, second, and third degrees of murder in favor of a similar one-murder-category-fits-all philosophy.

Continue reading below

Swartz’s alleged crimes are not dissimilar to acts committed in the past by other computer prodigies who have gone on to spearhead advances in technology and policy that benefit us all.

We don’t know whether the prosecutors knew that Swartz had a history of serious depression. We do think they that tried to scare him half to death into accepting a plea deal, and that a brilliant life lost is the tragic result.

Andrew Fischer

Jeffrey Stone

Boston

The writers are president and member, respectively, of the board of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action.

Loading comments...

You have reached the limit of 10 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week