Edit: So I skimmed a bit, and all I see is self-righteous cyberterrorism/cyberterroristic threats. I doubt I'll gain any respect for them by hearing the details, but who the fuck is this asshole that committed suicide that these shitfaces feel the need to crusade for? What the fuck did he do? Not all of us are in the loop.
Why so angry?
Anyway, he was an internet freedom activist, founded a group that campaigned against SOPA, and played a role in the development of Reddit. There's a lot more here.
He also stole a lot of academic journals from JSTOR for charging fees to read them.
This is not correct. He was perfectly entitled to download as much from JSTOR as he chose (through MIT). He did so semi-sneakily, by changing the IP address on his computer, and he also looked a bit dodgy on some security camera tapes. That's the entire offence. He downloaded something he was entitled to download in a way we prefer he didn't, in a way that violated the terms of agreement of a website. For that crime, fifty years prison.
I'm not saying he should not have been punished. I'm saying he should have been punished commensurate with the crime- a minor fine, at worst. That's what fair law does.
The amount of punishment did not match the crime. Murderers and rapists get decades behind bars, not trespassers. That's very bad, it's essentially arbitrary law. Imagine if the government* could decide, with almost no restriction, how much to punish people for crimes. Is it so inconceivable that a prosecutor could abuse that power to punish people she did not like far worse and punish people she did like much less bad, clearly what has happened in this case? This is why I support Aaron's Law, which brings the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1984) into the modern world, removing those completely arbitrary sentencing guidelines. It's also why I support firing the people responsible for abusing their power to hunt and persecute minor felons who are also political opponents.
* The prosecutor
From what I can tell, you're conflating maximum sentence - which according to what I've read was 35 years, and NOT 50 - with actual sentence.
The prosecutor consistently pushed for longer sentences. Her recent addition of decades of prison worth of more nonsense charges is probably what pushed Aaron over the edge, as intended. She had him arrested, also- not something you do with a person guilty of a misdemeanor barely worth charging. Had the prosecutor clearly stated that she intended to charge Aaron commensurate with the severity of his actual crime*, rather than his political 'crimes', she would be entitled to keep her job. But, of course, that would have left him free and alive, able to continue his politically-dangerous work and that could not be allowed.
Of course, it's extremely embarrassing, perhaps even temporarily costly, for her to admit this. So she won't.
Also, (as has been pointed out by others) this was an outlier case. When Ortiz's office charged real criminals- a series of pharmaceutical companies that had put people's lives at risk- she did not seek jail time, nor any individual criminal charges from any of the criminals involved. They were let off scott free. But for political criminals, like Aaron? Decades in prison, handcuffs.
Edit to add: turns out Ortiz is just lying! Who'd have thought?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565927-38/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds-took-over-case-report-says/* A minor fine, no prison.
