"otherwise superbly functioning"--highly functioning people don't kill themselves, not even in aaronsw's situation.

The twin ghosts of Alan Turing and Socrates would disagree with you. Of course you're now going to argue that they were in a different situation, but both were apparently unable to reconcile living with the injustices heaped upon them by society and there is parallel with Aaron there.

At least the way I meant it, there's a difference between "highly functioning" (even "superbly functioning") and "intelligent" or "accomplished"--and in any case, Socrates was sentenced to death and chose to accept his sentence rather than escaping from prison, so there's that.

You completely miss the point of the Socrates reference. I'll be lazy and quote wikipedia at you: "According to Xenophon's story, Socrates purposefully gave a defiant defense to the jury because "he believed he would be better off dead". Xenophon goes on to describe a defense by Socrates that explains the rigors of old age, and how Socrates would be glad to circumvent them by being sentenced to death. It is also understood that Socrates also wished to die because he "actually believed the right time had come for him to die."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Even ignoring the sentencing of Socrates, Socrates refusing Crito's offer seems to me a clear cut case of suicide. He is offered a chance to avoid his murder and turns it down, in essence making the decision that his life will come to an end.

Now, Socrates of course offers a rational defence for his refusal to save himself so if we accept the refusal as an act of suicide we also accept that suicide can, at least in some circumstances, be the product of a rational train of thought.

Plato's accounts of Socrates offer us a superb platform on which to reason about this sort of thing. Helps to filter out a lot of the modern victim-blaming cruft that has built up over the past few centuries.

"we also accept that suicide can, at least in some circumstances, be the product of a rational train of thought."

Man, what a leap. Instead we could accept that humans are not rational, which makes a lot more sense.

You don't think Socrates' response to Crito was rational?

I mean, I don't agree with it, I think his values are misplaced, but I'd still say it is rational. As rational as any human reasoning could be, and really that is the only sort of 'rational' that is relevant. His argument was not the confused ravings of a mentally ill man.

There are many kinds of rational thinking, human and otherwise. And I find his arguments entirely unconvincing no matter what assumptions I put in his thinking. The difference Socrates claims is important - the difference between people's opinion of justice/injustice against him versus the "truth" does not exist in ancient Athens democratic period, after all trials were decided by majority vote.

So "people's" opinion of him and the idea of something being just or unjust - are the exact same thing according to the law of the Athenian state. The same goes for the contract. He does not disagree with Crito's argument that people would find it reasonable for him to flee given the chance - which makes it right under Athens' law. In the end, it is the law as interpreted by the court that determines what is lawful and/or right.

I think the rest of his argument does not make sense in this light. I do not see any indication that it made sense to him. Given his argument, and the attitudes of other Greek stories from that period - I would say that he simply wanted to die, wanted out, because people rejected him - not because he would be violating some ideal. Moving away was not an option since it would mean admitting defeat, it would mean saying he was wrong. There's more stories from that period involving suicide for social reasons or rejection.

I remember thinking like Socrates did when I was a child - that rules presented some absolute "background" standard of behavior that nobody could physically ever violate. Life taught me that I was simply misreading the situation, nothing more. I understand now that I remained stuck "believing" in this absolute law because it enormously simplified the world I had to deal with. I was perfectly aware it did not work, but I had to get into bad situations to get shocked enough to see reality for what it was.

OK, thanks.

So we define proper mental health as people who would not ever kill themselves? How convenient for you.

That's how it's usually defined, maybe with the exception of terminal illness or mortal injury.

And it doesn't bother you how circular that is?

1. Anyone who would kill themselves is not mentally well

2. We cannot allow you to kill yourself because you're not mentally well

There are exceptions; can you argue that this is one of them or do you just enjoy disagreeing with people?

I'm not sure what point you're making regarding exceptions. But I don't believe those exceptions are enough. Being able to remove someone's right because you don't like how they choose to exercise it is no right at all. Either you believe in a right or you don't.

I didn't say anything about rights.

Forgot which thread I was in. Either way, circular logic is circular.

Preventing him from killing himself, by any means necessary, would have been best for society.

If he were in a psychiatric hospital the treatment wouldn't have been much different. They also use rubber rooms and cameras, if necessary.

Outside of those two options, I'm not sure what you are implying could/should have been done. Was the prosecutor supposed to follow Aaron around 24/7 and physically stop him from hurting himself?

> Was the prosecutor supposed to follow Aaron around 24/7 and physically stop him from hurting himself?

I think the prosecution was simply supposed to not charge him at all because despite the fact that aaronsw's actions would have led to any other random computer geek being arrested with nary a second thought on HN, this computer geek is more deserving. After all, he's just trying to "do the right thing".

Hell, in fact the prosecutor should be ashamed of daring bring any charge against someone who only went out of his way to visit some other campus than his own, evade a 1-file-at-a-time control, evade an IP ban, evade a MAC ban, evade a Wifi ban, and hide his face while trespassing in an unlocked server room, where the only reason he even got caught at all was because he simply wouldn't give up. Next thing you know they'll probably start ticketing jaywalkers.

Finally, someone who realizes he wasn't some magical saint who was murdered in a back alley. Any suicide is a tragedy, but it's ultimately no one's fault but Aaron's.

The blame for the suicide ultimately cannot be laid anywhere but on Aaron's shoulders. But that does not mean that everything else is hunky dory. I would have (and DID) objected to the prosecutor's overzealous prosecution of this case even if Aaron had not died. Nor is it fully the fault of a single prosecutor who was using the same techniques used routinely. Perhaps a change to the system is needed.

More simply: the ultimate fault may be (is) Aaron's, but that does not mean that it is "no one's fault but Aaron's" -- there is blame enough to go round.

Or not pursue charges based on politics, and instead focus on the 'good of society'.

Step back a bit.

They charges didn't even need to be pursued. What "good" was ever going to come of it in any possible situation where charges were pursued?

That's got nothing to do with how the prosecutor should respond to being told he is suicidal. I agree he shouldn't have been prosecuted.

... Yes it is. If I think these charges probably aren't going to do anything good, and they could kill someone, I might consider not pursuing them (being reasonable)... Easy to say this in hindsight, but it is not unrelated.

>Preventing him from killing himself, by any means necessary, would have been best for society.

Please explain this one to me. I would love to see what you come up with. I can think of about a thousand reasons why it isn't.

does "by any means necessary" include not throwing the book at him?