Hardly sanctifying - first I think government messes with everyone, from tasing 13-year-olds for not listening to their Mums and old ladies for not getting out of a baseball game seat or not signing a ticket. Second, as Swartz notes, depression is highly prevalent - I imagine % is higher among people with run-ins with the law. So every time the gov tries to intimidate a suspect, they may have 50% chance of messing with someone who's depressed or psychologically unbalanced. They know this when they try to entrap stupid kids into doing "terrorist acts" that they would have never carried out unless someone undercover organized it, brought the chemicals/weapons, drove them to the site, etc. - otherwise they would have stayed on their couch doing another bong-hit or going to rally and screaming "hey-ho, hey-ho, X has got to go" and then going home to do another bong-hit.
Third, I know the sentencing criteria is arbitrary and typically max sentences are not what's given - but this game of roulette favors the prosecutors, not the accused - a hanging judge in Texas can send a mentally retarded man to die, another in DC will send a reporter to jail because DoJ wanted to prove a point and then let prosecutors lie in court without repercussions or in this case a single public URL linked to gets multiplied to a count per credit card number found on the site. How much will a depressed intimidated suspect on a tilted playing field resist even if they think their position is entirely justified or willing to take a reasonable but not "cruel & unusual"? (though "unusual" is no longer operative).
Look at "abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances", which government regularly does with protesters. Or the paid (bribed) absurd extension of 80-100 year copyrights that Swartz was fighting?