Yes, because intent is fundamental to how actions are perceived. Intent that is associated with an action is codified in our legal system as well. But thanks for stating the obvious!
The man obviously had mental problems and while taking his own life is tragic, he brought all of the actions that were carried out against him upon himself. He chose to break into private property, he chose to illegally access JSTOR and download the documents and then he chose to publish them.
If he disagreed with the law surrounding the openness of access to information, he should have worked within the perfectly valid and accessible confines of the law to get the law changed. Instead he chose to do something rash and poorly executed and was caught and put on trial for it as a result. He then, rather than own up to his actions and face the consequences, chose to take the coward's way out when confronted with actual hardship that would have resulted from his actions.
He is actually a very good example of what younger generations, with their sense of entitlement and lack of ability or desire to take responsibility for their actions is leading towards.
"The big, bad, government bullied him into killing himself!" cried his parents and friends, all the while failing to assign responsibility for all the actions he willingly took to land him in the situation he found himself in.
No doubt this will be modded down to oblivion because it is not a popular position to take anymore. To stand up for personal accountability and responsibility even in the face of bad laws. Yes the laws should be changed, but if you willingly violate them to prove a point, you should be aware of the consequences and be ready to own up and face them head on. Instead of what could have been a watershed moment regarding getting the law changed, we now have a dead guy and everyone involved in his life trying to absolve him of any responsibility whatsoever for his actions.
If you want to absolve him of guilt then you should be agreeing that he was mentally unwell and therefore not responsible for his actions instead of trying to lay blame at the feet of those charged with upholding the law. Don't even bother with the tired old argument about "unjust laws" and no duty to obey them. There is nothing about this law that is violating your fundamental civil rights as a human being. You're more than welcome to go get a JSTOR account and pay for access to their information. That line of reasoning cheapens the cases where we do have an actual duty to disobey unjust laws. This law is very clearly not one of those cases.