I gotta say it: the guy was a f-cking murderer and yet you guys are arguing about whether he got a fair trial, even after he led the cops to the strangled, decomposing corpse. And then complaining about the sheer brass neck of a journo who fails to show appropriate respect to this f-cking murderer. What, just because he hacked on Linux once upon a time? Jeez, you really couldn't make this stuff up.
It has nothing to do with him being a linux coder. It doesn't really matter who you are, you should be given a fair trial. And, this was simply a piece of bad reporting - regardless of who the suspect was.
"Everything Hans said reinforced the image I already had of him. He wasn't interested in what was true, only in whether or not he had been treated fairly."
I think that being treated fairly is a pretty important point. It's pretty obvious now that he was guilty; but, from what I've read, at the time of the trial the prosecution didn't come close to meeting their burden.
I would prefer to have a system where everyone is treated fairly, and some guilty men go free.
Robert Nozick raised an interesting question about this problem. Any system of determining guilt has some false positive rate (let's call it X). You can trivially cut X in half by flipping a coin after determining a person's guilt and only actually considering them guilty if the coin is heads.
I've always heard that it's better to let 10 guilty men go than let one innocent man go to jail. What about 11? 15? 100? 1000? Assuming we can accurately gauge our current jury system's effectiveness (and we can at least come up with a reasonable lower bound using appeal data), it would be trivial to achieve whatever ratio we desired using a simple RNG. So, what's the magic number (1:10, etc.)? And should we do so?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the major evidence was:
1. He had taken out the front seat of his car
2. He had hosed down the interior
3. He had his passport and several thousand dollars in cash
on him.
4. He kept removing the battery from his cellphone, after he was interrogated by police.
5. He bought a few books on homicide investigation, after his wifes homicide investigation began.
6. He lawyered up quickly.
Numbers 1-3 seem very reasonable for someone living in their car. 4-5 make sense for someone who has just been interrogated by the police. And 6 is always a good idea - for anybody - before talking to the police.
Taken with the fact that his wife was dating (and recently broke up with) a confessed serial killer I'd say we have reasonable doubt.
He was, of course, guilty - I just don't think you could reasonably conclude it from the evidence presented at the trial. I think Plato said that knowledge must be "justified true belief." I don't think the jury could have known that he was guilty at the time they convicted him, because such a belief wasn't justified.
It's kind of like a broken clock that just blinks '12:00.' By looking at that clock you can't know that it's noon, even if it incidentally is at that moment.
I just don't think you could reasonably conclude it from the evidence presented at the trial.
smanek, I'm guessing you weren't in the courtroom to observe Hans during the proceedings. Judging from what I've read I think Hans's courtroom behavior and crazy explanations led the jury to find him guilty. I'm glad he didn't take his lawyers' advice to keep his mouth shut.
FWIW, I would lawyer up the second I was accused of committing a crime, regardless of guilt. If you're innocent, saying nothing is better than saying you're innocent. You want the charges dismissed as quickly as possible.
If you're guilty, the same is true. Don't confess unless you want to go to jail!
Regarding the 'random save coin toss' question: I suspect juries would adjust, and start convicting with less certainty, if they thought there was a random chance those they found guilty would still go free.
This is journalism so bad it makes me sympathize with Reiser. No, you don't lie to the people you interview, and no, the fact that someone murdered his wife does not make it okay to lie to them, either. And when people "read what was written and their reflection punches them in the face", most of the time it isn't "their reflection" that punches them in the face so much as the journalist's bad work. Which is exactly why every interviewee should ask to see the manuscript before it's published, and if the journalist tells you "it doesn't work that way", don't consent to the interview.
The main problem with the article is that it is not journalism, even though it's in the News section of Salon. The guy even tells Reiser, "I'm not really a journalist." This is why the article is peppered with "I"s, "me"s, opinions, speculations, breaches of ethics, and an awkward window onto the author's BDSM experiences.
The author Elliott is miserable, negative, hateful, boastful and self-righteous. Don't forget (now there's a patronizing phrase, as if anyone forgets the obvious) that the article is entitled, "MY, MY, MY (not someone else's: MY) Interview with (that god damned) murderer Hans Reiser." The article is about Elliott's feelings, primarily. Who cares? Elliott has the psychological insight of a paramecium.
To be fair, Elliott's hatred of Reiser is a little further up the phylogenetic tree, at least on the invertebrate branch. Other than that, the article doesn't say much about the crime or the trial, about Reiser's marriage to a venal Russian bride, or much of anything else. What we do learn is that Elliott is an opportunist who hung around Reiser's trial, managed to get an interview, and gets miffed because Reiser didn't give him what he wanted. The whole purpose was to give readers enough of a bad taste to purchase his book. Elliott is so unsympathetic, he unintentionally forces the reader's identification with Reiser when he turns his back to Elliott and asks the guard to be returned to his cell.
That journalist is an arrogant and ignorant asshole, he reaches conclusions - that he then states as if they were fact - about Reiser's personality as if he were a trained psychologist/psychiatrist, and as if he has studied and analyzed the subject.
Every bone in my body wants to projectile vomit upon reading that crud.
I find it to be just another case of math envy, the imbecile KNOWS that he could never in a million years achieve 1% of what Reiser has achieved, however Reiser is now a convicted murderer, thus the idiot can now feel better about himself, and hurl contempt and scorn on Reiser.
I also find the general tone of the article to be awful insidious.
Contempt and scorn are appropriate feelings to have for murderers.
I thought this article was interesting because the author had spent a lot of time watching Reiser in court and might be speaking some truth about Reiser's personality.
Is there anyone here that knew Reiser more intimately than this journalist, and could give us some feedback?
The definition of murder as "the unlawfully killing of a human with malice aforethought" is a good one that applies well to Hans Reiser and shows the importance of motivation in determining whether or not someone is a criminal.
When soldiers are learning to kill an enemy that may not even exist, they have very different motivations when compared to someone that is planning to kill a personal enemy.
I believe that both individuals and nations have the right of self-defense, so I don't hold contempt for anyone that is learning to kill in order to defend himself or the people he has a responsibility to defend.
I find the motivation behind his contempt and scorn to be not that of someone who despises a murderer, but that of someone who is envious of someone's superior intellect.
Notice how he attempts to belittle Reiser, how he throws in the "genius" word . . .
I have been the focus of that sort of envy before, and it is written ALL over that nitwit's piece.
Assuming some basic threshold of intelligence, it's much more important to most people how pleasant someone is to be around than how smart they are. If you do fit into this "antisocial genius" archetype (which you're tossing around every bit as loosely as the author of the article), chances are good that how people treat you has nothing to do with envy, and everything to do with how you treat them.
Interesting that you would state that I am "tossing around" an "'antisocial genius' archetype" "every bit as loosely as the author of the article" . . . first off, WHAT "'antisocial genius' archetype"? . . . (there someone goes again, playing armchair psych, which has been my point all along) second of all, just WHERE did you get this "'antisocial genius' archetype" from in my posts? Serious. Please quote me. Please.
Yeah ok man, I have a chip on my shoulder for stating what I perceive and asking that you quote me after you replied to my post as if it stated something that it simply did not state.
I have taken liberties
with your words
that were on
the internet
and which
you were probably
writing
for a receptive audience
forgive me
they were delicious
so righteous
and so vehement
You still haven't quoted me. It all comes down to that: you insist that my posts state something they do not, and I insist that you back up what you are saying by quoting my posts.
Now, if I had MEANT (and yet not precisely written) what you insist I stated, I would say so, and debate my point based on that. That, however, wasn't the case, and I HATE IT when people put words in my mouth (or writing) I can't fn stand it, and I think you noticed, and simply baited me.
You really come off like an MBA or some other type of suit clad miscreant - never thought I would run into your type of reaction on a forum for HACKERS. It is rather ironic that yours is basically the type of reaction I have gotten from the crowd at work that I made reference to earlier.
The article tells us nothing new about Reiser except that the author interviewed him and didn't like him very much. The author even tells us why he wrote it:
"I had written a book, and his story was crucial to it, but the book was really about me."
He interviewed Reiser purely for material for his book about what he thinks of murderers (spoiler: murderers are bad). Given this, it's not surprising that he would sell a chapter to Salon for money and publicity. The article is not journalism, it's part of an autobiography largely unrelated to Reiser that nevertheless capitalizes on the publicity surrounding his trial.
I will dispute the sociopath observation. Even if you happen to be a trained mental health care professional, you have not sufficiently observed and analyzed the subject in question.
That really gets under my skin, people who play armchair psychologist/psychiatrist. Why? Because I have been victimized at work (back when I used to be an employee) by that very same type of ignorant joker.
"Oh, he has PERSONALITY problems."
RIGHT, I have PERSONALITY PROBLEMS, simply because I am not a lying, cheating, backstabbing, envious little slacker like the majority of the sheeple at the office.
Sigh.
Ok, I admit I have become emotional about this, but my original point still stands: non mental health care professionals have NO business voicing "diagnosis" about ANYONE'S mental health (or lack thereof)
I call bullshit: this is like saying that people who don't have teaching credentials have no business teaching anyone anything, or without barber's licenses cutting hair, or programmer's licenses writing code.
Note the experience of the psychologist who tried the experiment of getting himself committed by impersonating a schizophrenic to doctors at the ER, who then took quite a while to get released: all the patients knew he was sane, but the doctors, once he had been labelled, were very hard to convince otherwise.
I was obviously not talking about credentials (do quote me if I did please) I was talking about having the KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, AND SKILL required to diagnose a human's mind.
And your comparisons are quite amusing, even if simple . . . you went from teaching, to cutting hair, and finally to programming . . . and this is in a discussion revolving around mental health care. Interesting, considering that there is simply no comparison between any of the four activities.
How dare you equate programming to cutting hair.
EDIT: before you even go there, the word "professional" does not only apply to those with credentials.
