These days, I keep hearing of people getting jailed for not a very good reason. Wesley Snipes gets jailed for resisting government theft of his well earned property. And now, one close to our geeky hearts, Hans Reiser gets 25 to life in prison for the supposed murder, despite the fact that, as I keep hearing, evidence was merely circumstantial and the key evidence elements are missing (body of the actual victim, for instance).
Mr. Reiser is a weird guy perhaps, outspoken, easily interpreted as rude. Gee.. who else do we know displaying similar traits? Richard Stallman? Theo De Raadt? Let’s jail them all for not fitting the norm of “accepted” social behavior! Or not?
Because, for lack of better evidence, this is what the Reiser case largely comes down to.
And what do we see our fellow geeks do about it? The sheep just take it as it is. A court says he’s a murderer so he must be called a murderer, and that’s where the story ends. I wonder if they’d be so indifferent if it was them who were falsely accused and rotting in prison now, just because their social behavior was interpreted as oh so hurtful towards good men and women in this sheepish western society.
I expected better from a Free Software community, all so adamant in promoting their cause and supposedly “freedom”.
So how about someone gets a god damn hint here and starts questioning? Are there any geeks out there, who are well versed in the intrigues of “law” and have enough respect for a fellow Free Software supporter to actually care if he is being falsely robbed of his freedom or not?
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
First off, this does not concern me at all, really: It’s a common crime (as sad as it may be, murder is common in and outside government) or not, and far away. I don’t know Mr Reiser, and there are people a lot more likely to murder me, no matter if he killed his wife or not. I probably wouldn’t know about the case if he wasn’t a semi-celebrity.
I haven’t been following the case (I’d rather follow local criminal cases, and I really don’t do that, nor do I think it necessary — call me a sheep for trusting the local judge (good man…) if you will), but if the is no evidence, especially if there is no evidence at all that the victim actually is a victim, the verdict is obviously unjust and should be fought. The only way to successfully fight it is through the (apparently unfairly money-centric) US legal system, and this is probably already being done. (correct me if I’m wrong)
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I don’t disagree with what you say. I’m just annoyed by people taking this verdict for granted. It’s true that if he wasn’t a sort of a celebrity I wouldn’t talk about it, but if we had no “celebrities” then apparently we would talk about nobody and would be completely ignorant to what’s going on.
I am not in US so why should I be worried, right? Well, for one.. I don’t care about whether this is Croatia or USA - we’re all human and Earth is a global village. Injustice is injustice. Bad ideas are bad ideas. People holding bad ideas will end up condoning bad things. And today, bad ideas spread just as quickly as good ones.
I consider accepting that court proclaiming someone a murderer based on slim evidence and propagating the acceptance of that label is a bad idea. You’re not a sheep if you’re not saying that. I’m talking about those who already apparently accepted this as final truth without questioning.
Cheers
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 am
Slim evidence? Were you in court? Did you see all the evidence that was presented or hear testimony? Oh wait, computer geeks always know better, don’t they, and don’t have to bothered with actual knowledge. You’re not a free thinker, because you’re not thinking at all.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 am
So to play devils advocate, according to all those defending him I guess that if I were to murder someone and completely dispose of all the evidence, I guess it would be absolutely impossible to ever convict without a confession, and no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever be admissible. You’ve all been watching CSI a bit too much, it doesn’t work like that in the real world, the jury came to the conclusion that he committed the crime, and were certain beyond _reasonable doubt_. It doesn’t NEED to be black and white, and there is a point where circumstantial evidence is sufficient enough to eliminate reasonable doubt, and this man practically did it all. The jury spent 6 months hearing arguments and witnessing all the evidence. I trust they made the right decision. The judge criticized Reiser for being arrogant, lets not be so arrogant to dismiss the actions of all geeks as being innocent.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
Arrogance usually isn’t penalized with a life sentence in prison. If you’re rich and/or connected you can get away with it. Sometimes, you don’t. At the minimum, Hans did something really, really stupid.
As I read from the post-mortems, the jury convicted him based on the fact that they were convinced he was lying when he took the stand and apparently he even admitted to lying in a specific instance.
There wasn’t anything solid against him, only circumstantial evidence. Highly suspicious circumstantial evidence.
If you go into his “true” reputation amongst Linux kernel developers, you’ll discover that he has acted like this for a long time. The Reiser4 filesystem probably won’t ever get added to the mainstream kernel, there’s too much bad blood between Hans Reiser and the other core developers. He treated technical questions in that forum exactly as he did the questions put to him in court. The only difference being that he did get earlier versions of his filesystem integrated, but Reiser4 has been held at arms length due to issues that Hans Reiser either can not or will not address.
Getting back to the stupidity part - the penalty for Hans’ arrogance on lkml is that Reiser4 fs has been in the purgatory of the “-mm” almost-ready-for-Linus-but-not-quite source tree for a record amount of time. The penalty for his arrogance in a court of law as a defendent against a murder charge was a life sentence in jail or the death penalty.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 am
To make it simple, I agree with Edwin and Mick.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
I’m with Gary et al.
He was not convicted *because* he was arrogant. If that was the case, so many other people would merely be executed (in the USA and other weird places that allow this) for being arrogant and ugly.
My ‘brief’ reading is that his explanations for his actions and the evidence brought forward were not convincing. His removal of the seat in his car and hosing down the car were circumstantial. His explanations for what he did were merely bizarre and transparently failed to cause anyone to not believe the prosecution.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
On what basis are you so sure he’s innocent? You declare him innocent when the legal system (which ultimately consists of a jury of the peers) found him guilty. Why are you right and the 12 people of the jury wrong? Did you hear all of the testimony? Were you there? Did you see the evidence first-hand?
Is it not possible that if you had been there and if you had seen and heard the evidence, you too would have found him guilty?
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
He was convicted because both the Judge and the Jurors were jews. What outcome would you expect for clearly anti-hebrew type?
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Edwin: > Slim evidence? Were you in court? Did you see all the evidence that was presented or hear testimony?
No. I know about as much as you could know, from what I’ve read in the news. And I don’t appear to be the only one saying that evidence was rather poor for such a drastic sentence. It doesn’t exactly look like a clear cut case so some degree of doubt is in order.
Mick: > So to play devils advocate, according to all those defending him I guess that if I were to murder someone and completely dispose of all the evidence, I guess it would be absolutely impossible to ever convict without a confession, and no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever be admissible.
I’m not saying that though. For all I know you might be right, but in this situation you can’t exactly take it as it is 100%. At the very least the sentence should have been smaller based on the fact that so much evidence was missing. That said I’m not claiming to be an expert in law and court system (I did ask for people who are well versed in it), but my logic tells me this went a little overboard and the case may be worth questioning. What if he in fact is innocent? How would you know?
ron: > On what basis are you so sure he’s innocent?
I didn’t say I am sure he is innocent. I am merely raising a question and voicing an opinion against outright unquestioning acceptance of the results of the trial.
> Is it not possible that if you had been there and if you had seen and heard the evidence, you too would have found him guilty?
Yes it is possible, but otherwise is possible too. Have there been any geeks in that jury, or anyone who understood the peculiarity of individuals like Hans? What if some of his arrogant behavior and unconvincing explanations seemed that way merely because everyone involved was unable to grasp his different way of expressing things?
So, to emphasize, my goal is merely to raise a healthy amount of doubt about something which too many people seem to have accepted as is. And I feel that there is enough reason for questioning. As much as it is possible that he really is guilty I think it may be possible that nobody was able to grok him because he is too different and that a lot of the reasoning of the case falls on their inability to understand where he is coming from. Hell, even if he could do a better job at defending himself, that doesn’t make him guilty..
I’m not saying that he is nor isn’t though. I just don’t accept the result as outright truth. In the end it doesn’t really matter for me personally whether I decided for one or the other, but at least I could raise a doubt when that seemed appropriate, because I hate conformism and unquestioning trust and am free to talk about it.
Thanks
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The comment about Jews from Anton is pitiable…
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I’m not sure I would have acquitted had I been on the jury, just based on the evidence presented in the media. In any other case, the police findings and Reiser’s actions would certainly point to guilt, with or without a body.
Ref: http://www.ktvu.com/news/16125436/detail.html
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
> “the jury came to the conclusion that he committed the crime, and were certain beyond _reasonable doubt_”
I never trust a jury. Too bad that for serious offenses you must go through a jury trial.
A Judge has to have brains to become a judge. A member of the jury only has to have a SSN, it can live without having to be able to use common logic.
Also, a judge _knows_ what is bullshit in what an attorney or a prosecutor says. A juror is gullible and can be manipulated.
The whole “jury trial” thing is a corrupted mechanism where the best lawyer wins, not the truth.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I have defended Reiser’s probable innocence elsewhere and will do so here, but I don’t know how to make it effective. Is there a legal defense fund for him?
Here is my understanding of the matter in a nutshell. There is no evidence even that a crime was committed. Hans Reiser was convicted primarily because jurors were put off by his demeanor on the witness stand. At least one of them has stated publicly that he voted “guilty” because he thought he could tell that Reiser didn’t mean what he was saying.
I would question the juror’s ability to make such a judgment. Reiser is reputedly highly intelligent. It seems likely to me that what the juror was detecting was that Reiser is one who says what he thinks, not what he feels. There are a lot of people who would interpret that as a lack of sincerity.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
>> A court says he’s a murderer so he must be called a murderer, and that’s where the story ends.
Correct. Do you have a better system in mind?
It is not feasible to have the entire set of interested/affected people sitting on the jury. How many of them would have to agree? The trial was public. Did you hear from any of the people who attended the trial that it was wrong or biased to the point of being unfair?
It seems to me that justice was served as fairly and impartially as we know how.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
What truly terrifies me is the same kind of idiots that think Hans is innocent because there is no body are the same ones that vote for Obama. It just shows that our education system is a total failure. Logical thought is just so seldom seen anymore.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
As flawed as the jury system might be, short of running a large scale poll (in which case participation would likely be optional, and it would be severely corruptible), it is the best way that we have of getting a picture of how the citizens want their laws interpreted.
If someone doesn’t like the result of a jury ballot, they’re welcome to mount an appeal. Supreme court is composed entirely of very highly educated judges, but it just isn’t feasible to have every trial heard by such people, costs would be astronomical.
I’m not a conformist, but this is the system we have, and unless something better can be implemented (which the higher levels of court already assist in doing), we have to live with it and know how to make the system work for us. OJ was declared not guilty because he worked the system. Reiser was declared guilty because he thought he was clever and undermined his own defense, a bit of a case of “better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it”.
Whether he is innocent or guilty, keep in mind double jeopardy laws. This is what really is the problem with the most serious of offenses, if a person who actually committed the crime is allowed to walk free, they can never again be charged for that same crime even if completely compelling evidence is found. Perhaps he should have been allowed to walk until more evidence was found, but that just isn’t possible as it stands. Hate the game, not the player, but we have to accept the results. Both sides have equal opportunity to abuse the system, so still essentially fair game.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
What annoys me is the attempt to link Free Software to a person being convicted according to due process. There may be weaknesses to the system. Yes I’m sure innocent people sometimes get convicted, yes juries are flawed as especially is the principle in evidence of giving high weight to verbal testimony.
But fact is this has nothing to do with Free Software and as many have said we have to (not blindly) trust in the system. Having studied law in the UK there is a huge effort put into avoiding wrongful convictions. I’m hoping the same is true there.
But one last time, what does it have to do with Free Software? Man rights software under GPL therefore cannot be criminal?
May 4th, 2008 at 1:25 am
@ Thomas,
###
First off, this does not concern me at all, really: It’s a common crime (as sad as it may be, murder is common in and outside government)
###
Murder isn’t common. Even in the most crime ridden village of the most violent nation on earth, murder is uncommon. You know I hate the government - even inside the government murder is UNCOMMON.
This isn’t about murder, it’s about a group of people imposing their worldview on other human beings. One person sending a a man to jail would be called “tyrrany”. It doesn’t matter if it’s one man or one million. For all the people who stupidly subscribe to the idea of “democracy” a group of 12 men does NOT suddenly gain the ability to deprive a sovereign man of his life, liberty or property. The disgust that “people” think it’s acceptable to deprive human beings of rights because some majority agrees is the issue.
*****
@ Edwin,
###
Slim evidence? Were you in court? Did you see all the evidence that was presented or hear testimony?
###
I wasn’t in court, but every report out of the courtroom is clear - there is NO proof that Nina Reiser is dead. Anything else (the jury thinking he lied, his suspicious behavior, showing no remorse, et cetera) is irrelevant. Would you be remorseful if Hans Reiser died today and you were blamed for it? Of course not… Nobody is remorseful for a crime they didn’t commit! Nobody is trying to remove anything from Nina’s family but blaming and even convicting Han’s on BS evidence does NOTHING to repair the pain felt by Nina’s family. Are you so fixated on the punishment of perpetrators that you actually cease thinking about the victims?
*****
@ Mick,
###
You’ve all been watching CSI a bit too much, it doesn’t work like that in the real world
###
Put in perspective, if someone were capable of eliminating ALL evidence of their crime, what’s the point of having a jury and polcie force? I mean, if we operate on the idea that it is possible to perform the “perfect crime” why even perform the societal masturbation that is evidence gathering? If we hold the idea “He concealed the evidence so well that no human being can recover it” why even employ forensice investigation at all? No crime is perfect. Physics makes it very clear - matter can not be destroyed or created. If Nina is dead, there’s a body. If Hans managed to get her body out of US Jurisdiction or plasmagasify her body then I have to grant him kudos - in all of human history he’s managed to actually kill somone and leave NO evidence - something forensices experts are taught as a fundimental rule is IMPOSSIBLE. Even all that put into context.. I’d rather let Hans Reiser as a murder walk free than let Hans Reiser as an innocent man be jailed. Even MURDER isn’t as bad a crime to me as depriving an innocent man of freedom. Anyone who thinks otherwise disgusts me, frankly.
*****
@slb
###
The penalty for his arrogance in a court of law as a defendent against a murder charge was a life sentence in jail or the death penalty.
###
Agreed. Nobody says that Hans isn’t an ass. From my personal experience, he’s an asshat of the “major” variety. But being abrasive, anti-social or annoying is not equal to being a murderer. Too many people are willing to accept that as truth and that’s distrubing.
*****
@ patrick,
###
My ‘brief’ reading is that his explanations for his actions and the evidence brought forward were not convincing.
###
The US legal system (which personally, I have little faith in) is predicated on the idea that you’re innocent until proven guilty. Most “western” nations have adopted this notion as well.
If Hans’ wasn’t proven to be a murderer, legally he should be declared innocent. You might believe he’s not proven his innocence but the question really is has the prosecuter proven he’s guilty? I say no. Without proof that Nina is dead, it’s not possible. The prosecutor hasn’t even proved that Nina is dead, let alone that Hans killed her.
*****
@ ron,
###
On what basis are you so sure he’s innocent?
###
I’m not sure Hans didn’t kill his wife. He may have. I am sure, however, that the prosecution has failed to show that Nina Reiser is dead. Without proving she’s dead, the fact of “who killed her” is totally irrelevant.
###
You declare him innocent when the legal system (which ultimately consists of a jury of the peers) found him guilty. Why are you right and the 12 people of the jury wrong?
###
I’m not arguing that 12 people are wrong. I’m arguing that no group of people (such as a jury) has the right to deprive a sovereign man of his freedom. One man can’t say “Go to jail” without raping someone’s freedom, two men can’t, twelve men can’t and 6 billion men can’t. As long as humans are failable, jurys are pointless because one MUST rationally accept the possiblity that even a jury decision is WRONG.
*****
@ Anton,
###
He was convicted because both the Judge and the Jurors were jews.
###
You’re an asshat. That said, how would YOU solve the problem without violence? The use of violence is proof that you’re an asshat.
****
@ Frederico,
###
The comment about Jews from Anton is pitiable…
###
Agreeded totally! Very few people recognize how much socialist thought they actually engage in. The idea that “the Jews” do soemthing of that “the people” do something is absolute insanity. Humanity is comprised of individuals. Thank you for recognizing it.
*****
@ Béranger
###
Also, a judge _knows_ what is bullshit in what an attorney or a prosecutor says.
###
I agree with you on half. I agree that humans are failable. I disagree that judges are exempt. Judges are no differnt than you and I except that they specialized in the study of law and you and I didn’t. But to say that “study of law” make one superhuman is fallicious - interpreting the law is pointless when you realize that no human or GROUP of humans has the right to reprive another of life, liberty and property.
*****
@ bumpy,
###
I would question the juror’s ability to make such a judgment.
###
As would I.
I’m human, and I’ve failed. That knowledge means that any jury comprised of humans is also capable of failing.
*****
@ Conrad,
###
Correct. Do you have a better system in mind?
###
Absolutely! I support a system of voluntary interaction, where people are not forced or threatened into participation. I support a system that focuses on restoring the victim rather than punishing the offender. I support a system that recognizes that human beings, individually or collectively, do not have the ability to remove someones’ life, liberty or property without harming others. This is called a voluntaryist society. Such a socieity is described in “The Market For Liberty” which can be downloaded at http://freetalklive.com/files/The_Market_for_Liberty.torrent
*****
@ Luke,
###
What truly terrifies me is the same kind of idiots that think Hans is innocent because there is no body are the same ones that vote for Obama.
###
Are you a member of the Underground?
Anyway… I believe that Hans Reiser should have been found “not guilty”. To say he’s innocent is perhaps too strong… I can’t declare that nor can a jury. But I firmly believe he should NOT be in prison today. Barak Obama as president makes me sick to my stomach, as does the idea of Hillary or John McCain as president. I support freedom and liberty and neither the Democans or the Republicrats have supported Liberty in a LONG time. I’m personally for Mary Ruwart or as a last-ditch effort, Ron Paul.
###
It just shows that our education system is a total failure. Logical thought is just so seldom seen anymore.
###
Absolutely the US educational system is a failure. But it’s not “ours” since I didn’t agree to putting the government in charge of educating children. Danjiel is Croatian and CERTAINLY didn’t approve it. I’m quite against the idea of ANY government educating children, in fact.
Government education sucks. Doesn’t matter if the government education comes from a Republicrat or a Democran, American or Croatian or Russian, government in education sucks.
*****
@ Mick,
###
it is the best way that we have of getting a picture of how the citizens want their laws interpreted.
###
I ask you to take a step back and ask yourself how in the HELL “we” could have “opinion” when as soverign individuals we all have different values and beliefs. Simply put, we can’t! The collectivist view of “we” and “the people” and “the citizenry” instantly fails becuase it doesn’t recognize the fact that human beings are NOT a single group but 6.X billion seperate groups. I challenge the idea that “the majority” is right, not that THIS majority is right. No human has the right to deprive a human of life, liberty and property - not even the majority of people in a socieity.
###
it just isn’t feasible to have every trial heard by such people, costs would be astronomical.
###
I see no problem with this UNLESS you’re assuming that “the people” need to finance such htings. Taxes and EVERYTHING that comes of them is unjust - even a legal system aimed at justice. If the parties want to persue arbitration till “the cows come home” I see no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to as LONG as ONLY the people involved in the dispute are paying. Even a simple, one-level system is unjust as long as it is people OTHER than those in dispute that use the system. Any justice system that exists because of taxes is unjust. the US system is based on taxes.
****
@ Alex,
###
we have to (not blindly) trust in the system.
###
Any “trust” that a group of fallable humans can arrive at an infallible result IS blind faith. Doesn’t matter what nation you’re in. Depriviation of life, liberty and justice is wrong EVEN if 12 people think it’s needed. How many people felt burning Jews was “needed” to maintain a stable and safe socieity? There’s no difference.
###
Having studied law in the UK there is a huge effort put into avoiding wrongful convictions. I’m hoping the same is true there.
###
Any conviction based on the idea that 12 fallable humans can arrive at an infallible verdict is flawed. I’m repeating myself, but as much as you want to claim the idea that the Uk avoids flawed verdicts it does NOT. It’s not true that the USA avoids them either. Every verdict that is NOT based on the volutary agreement of BOTH the victim’s representivies AND the perpetrators is FLAWED.
###
What annoys me is the attempt to link Free Software to a person being convicted
###
I have to agree with you there. I maintain relations with several journalists and many of them have tried to make this link since Hans was convicted.
The flaw is in collectivism. That “Free Software supporters” think a certain way or beleive a certain thing. Any assumptions made on the beleif that there are ANYTHING but individuals is flawed.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:30 am
@Kevin Dean
###
I’m arguing that no group of people (such as a jury) has the right to deprive a sovereign man of his freedom. One man can’t say “Go to jail” without raping someone’s freedom, two men can’t, twelve men can’t and 6 billion men can’t.
###
So if you want us to start with that as the premise, then of course Reiser doesn’t belong in jail, so of course he shouldn’t have been convicted, BY ANYONE. But that isn’t the point of the blog post to begin with, so I don’t accept that as the premise.
@admin
###
I wonder if they’d be so indifferent if it was them who were falsely accused and rotting in prison now, just because their social behavior was interpreted as oh so hurtful towards good men and women in this sheepish western society.
###
And this is yet another example of an a priori position that I don’t accept. The author ASSUMES Reiser was falsely accused. I don’t agree with that assumption. The legal system requires an assumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am only suggesting that those of us who weren’t there and didn’t hear and see the evidence, can’t possibly be in the position to that judgment.
But if you want to start with the assumption that he was falsely accused, or the assumption that no one (individually or collectively) has the right to put him in jail, then of course Reiser should be freely walking the streets right now. But I can’t accept either of those premises.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:27 am
You think he’s innocent. Well, my hairdresser’s son thinks he did it, and my sister’s boyfriend’s father reckons he did it too.
That makes it 2-1 in the stakes of idiot speculations on the Reiser trial. You lose.
McPop.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
@ron
###
So if you want us to start with that as the premise, then of course Reiser doesn’t belong in jail, so of course he shouldn’t have been convicted, BY ANYONE. But that isn’t the point of the blog post to begin with, so I don’t accept that as the premise.
###
Actually, knowing Danjiel and his philosophy, I’m willing to bet he does, in fact beleive that NOBODY has a right to deprive someone of their right to liberty. Even a murder has the right to move freely. In a voluntaryist society (which both the author and I work towards) social ostracism is the preferred way to deal with immoral actions. Hans Raiser would be considered socially a threat. If he came to your property it would be acceptable for you to use force to nutralize that threat (i.e. “shoot on sight”) OR hire an agency to repair the transgression by forcing him off your property if you feel shooting him isn’t needed. Today’s “justice” system is predicated on the “punish the offender” mentality and not a “restore the vicitm” mentality. Putting Hans (assuming for a moment he IS a murderer) in a jail cell does nothing to actually repair the damage he’s done but it DOES make him a drain - taxpayers are being forced to keep him in prison.
On the flip side, there are people who believe Han’s may be innocent and would be willing to interact with him. Those people should have that freedom, as should Hans Reiser. Putting Hans in a jail cell keeps him away from you but so does making him find refuge with those (arguably small number of people) who would accept him in their socieity.
Of course, this point is moot for the sake of discussion because most of the posters here are stuck in the “punishing the offender is the only way” paradigm.
###
But if you want to start with the assumption that he was falsely accused, or the assumption that no one (individually or collectively) has the right to put him in jail, then of course Reiser should be freely walking the streets right now. But I can’t accept either of those premises.
###
Why can’t you accept the premise that Hans should be walking the streets freely right now? I ask that in dead seriousness… Assuming the vast majority of the world simple refused to deal with him (would you, if you beleive he’s committed murder?) Hans would effectively relegated to hermit status. He’d be forced to seek refuge with those who accept him and he’s be considered a lethal threat (and recall, in a voluntary socieity people do have the right to defend themselves against lethal threats to themselves or their property). This would mean that unless you’re willing to deal with him, Hans Reiser would be essentially irrelevant to your life, just like in prison. The difference is that you’d not have to pay taxes to keep him in prison. The other flipside is that as a free man, Hans might just create something of value for others. In prison, he can create nothing. There’s no justice in that, I think.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:43 am
@ Kevin Dean
You don’t know what you are talking about. A system which restores victims rather than punishing offenders? A system where nobody can be denied liberty? If you did this there would be gangs out raping, pillaging and murdering every night. No punishment for your actions? A large amount of people would abuse others if this were the case. In fact if it was true and you argued with me, I’d imprison you in a cage as a pet for a year and rape your mother daily, because she would like it and it would prove how ineffective your system is. You’d like it too piggy, you’d be drinking from a piggy bowl and I’d pull your piggy tail and make you piggy squeal. You’d make a great piggy pet. This is why we need deterrents. Your utopian vision falls apart in the real world. There are too many people like me.
As for EVIDENCE, I do recall reading at the time there were blood splatters found on the wall, in the car, etc. Sure, nothing conclusive; but taken together there is rather a lot of circumstantial evidence. Plus people always bay for blood. If I painted pedophile on your house, even though you are not a pedophile mummies would hide their children from you and angry young men would attack you and their wives would praise them for it. The Jury baying for blood so Hans Reiser inflames them by being an arrogant asshat in court. Well he’s pretty stupid at real life, no matter how clever his filesystem is. Maybe he is so stupid he killed his wife.
I can think of a lot of ways to make a body vanish, a lot of ways. If it were true that without a body there could never be a crime; I would murder with impunity a great deal of people who annoy me. I would become rich by killing people then taking all the money out their bank accounts and giving it to me. Sure it looks suspicious with those 1000 bank transfers from dead people; but it’s just circumstantial right? Your ideas don’t work in the real world; sweet as they are. In the real world, there are people like me.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:45 am
^– “bank transfers from dead people”
Well, nobody can prove they are dead anyway. So that should read, “bank transfers from missing persons”. Sorry, I only said “dead” because of all the media attention saying they might be dead. I meant missing of course. My saying dead is just circumstantial evidence , there are no bodies
May 28th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
In other words, “Kevin Moron”, you don’t believe in order without revenge. What else is punishment beyond reparations than revenge?
Note that the system about which “Kevin Dean” is talking about allows the victim or victim’s closest to set the price of reparations, but within arbiter’s reasonable judgment. So if you don’t believe in revenge you probably just have pretty faint understanding of the dynamics in the alternative system Mr. Dean was describing.
Cheers
June 5th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The cries of “Hans does not deserve to be in jail!” are pure emotion. You don’t have all the facts and evidence- the jury did. And what about Nina? Again, with no real evidence at your disposal, you’re willing to believe that she is a horrible person who willingly abandons her children just to punish her husband. The vast majority of parents, both moms and dads, are incapable of doing such a thing, so you better have some real evidence before believing such a preposterous thing.
As several commenters have said, the jury could have made a wrong verdict. It happens. However, as none of you have enough information at your disposal to form any kind of informed opinion, you really have no idea what the truth is. Just opinions based on headlines and incomplete information. It may be possible to get the trial transcripts- I suggest that obtaining and studying them would go a long ways towards forming an informed opinion, rather than all of this half-baked Hans fanboyism.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Hmmmm…. The guy that you are crying is not guilty is going to lead authorities to the body for a reduced sentence.
A HUGE swing and a miss…