Hans Reiser Gets Sentence of 15-To-Life 553
mallumax writes "Hans Reiser was today handed a prison sentence of 15-to-life for murdering his wife. Earlier this year, he pleaded guilty and led police to his wife's body. His jury trial concluded in April with Reiser's first-degree murder conviction. That carries a 25-to-life term, but the authorities, in a backroom deal, later offered him 15-to-life if he produced his wife's body and waived any rights to appeal his conviction."
Several other readers contributed coverage at SFGate.
Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Interesting)
If he hadn't been able to produce the body of his wife then there could have been some uncertainty of his guilt. But since he did he must have been guilty, at least enough guilty for imprisonment.
If the evidence in itself was enough or not - it's another question but the court decided it was.
So in this case we should be able to call this a closed case. What we then think of the legal system is a different issue.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Informative)
Citation Granted [sfgate.com]
Under a heavy police guard, Reiser, handcuffed to his attorney, William Du Bois, led officers through heavy brush and poison oak to where his wife's body was buried off the 8200 block of Skyline Boulevard.
"Without any hesitation, he went exactly to where the grave site was," said Oakland homicide Lt. Ersie Joyner. Police said there were no signs that the grave had been dug before Nina Reiser was killed.
Good enough for you?
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Interesting)
He's probably guilty, but I don't like the system of offering people lower sentences for "cooperating".
If all evidence points against you, even if you're innocent, you're likely to confess to get a lower sentence. IMO, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the inquisition, where people would confess having sex with the devil in order to get off with less (in that case only an execution, instead of days of torture followed by execution.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the American justice system, you have no reason to confess if there is not sufficient evidence of your guilt. The jury/judge system errs tremendously on the side of the defendant, for this precise reason. It is extremely difficult, despite what fiction might tell you, to muster enough false evidence to convince a jury or judge to convict a person when that person is innocent. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but those a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the American justice system, you have no reason to confess if there is not sufficient evidence of your guilt.
You have to remember, in the USA you pay for your own defense unless you're fiscally unable to. For example, the local justice system would likely expect me to pay my own legal bills, up to several hundred thousand. Otherwise you get a public defender, which tends to be bottom of the barrel.
So you'll get a prosecutor's office that'll offer to plea the multiple felonies you're being accused of,
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:4, Interesting)
You claim that wrongful convictions are "extreme exceptions". Do you have evidence for this? Data on wrongful convictions is difficult to obtain for obvious reasons.
I did manage to find this article [latimes.com] which indicates that the wrongful conviction rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-5%, depending on what data you listen to. That strikes me as enormously high, particularly given the huge US prison population.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You HAVE to be kidding. The system was built to be that way, but it it trivially manipulated. A good example is the case of Tim Masters from Ft. COllins. He was accused of murder with little evidence and served 10+ years based partially on false evidence combined with withheld evidence. In addition, as a one time Ft. Collins EMT, I saw a lot of lies that were perpetrated by the Ft. COllins Police. What it comes d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is extremely difficult to convict someone who is guilty, yes, but it is not difficult to convict someone who is innocent. All you need is a police man claiming that a suspect confessed, but that he didn't read the suspect his rights. One study showed that even when the only piece of evidence against a suspect was an inadmissible "con
Screwed up legal system w/everyone a criminal (Score:5, Informative)
You are incredibly deluded.
It's incredibly easy for police to create circumstances to prosecute you and imprison you.
The cops can and do lie -- OFTEN to get convictions, but you, under the principles of "free speech" are not allowed to lie to them. Two very good videos:
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 [youtube.com] and
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 [youtube.com].
The cop admits it -- he can follow anyone driving around and find something to arrest them for.
It's the same throughout the U.S. Our laws are crafted to make *everyone* a law breaker -- this enables the police to selectively enforce laws against anyone they don't like for any reason. Of course, they don't go hog wild -- prosecutions take time & paperwork. But the police get to selectively choose who to arrest -- where to focus efforts, and even whether or not to prosecute. With "consensual crimes" (activity you engage in by yourself or with consenting adults), they have turned to using "asset seizure" as a tool that they rely on to fund their departments and budgets. As an example -- the DEA has almost exclusively been using cash & property seizures against medical marijuana co-ops -- and NOT prosecuting the people. If they prosecute the people, they would potentially have to make a case in front of a non-sympathetic California jury, but if they just take the cash, product and easily disposed of assets, they can get large amounts of cash added to their budgets -- and little that the victims can do to get the money back (since, unlike laws regarding people, the current courts have ruled that property doesn't have to be assumed innocent until proven guilty -- it only takes a lesser "preponderance of evidence", instead of the "beyond a reasonable doubt". Any Cannabis defenders that become too public -- they'll try to take them down -- but they really only want to go for the ones that are causing the most problems (politically). A recent case where the feds prosecuted a grower had him only get a few months (he was growing as a medical provider) -- so then they called in the IRS to have them examine his operation -- and they are trying to go for tax evasion now. Of course if you pay income tax on drug proceeds, the IRS will turn you into the feds. Not sure why that doesn't count as self-incrimination.
The police and judicial system in the US is very corrupt -- with 5% of the population and 66% of the illegal drug consumption in the world --- and the US leading in pressuring other countries to crack down, the absurdity is hard to miss.
The claims are we are having problems affording prisons because of all the prisoners -- but the fact is, if we turned out all the non-violent Cannabis offenders, we'd cut the prison population by 60-66% (its about 450-500 thousand out of 750,000 in the federal system that are in for drug-related offenses -- often with mandatory sentencing being used to ensure the prisons stay full. Treatment programs are another big and growing business (as well as drug testing) -- with the biggest increase coming from those needing "treatment" programs for marijuana -- not because of a problem with marijuana -- but because they can trade prison time for taking a rehab program instead on 1st offenses. So the stats for those in rehab for "marijuana addiction" are used to fuel the myth that it's a "growing problem". The growing problem is that our screwed up legal system has turned everyone into criminals -- with selective enforcement used as a tool to strike at political undesirables.
Unfortunately, prohibition was proven not to work and was theoretically repealed, but the joke was they just moved onto finding a new substance to prohibit. Marijuana criminalization was lead by ex-anti-alcohol FBI enforcers (Anslinger, primarily) who were out of a job after prohibition was repealed -- but they needed to create a crime to stay on the "public dole"...so they did. Since Cannabis was made illegal, consumption has
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. The problem rarely comes up in murder cases where the sentences tend to be life regardless of how you plea, but the drug war is another story, especially when the "evidence" is provided by criminals.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Insightful)
If all evidence points against you, even if you're innocent, you're likely to confess to get a lower sentence.
Were he innocent, it would be have difficult for him to produce a body.
It seems to me that the bargain worked for everyone. Hans gets less time, and society gets to know beyond all reasonable doubt that he's truly guilty. His kids get to know the truth. Nina's family doesn't have to wonder for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but such a short prison sentence for murder?
A guaranteed minimum of 15 years is not short. Graduate high school, go away for 15, and come back to a mid-30s version of yourself. While your friends were coming of age and starting careers and making lives, you were rotting in prison. I'm mid-30s now, and I'd hate to wake up one morning as a 50-year-old. Now, I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve a harsh sentence, but honestly, 15 years in PMITA prison isn't a cake walk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3 years, compared to 15-to-life, is really lenient.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope that Hans will be well supplied with computers, materials and a place where he can continue his work. As far as repaying society continuing with his work is the best he could hope to do as it will benefit us all. And if he is allowed to save the profits from his efforts he will have a means to sustain himself when he leaves prison. That benefits all of us as well.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hans Reiser's carelessness with his wife's murder is typical of his carelessness with his file system design: he came up with complex arrangement to reduce his perceived risk, and focused on it to the point where all else was ignored and became destructive. Then he tried to deny that it was his fault, with contrived and obviously false claims of innocence based on how clever he was rather than the actual timelines and evidence.
Given the poor history of ReiserFS and its tendency to zero files, to lie about the availablility of files in failing hardware, or to destroy itself if you actually run the repair tools on it, why would you want him to continue to work on it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ReiserFS only worked well on filesystems where data reliability was less important than fast access and throughput, such as NNTP servers or web proxies, systems where data is automatically rebuilt if files are lost. For anything that relied on critical backup and data reliability, such as IMAP servers, home directories, or databases, it was a deadly danger likely to corrupt your backups and your databases if anything triggered a problem. I've seen nothing in the last few years to make me think those dangers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it would be "Work for Hire" and the state would own the copyrights. If he were incarcerated in Michigan, he'd get $0.28/hr and after they take out for child support that would leave him with $7.00 a month, that doesn't buy much soap or deodorant. If he gets sick he is quickly introduced to the fact that the "free medical" is realy medicade and a $3.00 co-pay is almost half a months wages! oh yeah the strongest pain med he's going to get is OTC for us, imagine going through abdominal surgery and re
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should he not be allowed out ever again?
How would the world be a better place if he was newer allowed to get out?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope this is a parody of libertarianism. If not...
In any common law system, and probably civil code ones too, victims and victims' families can sue for damages for wrongful death in civil court. As for abolishing criminal prosecutions by the state: of course the state has no vested interest in bringing mu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I honestly don't know how anyone could think he's realistically innocent.
You must be new around here. Earth, I mean.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh I dunno - between having his geek parents name him after a file system, then being set up for the murder of his wife ... this poor fucker just can't seek to catch a break.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At this point there is no way you can defend him.
I tried to argue that there was a great deal of uncertainty considering what was available from news articles, but since he pointed investigators to the body, there's no doubt now....
I could buy the argument that his behaviour during the initial trial was just the result of him being a total fucking geek. But obviously I was wrong...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The last half-dozen or so times this story popped up there was always a few threads dedicated to the certainty of his guilt vs. the reasonable doubt. The conviction was far from being without controversy. But when a body was produced, you had some that held this as proof that the "reasonable doubt" argument was faulty.
The eventual discovery of the state of reality doesn't validate or invalidate the quality of predictive arguments made preceding the discovery of the state of reality. in other words you don't get points for being right by accident.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
But, then again, I'm not a mathematician...
...but I did watch a lot of Matlock when I was younger.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He could be lying about it, for example to cover up for someone else, who told him afterwards where the body was hidden. I'm not saying it's likely, but certainly it is possible. Mathematics concerns things which are KNOWN to be true, based on certain initial facts and rules of inference. "mathematical certainty" is not just saying "it's really, really likely", it is saying "it is true". There is no "beyond all reasonable doubt" in mathematics!
Re: (Score:3)
The key word is "reasonable". There could be some doubt based on the remote possibility that aliens from the planet Zorg abducted his wife and fucked up his car to frame him, but you could hardly call that doubt "reasonable".
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
Shit, he's on to us.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
Or statistics...
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah? Prove it!
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
Let's start by assuming the opposite...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He could be lying about it, for example to cover up for someone else, who told him afterwards where the body was hidden. I'm not saying it's likely, but certainly it is possible.
Which would at very least make him guilty as an accomplice to murder after the fact, and of obstructing justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Oh, and perjury.
So it's a near mathematical certainty he's guilty of something.
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
By my calculations, it ceases to be "reasonable doubt" and veers off into "complete mathematical certainty" when they use phrases like "Reiser's chilling confession," and "led authorities to [the body]".
Those do raise a good deal of suspicion, but what convinced me in this case was: "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog!"
It's not a complete mathematical certainty (Score:5, Funny)
complete mathematical certainty?
1. Someone framed him then told him about the location of the body. (Aliens, Dick Cheney, etc)
2. Hans is actually a genius, he built an interdimensional gateway like in Sliders and his evil otherself killed his wife. Consumed with guilt he decided to confess because it was easier than explaining the interdimensional gateway.
3. He was drugged by the CIA to do it as a way to silence him. Now any secrets he tries to reveal will not be taken seriously.
4. Hans's wife was actually an alien spy here to help start the invasion process. If the other alien spys find out what Hans knows then the invasion cannot be stopped.
5. Mass hallucination. Hans didn't kill his wife and he never confessed.
6. Dick Cheney did it during a hunting accident
7. Hans' car is intelligent like Herbie, but in a fit of jealous rage his car kills Hans' wife. To protect his friend, a car, from dissection, he tries to cover up the murder and ends up getting caught.
8. Nina was an android that Hans built, therefor no murder was committed
9. It was a suicide pact and Hans backed out. Consumed with guilt and shame he confesses to murder rather than admit the truth.
10. There is no Hans Reiser
(by no means does this post mean I condone murdering spouse, family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, stranges you talk to at the check-out, or aliens that later turn out to be people due to hallucinations)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always thought that if you allocute, we should electrocute...
The effect would be that no one will ever confess to a murder, to avoid death. This is exactly the opposite of how it works now, for example in Mr. Reiser's case: confessions reduce your penalty, to give an incentive for them.
While it might seem unfair that a confessed criminal gets a lighter sentence - he's clearly a criminal, he should fry ! - you must factor other issues, like the prolonged agony of the family and the cost for the society to continue prosecution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My rule would also improve the gene pool. If you're dumb enough to confess to a murder...)
Ah yes, eugenics, obviously noone could be against that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think reasonable doubt enters into it in this case. Clearly, if he can lead you to the body, he probably had something to do with the murder. The reason he got a reduced sentence is for cooperating with authorities after the fact to produce the body, thus giving her relatives some measure of closure. Plus, the agreement to not seek appeals will end up saving the legal system (and thus taxpayers) some money.
Whether or not cooperating after you've already been found guilty is worthy of a reduced se
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Try to be objective, everybody. (Score:5, Funny)
I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Do you realize, kind sir, that you are asking slashdot to basically pack up and go on vacation?
Objectivity. Distinction between conviction and sentence judgements. People more knowledgable than us. Discarding of mathematical certainty.
Well, I forgive you: it is Friday night, you'll see you error tomorrow morning..
Re:what are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
So while Reiser's guilt is not a mathematical certainty, it's well beyond what a reasonable person could have any serious doubts over considering how the case played out. From the prosecution's perspective, it was a win--they can feel confident they put the guilty person behind bars and saved the taxpayers the expense of a long court battle and appeals process.
I think he got a pretty good deal out of it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think he got a pretty good deal out of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Reiser is a sociopathic killer. He punched Nina in the face, and strangled her for "cavalierly" telling him that she intended to continue to bring their son to a doctor for his hearing problems. I don;t think their is any objective way to say "she was a bitch to him". I think he would think any reasonable woman would be a "bitch" to him.
So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand that it was probably in everyone's best interest to produce Nina's body, but I can't help but feel that Hans was essentially rewarded for hiding it so well. His sentence was reduced from 25-to-live to 15-to-life just for leading police to where he buried her.
Still, glad to see this soap opera is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's idiotic. They already had a conviction. They made the deal so they would have the body for the victim's family, and so they could avoid appellate court.
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Informative)
He was offered only 3 years if he plead manslaughter. He refused. 15 to life (which means that he has a life sentence and is eligible for parole in 15 years) seems like a pretty good choice. Especially if he does reform. Society earns nothing by keeping him locked away longer if a parole board feels he's fit to leave. 15 years means that he's going to miss out on potentially some of the most interesting parts of what could have been his life. So it's not as if he will not learn anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He voluntarily killed and disposed of the body of the mother of his children. There isn't room in society for people that do that. Murder is that red line that we let far too many people get away with. I take more of the old bible view of murder, it's just not acceptable under any circumstance and the people that do it shouldn't be allowed around the rest of us ever again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only the "holy war" types would make that same connection...
Regardless I wouldn't claim it to be quite that black and white, but then it also depends whether you consider murder to be taking a life under any circumstances or just under the legalese definitions/circumstances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I take more of the old bible view of murder
I think you might want to check your bible. God punished the Israelites because they didn't murder the Canaanites, plus he also accepted one human sacrifice and coerced another guy to commit murder, stopping him just before the knife fell. And that guy sired an entire kingdom as a reward for being willing to murder his son. So, all in all, I should expect Reiser to do pretty well by god.
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crime and punishment... (Score:5, Informative)
Anal rape and beatings are not part of the sentence handed down by the judge, but deprivation of liberty is.
Bearing this in mind, it isn't inconsistent to design these institutions with rehabilitation in mind.
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Funny)
Your post seems to have been of some of its words.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A quote from the England's last hangman [wikipedia.org] who executed more people than any other executioner in English history....
"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."
Sure I want peo
It's also good because (Score:4, Insightful)
He can't appeal. That is part of pretty much any plea: You have to allocute to the crime (testify as to the details under oath) and wave the right to appeal.
Even if he had no real chance at winning an appeal, he could cost the government a lot of time and money by filing appeals.
That another reason that prosecutors like getting plea bargains. When you admit you did it, you generally have to accept the consequences and don't get to appeal later. Thus even in the case of some courtroom convictions, they are willing to make a deal similar to this. You don't get away with it, but if you'll own up to what you did and relinquish the right to contest your conviction, you get a lighter sentence.
Plus, of course, closure is important to the family and friends. I'm sure there are people out there who loved Nina Reiser. Knowing for sure what happened and being able to have a funeral goes a long way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The down side of this is that it sets up a system where people who are wrongly convicted end up getting harsher sentences than those who are guilty.
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Informative)
From a story in the LA Times [latimes.com]:
"The parole board grants release dates to a relative few. Schwarzenegger vetoes most releases approved by the parole board, as did his predecessor, Gov. Gray Davis. Since taking office, Schwarzenegger has allowed 191 lifers to leave prison -- about 1% of more than 16,000 who had parole hearings."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think rational, intelligent people can't fly into a rage?
If you pile enough on someone and they get angry enough, that intelligence doesn't mean a whole lot, because enraged people aren't rational.
Intelligence also doesn't necessarily keep you from panicking once you realize you've done something that can land you in prison (or the electric chair) for the rest of your life.
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think rational, intelligent people can't fly into a rage?
Oh of course I think they can. They'd also know when to take a plea bargain that'd land them a lot less jail time when there's a pile of evidence being stacked against them. He may be brilliant with computers, but he's a dunce at crime.
If you pile enough on someone and they get angry enough, that intelligence doesn't mean a whole lot, because enraged people aren't rational.
Rage isn't an emmotion you can sustain continuously for months.
Intelligence also doesn't necessarily keep you from panicking once you realize you've done something that can land you in prison (or the electric chair) for the rest of your life.
Panick too gives way to reason given enough time.
He was an idiot for killing his wife. He was an idiot for doing such a poor job at covering it up. He was an idiot for trying to pass his explanations as plausible. He was an idiot for not taking the plea bargain. Now he's an idiot that will rot in prison for something few can sympathise with. What a waste of a technically sound but socially crippled intellect.
Re:So he was rewarded for hiding her body? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers +1. Yep, not only on that level. What if you love a woman who isn't able to have children? If you want to stay monogamous and not pay a surrogate, should you get a divorce just because she can't get pregnant?!? GP should get a life.
-b.
99 to Life (Score:2, Funny)
To bad it wasn't 99 to life. Could have played some kick-ass Social Distortion in honor of the sentence.
Terms of his imprisonment... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terms of his imprisonment... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I just don't know what to say about this. It's sad, upsetting, and yet just at the same time. On one hand I'm happy (can that even be the right word?) to see that he repented. On the other hand, I'm frightened by the thought that he killed her over a flippant remark about taking the kids to the doctor. On one hand it's also good that he didn't get off with a 3 year sentence, yet you can't help but feel for the fact that his own arrogance got him into this trouble.
Worst of all, events like this always create ugly questions in one's mind. e.g. It's a natural reaction to assume that murders are people who would stand out as a societal misfit. Someone who you would never place trust in or respect. Yet here we have an instance of someone that I had previously respected and was even considering contacting (partly because of several pushes from acquaintances) to work out new possible uses for Reiser's filesystem.
That's a very unsettling thought. If we cannot trust even the basic morality of people who have worked hard for their measures of respect in today's global community, who can we trust?
The whole thing is just... sad.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
First -- why is this marked redundant? This is just some guy's personal thinking on the subject (granted there's a grammatical glitch in the first sentence, but this is Slashdot, not Harper's Review, and who here hasn't posted without proofing?).
Anyway, regarding murder over a flippant remark: This was the last trigger in an acrimonious divorce where both parties used the kids as pawns in their own games. Murders happen in such circumstances all the time because of the buildup of mutual anger over the years -- that's why he was offered manslaughter the first time around. Nobody thinks he'd commit murder over a flippant remark in normal circumstances, it's the emotional trainwreck built up behind that remark which snapped him.
Few of us are immune from going overboard. Most of us don't kill but most of us have probably blown up verbally and regretted it later at least one time in our lifetimes. Sometimes it can go farther. One of my girlfriends once choked me to the point of dizziness (out of anger, nothing kinky going on) over some remark so slight I can't even recall what it was. Fortunately, we split up, she got married and has kids. I truly don't think she is a psycho murderess at heart -- she was just royally pissed off -- we were so wrong in every way. It happens. And I'm not innocent either, I tried to smother her with a pillow in my sleep (I have no memory of this, she told me about it the next day and I believe she was telling the truth -- I've always been a sleep walker/talker). Obviously our relationship could not be described as "healthy". Makes for some good stories though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Descriptions of Hans pretty much match a narcissist [winning-teams.com] and they are masters at maintaining a good public image while horribly and remorselessly abusing everyone around them. It's easy to set one off into a narcissistic rage, frequently you wouldn't even know what it was. They don't think they have to follow the same rules as everyone else, their contribution is always more valuable than any repayment could ever be worth and they are pathological liars.
Nina implied that his son was defective and by extension he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a very unsettling thought. If we cannot trust even the basic morality of people who have worked hard for their measures of respect in today's global community, who can we trust?
Please. Obviously you can't "trust" any person from any category, because the categories are totally arbitrary.
If you read a story in the news that said a 70-year-old woman had murdered her own son and left the son's children orphans, would you start posting on Internet forums about what a terrible world it is when we can't even trust our own grandmothers? I doubt it.
People aren't rotten as a whole. Some people do some very rotten things. The Hans Reiser case reveals nothing more to us than that. Honestly I
so everyone who defended him (Score:4, Insightful)
simply because he wrote a file system
are you ready to examine prejudice at work in your mind?
many scowl at black people who defend oj simpson simply out of racial affinity
well now you know, in your mind, is the same process at work
Re: (Score:3)
For the last time, troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't care if he was guilty or innocent, I just didn't want to see anyone convicted on such flimsy evidence.
The next person who comes along will be judged to the same standard and they could be innocent.
Re: (Score:3)
He confessed and led police to the body AFTER the jury convicted him, dumbass.
Finally the End (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, the end to a tragic tale. Nobody won.
The kids lost their parents.
Two sets of parents also lost their kids.
A bunch of people lost one of their best friends.
The local community, particularly Russian immigrants, lost a potential doctor.
The Linux community lost a dedicated developer of innovative free software.
The DA's office lost a lot of time and money over the last two years prosecuting this case.
Everyone loses.
Re:Finally the End (Score:5, Funny)
Way to be emo about it.
We DID get a lot of material for some great jokes.
Life goes on, man.
Oh, the humanity! (Score:3, Insightful)
Chill.
You may haven't noticed yet, but crime procecution and punishment allways kicks in when there is a loss that can't be recovered. Nobody can bring Nina Reiser back to life. And, no, justice *can't* be served, especially in such aggravated things as murder (allthough fans of death penalty might argue otherwise). That's the big downside. That's why we punish. When damage is done beyond repair, then punishment jumps in to offer at least some sort of reckoning and - in this case - remove the wrongdoer from
Namesys' customer service was 'painless' (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what kind of service Namesys gave to any of its customers and users. Reiser was arrogant and annoying, and that is toward the people with the power to send you to jail forever.
His attonery also says "Hans killed Nina for making a 'cavalier' remark", but he killed her painlessly.
Are anyone that reported defects in the Reiser FS still alive?
Was the level of customer service that you would be killed painlessly as opposed to really bad customer service where customers are tortured before they succumb?
Re:Fuck You, Hans Reiser (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck You, Hans Reiser (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fuck You, Hans Reiser (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's hope some fellow inmate does what needs to be done, and puts an end to this vile piece of garbage.
You are no better than him if you are advocating someone murder him. One murder does not justify another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't you figured it out yet? Most people jump at the opportunity to indulge their murderous instincts if they can just find the right excuse. Some people have such poor impulse control that it manifests as racism (it's an excuse they can justify to themselves, even if nobody else agrees), most people have better impulse control, which means they reserve their savagery to convicts (hence prison rape jokes, inordinate hatred for paedophiles, etc).
MightyMartian is one of those people whose heart leaps
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck You, Hans Reiser (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets advocate all of this on someone for moral r
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2000 years - a Florida law requiring every fit man in the state to do 6 days unpaid labour on the roads per year, (though being clearly against the 14 amendment), was upheld by a court because the Romans expected people to work on the roads for free, so it was ok for them to do the same 2000 years later.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now let's hope some fellow inmate does what needs to be done, and puts an end to this vile piece of garbage.
You mean take Reiserfs out of the kernel?
Re:Fuck You, Hans Reiser (Score:4, Funny)
He's not your typical week noodly nerd. Six+ feet tall, good physical condition, judo black belt, and knows how to choke a bitch out.
Re:Fuck You, Hans Reiser (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a huge problem with it, and not because of any chance of miscarriage of justice.
'Civilised society is judged on how it treats it's prisoners and it's disabled.'
The US 'corrections' system has a long long way to come yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Um...you've never heard of the Reiser File System in Linux? I'll give you three guesses who created it.
That's what makes this "news for nerds".
As for everyone's comments in the SFGate article, and probably soon to appear here, that "15 years isn't enough" and the like, remember that is only the amount of time that he has to wait for a parole opportunity. There is no certainty that he will ever actually make parole, and he could very well end up spending the rest of his life locked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember kids, murdering the woman you promised to love and cherish and who gave you two children is EVIL.
Why don't we pick more philosophically neutral terminology, like, "murdering ... is destructive" or "murdering ... is wasteful?" Those are words that everyone can understand. "EVIL," on the other hand, is a subjective idea that lacks a commonly-held operational definition.
Re:He should have gotten the chair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He should have gotten the chair.
i know just the man [microsoft.com]
Re:He should have gotten the chair (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it isn't irrelevant, not even in the courts.
This was the original statement the GP post made:
She was going to take the kids, and she'd already gotten them Russian citizenship. He probably wasn't going to see them again until they were grown. People have breaking points. If someone pushes the right buttons enough times, they can generally be driven to kill regardless of whether their lives are threatened. The legal system takes this into account when deciding how to charge someone, and how to sentence them if they are convicted.
If he had killed her for no reason, he would be facing life in prison right now. If he hadn't rejected the initial manslaughter offer, he'd only be facing three years, because he was provoked, enraged, and did not premeditate the murder. Seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely, but the GP was not defending him, the white panter was just saying that there were mitigating factors. There is a strong difference between the two. Simply said, context does matter, even in the courts. Fortunately, otherwise you would have to execute the executioner of any sentence :)
Nina was buried here (Score:3, Informative)
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=37.8347044&lon=-122.1835095&z=19&l=0&m=a&v=2 [wikimapia.org]
A location which I visited with sadness.
-CS
Barbaric (Score:5, Interesting)
luckily there are countries where this kind of barbarism is not done anymore. It is not helping to defeat violence in a society if the state itself is conducting violence and killings in the name of revenge.
How about some extra torture before killing the delinquent?
I wonder if the US will ever get out of the dark ages and ban the death penalty or if their citizens will go on to demand that this barbaric ritual of revenge can be carried out so that their low instincts can be satisfied.