Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts News

Hans Reiser Gets Sentence of 15-To-Life 553

Posted by Soulskill
from the bye-now dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hans Reiser Gets Sentence of 15-To-Life

Comments Filter:
  • by Toonol (1057698) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:15AM (#24806261)
    And remember that both the conviction and the sentence were handed down by people who know far more about the case than any of us. And 'reasonable doubt' is different than 'complete mathematical certainty.'
    • by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:20AM (#24806321)
      I honestly don't know how anyone could think he's realistically innocent. He pointed them to his wife's body, confessed, not to mention the fact that there was already enough evidence to convict him at the trial. Sure, it's not a mathematical certainty, but justice never is.
      • by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @02:30AM (#24807263) Homepage

        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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2008 @04:40AM (#24808113)

        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)

          It may not be different in your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.

          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)

            by Firethorn (177587)

            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,

          • by Free the Cowards (1280296) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @10:32AM (#24810023)

            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)

            by WindBourne (631190)
            The jury/judge system errs tremendously on the side of the defendant, for this precise reason.
            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)

            by stephanruby (542433)

            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.

            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

          • by lpq (583377) on Sunday August 31, 2008 @12:29AM (#24816105) Homepage Journal

            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

        • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @09:39AM (#24809605) Homepage Journal

          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.

      • by b4upoo (166390) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:06AM (#24808489)

        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.

        • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:28AM (#24808821)

          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, Informative)

          by budgenator (254554)

          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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hey! (33014)

        I honestly don't know how anyone could think he's realistically innocent.

        You must be new around here. Earth, I mean.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by afxgrin (208686)

        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...

    • by david@ecsd.com (45841) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:22AM (#24806343) Homepage
      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]".

      But, then again, I'm not a mathematician...

      ...but I did watch a lot of Matlock when I was younger.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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!

      • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:20AM (#24806785)

        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!"

      • by OrangeTide (124937) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:00AM (#24808463) Homepage Journal

        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, Interesting)

      by eln (21727)

      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

    • by Plutonite (999141) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:25AM (#24806803)

      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..

  • by barocco (1168573) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:16AM (#24806265)
    I mean, not only he shortened his potential jail time by producing his dead wife, he also lengthened his life expectancy by producing a dead wife.
  • by jerkychew (80913) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:17AM (#24806285) Homepage

    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.

    • It happens at times that real loonies come to believe they have done things that they really haven't done. Sometimes very convincingly. The deal was there because for a sure conviction, they needed him to roll on himself. 15 is better than nothing for someone of this caliber.
    • 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)

        by rahvin112 (446269)

        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)

          by Firehed (942385)

          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.

      • by jd (1658) <imipak AT yahoo DOT com> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:56AM (#24806601) Homepage Journal
        He is able to write, so technically he can help the community - say by documenting Reiser4, or writing down some of his ideas. True, it's not as good as if he was in the outside world, but it's better than nothing. Personally, I think criminals who have verifiable mental issues would be better in a hospital (with equal confinement and punitive measures, but focussed on curative action). Those who have committed crimes they are unlikely to repeat, possibly including Hans, might be better off in a smaller, more secure, facility intended for rehabilitation. Purely punitive systems should really be restricted to those who are unwilling to change except under duress. And, frankly, I don't think there are many such people. There was a good blog discussion about that on the BBC website recently, with a lot of hostility from prison guards, prison governers and social workers to Victorian-style systems except as a last-resort, and not much more patience for the panoptican idea (a prison where a central warden can see into every cell directly from a central station.-
        • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @02:28AM (#24807251)
          Something that has been overlooked in the majority of posts here is that the legal consequence of a crime is to be sent to jail AS punishment, rather than being sent there FOR punishment.

          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.
      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:01AM (#24806647)

        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)

          by WalksOnDirt (704461)

          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.

      • by quisxt (462797) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:13AM (#24806731)
        Your chances of being paroled if you are a "to life" convicted murderer in California are extremely low. Reiser will probably stay in prison for the rest of his life.

        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."
  • 99 to Life (Score:2, Funny)

    by FatRatBastard (7583)

    To bad it wasn't 99 to life. Could have played some kick-ass Social Distortion in honor of the sentence.

  • by skogs (628589) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:22AM (#24806345) Journal
    Most interesting to the geek community is this: What are the terms of his imprisonment? 1) Will he have fairly regular internet access? 2) Will he be allowed to type...perhaps code some? 3) Inmates are regularly allowed to read all they want and take skills courses and learn new crafts...does this extend to a geek's leanings? With one's wife already gone...one would have a great deal of peace coding...especially if all your meals were provided at regular times and you were guaranteed a fairly clean set of sheets to sleep on. While I do not advocate killing anybody...it does have advantages if you were a hardcore geek. It would be like college, except without all that silly dating and learning. Just sit in your new 'dorm' room and code.
    • by VoidEngineer (633446) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:28AM (#24806395)
      I was thinking something along the same lines. 15 years of dedicated time to work on a project might result in a hell of a product. If he gets access to a laptop and plans it out carefully, in 15 years time he could walk out of prison and have jobs waiting for him. Hell, somebody as smart as Reiser could probably start up a business from inside jail.
    • I don't know. I'd think the prison version of "dating" would not be to too many people's liking. In many ways prison is nice: it's got free room and board, reading material; if it weren't for the other prisoners, it'd be paradise.
  • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:23AM (#24806357) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:15AM (#24806747) Homepage

      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)

      by budgenator (254554)

      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)

      by PCM2 (4486)

      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

  • 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

    • by dbIII (701233)
      Remember the first reports had things like another person bragging about the murder and a few other things that made it look as if Hans didn't do it. In my opinion that's why a lot of people here defended him so much - they just did not believe he did it. His arrogance combined with enough success to make some think he deserved to be arrogant also strongly divided people here long before he committed the crime.
    • 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.

  • Finally the End (Score:5, Insightful)

    by burris (122191) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:37AM (#24806871)

    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.

    • by Kingrames (858416) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:54AM (#24806991)

      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)

      by Qbertino (265505)

      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

  • by viking80 (697716) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @01:47AM (#24806943) Journal

    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?

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...