| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired)Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired)Posted Apr 29, 2008 3:09 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) by bojan Parent article: Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Actually, the "first degree" part is likely to be appealed. It's not like the jurors could have made any informed conclusion whether is was a premeditated murder (as opposed to a manslaughter) based on what Hans Reiser did after the fact. Anyway, I'll rather see a criminal write free software than make license plates. The punishment remains the punishment, but the society gets a better deal.
(Log in to post comments)
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 3:21 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The punishment remains the punishment, but the society gets a better deal. I don't see how allowing murderers to continue doing what they like best is punishment. Personally, I'd be more concerned with the fact that two kids effectively lost both parents. Hopefully, they are big enough to fend for themselves or have good support network.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 7:02 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] If some murderer likes reading the most, should he be denied access to books while in prison? If he likes sports, should he be denied physical exercises while in prison? If he likes writing, should he be denied access to pen and paper (or word-processor)? Being sent to prison for years is a punishment. Being labeled "murderer" is a punishment. Does that mean that those people should be denied the possibility of doing things in which they are good and enjoy doing? I think that the person should be a productive member of the community when he has served his time. If we deny them the possibility of maintaining/improving their skills and preserving their sanity, what we will end up doing is that by the time they are released from prison, they are a shadow of their former selves, with no hope of integrating back in to society. And those are the kind of people who will end up back in jail. Is that what we want? If prisoner is capable of making positive contribution to the society while doing time, should he be denied that possibility? Why? How would that benefit society or the individual?
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 9:11 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Nice example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. If I murder my wife tonight, does that mean I get to keep my job after being imprisoned, because I can be productive to society, given the whole thing is done remotely? I don't think so. To answer your question: > "Does that mean that those people should be denied the possibility of doing things in which they are good and enjoy doing?" Yes, it does - they should be denied many of those things. Collaborative development of software should be one of those things, as it is essentially a highly social activity. In other words, a complete opposite of what imprisonment is all about.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 9:18 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] Nope, this is not s straw man argument. "If I murder my wife tonight, does that mean I get to keep my job after being imprisoned, because I can be productive to society, given the whole thing is done remotely? I don't think so." If your emplyer wants to employ you, why not? "Yes, it does - they should be denied many of those things." I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that the prison-sentence was the punishment. Hell, by your logic prison-libraries should be closed down, since the existence of those libraries obviously mean that the inmates like reading. Since they like reading, they should not be allowed to read. They probably also like to sleep in beds, so the beds should be removed. They also like sunlight, so windows should be removed. Where do we draw the line? "Collaborative development of software should be one of those things, as it is essentially a highly social activity. In other words, a complete opposite of what imprisonment is all about." No, that is not what imprisonment is all about. Now, solitary confinement is about removal of all social activity. But last time I checked, inmates have plenty of social activity with other inmates, the guards and even members of their family.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 9:21 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > If your emplyer wants to employ you, why not? You must be joking. No point responding to the rest.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 10:04 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] I misread the original comment. I read it as "after I'm released from prison", instead "after I'm imprisoned".
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 12:36 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link] >> If your emplyer wants to employ you, why not? >You must be joking. No point responding to the rest. You must be trolling, but I'll respond anyway (see how sometime the way a response is worded makes you look less than constructive?). The point of prisons is notionally to provide rehabilitation. In some countries this apparently even works, but I couldn't say. Effectively, prisons in most of the world provide two things: vengeance, and keeping convicted criminals away from the general population, as a safeguard. The latter is provided by the simple act of physical confinement, so the former must be the issue here. If a criminal can contribute to society (ie help others) from in prison, then is it really worth preventing them, on the grounds that they might enjoy it? That would depend upon whether your desire for revenge against one person is greater than your desire for the work they could do to benefit many. Personally, I think that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, as the saying goes.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 21:16 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Not to defend the trollish nature of the poster you are replying to but many people do not consider prison about reform. A number of people consider reform a secondary goal of prison and punishment as the first goal.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 30, 2008 7:00 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] What is the goal of prison: a) punish the criminal b) reduce the amount of crime If you select A, you will most likely end up with a system where the criminal spends some time in prison, gets released, commits another crime, gets sent to prison etc. etc. In option B, the criminal is sent to prison. But instead of focusing on "punishing" the criminal (well he is punished as well, since physical confinement that is prison is a punishment), they also try to make sure that he can re-integrate back in to the society. That way he wont commit any more crimes after he has been released. If prison focuses on "punishment", the man that is released after his time is up, is a broken and bitter person, with no real hope for the future. And that is exactly the kind of person who will commit more crimes. Do those extra crimes help society? No they do not. What does help the society? Productive members of the society.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 30, 2008 23:52 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] I discussing my personal feelings on the matter the point of prison is to remove the individual from society. Not for the sake of the prisoner, but for the sake of society. Rehabilitation or punishment are secondary to removing the person committing illegal acts from society. Of course it's hoped that in allowing the person back out that they will have learned a lesson but I highly doubt you could prove that very many (if any at all) rehabilitation programs have lower recidivism rates than the general prison population. Every scientific, rather than anecdotal, study I have seen shows there is no correlation between recidivism and "rehabilitation" programs and that return rate is the same in almost every study. Someone else pointed to USA recidivism rates and tried to infer the Europe is better in this regard than the US because of softer sentencing, this is while neglecting that the numbers are almost identical in both jurisdictions. First time offenders are about 60% likely to re-offend, of re-offenders 90% will re-offend again after the 2nd prison term. This has led to the idea of the three strikes system in some states because it keeps the people that will re-offend in prison rather than releasing them to commit more crime.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 21:48 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > You must be trolling Get over yourself, please. A woman is dead and two children have been left without parents. A man has been convicted of her murder and all you can think about is what _he_ should get?
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 30, 2008 8:44 UTC (Wed) by thumperward (subscriber, #34368) [Link] and all you can think about is what _he_ should get?This too is a straw man. There are obviously other considerations here. However, it is a valid point to bring up. If you don't believe that murder sentences should be universally punished with execution or solitary confinement, the question is what said murderers should be doing with themselves behind bars. Hans Reiser could make a minor contribution to society manufacturing license plates, or could make a larger one by working on a file system. It is evident that criminals are already allowed access to writing materials, books, multimedia and physical education, so the question is whether or not restricted access to computing facilities should be allowed as well. - Chris
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 30, 2008 9:37 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] I find it awfully distasteful that many here are worried whether he'll be able do this or that, especially given that they may have personal interest in it. The man has just been found guilty of murder and the first priority is preserving his coding privileges? I think not. Murderers should be given an opportunity to think long and hard about the consequence of actions they have chosen to take. This does not include (effectively) extending their employment inside prison walls on day one of their imprisonment.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 30, 2008 11:24 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "Murderers should be given an opportunity to think long and hard about the consequence of actions they have chosen to take. This does not include (effectively) extending their employment inside prison walls on day one of their imprisonment." What if we are talking about a hobby here? Of course Reisers ambitions about coding for profit wont fly while he's doing time. But what if he wants to code as a hobby? Last time I checked, inmates are allowed to do things that could be considered hobbies. Things like sports, writing, reading, playing an instrument etc. Why would coding be different? Of course coding Reiser4 might be difficult since his net-access would be limited in the extreme. But still.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted Apr 29, 2008 10:11 UTC (Tue) by aogulla (guest, #29747) [Link] A prison is a correctional facility whose main purpose is _not_ to punish wrongdoers but to rehabilitate them and prepare their return to society as worthy citizens. Hans Reiser, even if guilty, should be allowed contribute to ReiserFS development whilst in prison as a productive person. At least this is my understanding of prisons in Kenya. I don't know about the US.
Rehabilitation: a convenient fiction --- a little white lie Posted Apr 29, 2008 11:21 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] Characterizing prisons, anywhere in the world as "correctional" facilities for "rehabilitation" is one of those little white lies that lily-livered liberals tell one another. (I'm liberal, but not lily-livered) :) Prisons are for locking people up and keeping they away from the rest of us. They don't do any appreciable level of "rehabilitation" --- and if we wish to claim that this is their purpose then we should also give ourselves, all of us, as a society, failing grades for the absolutely abysmal "success" rate that they exhibit. They mostly keep convicted felons off our streets, out of our homes and places of business and away from us, our family and our friends. The tragedies are: * Too many "crimes" have nothing to do with harming other people (drug use, etc) * The administration of "justice" is far too uneven ... heavily weighted towards more several punishment for people of specific racial and economic backgrounds * The lack of effective "rehabilitation" and a number of other factors practically guarantee that most criminals will cycle through a revolving door career of felony. * Some of the the worst harm --- atrocities which *should* be criminal --- are being perpetrated "above" or "beyond" the reach of the law (yes, I'm talking about you, Mr. President). JimD
Rehabilitation: a convenient fiction --- a little white lie Posted Apr 29, 2008 19:00 UTC (Tue) by ami.ganguli (guest, #9613) [Link] In Finland, at least, prisons certainly are for rehabilitation. Prison terms are much much shorter than in the U.S., and conditions are generally quite comfortable. Recidivism rates in Finland are also much lower than the U.S. Even though the prisons aren't so bad, people who are given an opportunity to turn themselves around during their time in prison are less likely to commit more crime upon their release.
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder (Wired) Posted May 1, 2008 5:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] We don't lock murderers up to punish them. We lock them up for the good of society, and we deny them their freedom until they are able to demonstrate that they can use it responsibly. (At least, that's the theory. "Punishment" is nothing more than vengeance with permission, and doesn't help anyone.) So there's no objection to extracting as much good for society from the situation as possible. Whether it happens to coincide with the prisoner's desires is immaterial, and denying someone something they like doing, when it would be useful to everyone, simply because "you're supposed to be being punished" is stupid and irrational. Indeed, far better to put prisoners to work doing whatever they most want to do - that way society benefits most from its incarcerated members. (In any case, a fair few prisoners *want* to sit around all day doing nothing, getting into testosterone-triggered territorial fights and spending the rest of the time smacked up into oblivion - which means that the current system is catering for their desires almost perfectly. Why are they more deserving than Hans Reiser?)
|
|
||||||||||||