regardless of what happened truly, id say that someone isn't define by any specific thing that happened in their lives. however people do like to try and make it seem that way, because emotion and subsequent judgement cloud perception and prevent looking past things for a lot of people who cant detach themselves from their own emotions and or judgement.
people change all the time, and sitting in a small box without freedoms will surely cause deep introspection even in the most outward of people.
you can befriend anyone if theg are friendly to you, regardless of what happened in their lives historically. ofcourse be careful and learn lessons, but no need to be judgemental on things that never involved you in the first place.
for most people you can find some slice im their life and mark them as bad (maybe not wife murdering bad, but bad nonetheless). if you look critically at how you view people you will find that the people you do accept in your life simply dont have slices that you know of that trigger your emotions and cause judgement.
this is why i like some religions say judgement is only reserved for god. other then that it just causes more negativity from something that was already negative. spreading it more and more.
(yes i know this last part will likely be hated on by the atheists, thats ok, judge away ;), still love ya!)
If you're interested in this kind of thing, I just finished reading a book where the author improbably was commissioned to write a book about a serial killer but the killer was a friend of theirs!
My father (then a local public person) had a driver who used to take us to school in his absence. Nicest guy ever, would joke around, take us to other places when we didn't wanna go to class, absolutely the best. One day I was looking for the fire extinguisher in the car (then required in my country) and found a Glock G19 underneath the driver's seat.
I asked "what the hell?" and he said "this is for me to use in case somebody talks shit about your father".
Upon some investigation, it turns out that the nicest guy in the world was actually living in my city because he was on the run for a murder he committed in another city many years back. The nicest guy in the world had an altercation with another patron at a bar, while drunk, broke a beer bootle on a table, stuck into the stomach of the other guy, and twisted left and right until internal organs started showing.
Similar in theme to the Nathan Fielder documentary about Elizabeth Holmes "You Can See Everything", which is also about a criminal professing their innocence, the journalist/documentarian's relationship with them, and attempting to find out if they lie. Both include a prison visit as well!
As an aside, a decent number of very guilty murderers have support among family and friends, especially because nobody wants to believe they're family or friends with a murderer; much easier to believe the story.
I've read many of these stories over the years. I find it fascinating that well-meaning and seemingly quite intelligent people are so eager to exonerate the very-obviously-guilty whenever they have any redeeming features at all. Charisma, intelligence, or just a similar background to the befriender. They refuse to accept that liars, cheaters, thieves, murderers, fraudsters, etc are often normal people like themselves who may even have admirable traits and qualities. Often, they do victimize people they truly love.
I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain, which play out in politics daily in all quarters. Like a kind of primal social anxiety - people have irrational fear of the crowd turning against without them having done anything wrong.
The undated and anonymous tip is meaningless and incredible, the policeman returning from holiday a few days early for a brutal murder investigation sounds very normal, the lack of DNA on the thoroughly cleaned murder weapon is irrelevant, the notion of the murderer killing Dianne hours before the robbery and waiting for the rest of the town to wake up before leaving is absurd, his 'alibi' for 4:30-6:30 is that there was such a continuous stream of customers to serve - yet not so many that any observed the robbery at 8:30 or saw the burglar enter hours earlier, or heard the brutal murder, and is anyway dependent on a theory that she was alive at 6:30 which presupposes the time of death was wrong, and therefore creates the opportunity for Robin to have also murdered her after 6:30.
Also, when a jury finds that a defendant probably or very likely committed a crime they must find them not guilty. A guilty verdict is reserved for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt though - an impossible standard). The minority jurors did not necessarily consider him innocent.
> I find it fascinating that well-meaning and seemingly quite intelligent people are so eager to exonerate the very-obviously-guilty
> I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain
Guilty conscience. People like that know they've done something, not necessarily criminal per se but at least antisocial, and that they deserve to be punished for it.
I tend to think they need to be hurt to get less neurotic and go back to making a positive contribution to society.
that kind of reminds me of a writeup by this exiled Chinese dissident; she ended up knowing her CCP surveillance officer so well, he was almost like a family member.
It is probably was crime of passion that he had covered up. Apparently she was having affairs and he didn't. Robbers don't kill people for mere $50k. He maybe a nice guy but also a killer. It was not because of money I would guess. Anger management issues are likely and those are not visible now.
What a laughably insulated statement. An example from NZ - Janek Patel was murdered in 2022 while attempting to prevent the cash register at his corner store from being stolen.
Things like that happen all the time but a masked rubber killed the wife in her bed and waited to get unknown amount of money from the husband from the safe. I don't know how to say this, he should have done a better job with the story... He hadn't watch enough murder shows on TV.
In Australia, organised crime has taken to hiring teenagers as hitmen; e.g. the perpetrators of a failed assassination attempt against a retired footballer (they shot him but he survived) included a 15 year old and 16 year old – https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sixteen-heart-pumping-ab...
Reasons for using teenagers include that they cost less, they are impressionable, easier to manipulate, eager to "prove themselves", and receive more lenient sentencing (especially those under 18). Adult hitmen demand thousands, they'll find a teenager willing to do it for $500 (AUD 500 = USD 350). https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/at-the-crossroads-offend...
Apparently, this strategy wasn't invented in Australia, Australian criminals have copied it from Europe where it was already established (particularly in Sweden and the Netherlands)
> It's an old strategy. It's commonly been part of plots of various stories/movies in the US going back decades.
I think significant aspects of it are quite novel – e.g. teenagers being recruited via Signal or Telegram, often by overseas fugitive gang leaders; some cases have even (allegedly) involved Iranian government agents
Also, there's a difference between something repeatedly happening in fiction over decades, and law enforcement seeing multiple real life cases of it over a few months in a single metro area
People do indeed kill for the kick of it. But professional robbers stick to robbing, sometimes going as far as to not use real weapons in case they get caught. But there are all kind of offenders, some with mental health probelms or some panicking who end up killing even if they did not intend to do that initially.
Professional robbers aren't really a thing. It's more a lifestyle, and it tends to be quite short. Many people who would consider robbing others would kill for 50k, because most robbers and thieves are not rational profit maximizers, to say the least. 50k is the kind of money that makes normal people start getting ideas, let alone criminals.
Truth is in these situations we don't know so no one outside of the case should speculate.
I feel the tendency to turn criminal cases into public spectacles does more harm and disservice to justice than anything else. The public has no business passing judgement or deciding for themselves. Leave them out of it.
My point was that the post I was responding to had left out a significant point from the article and was passing a slanted judgement. Effectively the same point that you are making, which I agree with.
Though the gruesome spectacle of public obsession with criminal cases like this has a long and (ig)noble history. There were late Victorian and early Edwardian “police reports” that filled exactly this sort of lurid fascination with the macabre.
However, I found the wider premise of the article more interesting than the speculation about the crime - which is whether someone convicted of an unpleasant violent crime can be simultaneously a warm and friendly person, and whether the justice system is as cut and dried as people like to think.
I found it very thought provoking beyond (or possibly in spite of) the “unsolved mystery” aspect.
But ultimately what is the point of these stories? I didn’t learn anything, no mystery was unraveled. It’s information fast food but dressed up as intellectual.
Huh... I thought it was pretty obvious. Man becomes obsessed with the details of a murder. He starts to question what his motivations are if he doesn't actually know one way or the other whether the man is guilty. His focus on the case begins to fade and he is asked by his daughter if the convicted man is his friend or not.
For twenty minutes it was an engrossing read for me, but to each their own I guess.
It highlighted the flaws in the justice system. Regardless of his innocence or not, it seems to be the case that his appeals are not being taken seriously even when there are compelling reasons to do so. At least that's what I got from it.
I'm finding more and more onerous the social expectation that I should be punishing transgressors of law or morality through shunning and disrespect. In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state, and I don't believe that someone should be looked down upon because they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.
This isn't some cancel culture story, the author is reflecting whether the author is themself a "bad judge of character". There are basic reasons related to self-preservation why you might want to figure out whether your friends are murderers, the article wasn't talking about how the potential murderer didn't deserve dignity and respect.
You're right, my comment was off topic and a knee-jerk reaction from just the title, though I didn't have the phrase "cancel culture" in my mind when I wrote it. While on that topic though, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with "cancelling" someone, but more-so that second degree cancelling of someone who doesn't join in on the cancelling
I'm pretty sure that societies have had social pressure for not interacting with people who society frowns upon as long as there have been societies. If anything, the "affairs of the state" that handle a lot of this nowadays developed because of the social pressure, not the other way around. Social media didn't somehow invent the idea of societies shunning people that are not deemed acceptable, although it did probably make it more visible.
Yes, the only thing that changed is that in the past people had the option to move far away and start anew, hopefully behaving better this time. Now thanks to technology, others from anywhere in the world have the means to dig up your world no matter where you are.
Yes, everything that we experience today is reflected in social patterns that wax and wane and exist in parallel throughout history and across the world. Humans and their group behavior are all just a constant whirl of remixes.
But what you embrace as historical and perennial in shunning, shame, and ostracism is in like historical and perennial company with compassion, forgiveness, mercy, etc.
But for many of us in the US, in the GenX and Millenial generations that we grew up in, we experienced the worst of the shunning culture in high school, among small town cliques, and in the midst of certain church groups; and then social media came, and we witnessed a clear turn where the dreaded "Mean Girl" dynamics that we hoped to have escaped in a liberalizing adult world of funky tattooed weirdos, long haired UNIX nerds, rainbow-flagging Unitarians somehow became the dominant voice of social media culture and it was somehow being championed loudest of all by some of those same colorful weirdos!
Maybe you're happy with that turn, but you can't really take away the disappointing and disorienting transition that many of us experienced as it took hold.
You're making a pretty huge logical leap about what I "embrace" or am "happy with" based on my disagreement about whether social media is singularly responsible for what you're describing as a massive societal shift.
> the dreaded "Mean Girl" dynamics that we hoped to have escaped in a liberalizing adult world of funky tattooed weirdos, long haired UNIX nerds, rainbow-flagging Unitarians somehow became the dominant voice of social media culture and it was somehow being championed loudest of all by some of those same colorful weirdos!
The colorful weirdos were never better people in the first place, so I don't know why you're surprised. People who don't presently have the power to exploit others tell themselves that they don't, or wouldn't anyway, because they're better people. This is self-flattery. Give them power and they'll promptly demonstrate their corruption.
I think that the argument is that social media amplified the effect. It obviously didn't create social pressure, but pressure was limited, and people were just free to be more diverse--or, to put it in the opposite way, there was less pressure to conform.
When something bad happens (like, say, a murder), people want to talk about it. But now, the conversations happen in view of the public--the _whole_ public. So people don't want to be on the wrong side of the conversation. In private, among friends they understand and trust, they might express doubt or complex thoughts. But out in the general public, where their opinion could be boiled down to a soundbite, they don't dare lean on nuance. So, they play it safe.
Go onto Reddit, and under some controversial story post a nuanced take. Chances are you'll get downvoted to oblivion. And that's fine--it's pseudonymous. But if it were attached to your real name, and you happened to be wrong (or some part of your statement could be taken out of context and made to look wrong), then it could always be dredged up and used against you. OTOH, there's basically no scenario where it would be dredged up to help you.
So the result is, all nuance is drained out of the conversation. We end up with junk food for public discourse: no fiber, no nutrition, just feel-good sugar: "fuck that guy, he should be locked up for life!" And seeing everybody carry that line unanimously makes anybody who doesn't look immediately suspicious.
I don't find this particularly convincing as a fundamental change in how social pressure in communities works. I grew up in a suburb (around 25,000 people), and social pressure didn't need social media to cause real-world consequences; a priest at a church got reassigned and later quit being a priest altogether because of a rumor that he had an affair with a married woman, which in reality never happened and was a rumor started by the husband with no actual evidence. No one discussed any of this publicly at any point, and yet everyone knew that the priest was well-liked at first, and then everyone knew that he was reviled right after he got reassigned, and then everyone knew that everyone felt bad for him when the truth finally came out.
I'm not saying that social media can't bleed into real life, but I think the effects it has on how communities choose to ostracize people is completely exaggerated here. Your high-level theory for how it could result in a huge societal shift might be plausible, but it would also be plausible to argue that it causes people to move on much more quickly from events like this because it's so much easier for a new one to pop up for everyone to focus on, which leads to people no longer caring about the previous one faster. All of this is is just armchair philosophizing though, without any real evidence.
I think there are very real problems caused by excessive social media that are documented with compelling evidence, but I have trouble believing this is one of them.
> In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state
The issue here is that we should expect 'the state' to be fairly objective in it's determination of illegality, the correct punishment for the event, and to publish what actions are illegal in a way that is publicly consumable prior to the events it arbitrates.
Lessor transgressions should be handled directly by the peers of the transgressors. I don't want the government holding a court case about something trivial to society at large but relevant to the small community it occurs in.
>they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.
Well, many have victims who weren't treated with dignity or respect.
Recidivism is high, and so there's a statistical basis that people are who they show you to be.
Choosing to believe in an idea of them may hurt you, and its unfortunate if you choose to believe on society's behalf in an idea of them rather than who they actually are.
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and particularly not nationalistic flamebait. That is easily avoided, unlike the flamewars that start raging once it appears.
Why though? Let's be real, juries are human and requiring a unanimous verdict will 90% of the time just mean that people that disagree with the majority will give in so that they get to go home.
There's no fundamental difference in justice, just minor differences in thresholds.
Have you ever served on a jury? It's easy to get out of jury duty. The people who really don't want to be there, usually aren't. When I did grand jury, everyone wanted to be there and was very engaged. To me this is like saying people aren't interested in juicy gossip, having an opinion, debating the smallest details, and wielding power - that's not been my experience.
But the bigger problem is that, if the process were really so precarious, then that's exactly why we would want stronger controls. There may be a good argument for a different threshold but it isn't this one.
The odd thing is that the incarceration rate in the US is 542 per 100k, but the murderer rate is probably something like 200-350 per 100k.
5.9 homicides per 100k annually [1]. Assuming the average person who commits homicide commits 1 homicide in their lifetime (known homicide distributions support this) then that is 5.9 new murderers per 100k annually. Distributed over expected lifetime that would be 200-350 murderers per 100k.
So, if the US successfully imprisoned every murderer and only murderers, it would still be ~25th (~Nicaragua) to ~80th (~Russia). Nearly 2x the total incarceration rate of France and 3x the total incarceration rate of Germany if only murderers were incarcerated and we used the low estimate.
If we assume that homicide is relatively rare compared to severe physical violence that most nations consider worthy of incarceration, then just imprisoning all violent offenders in the US would likely require 1,000+ per 100k at the low end, over twice the actual rate in the US.
regardless of what happened truly, id say that someone isn't define by any specific thing that happened in their lives. however people do like to try and make it seem that way, because emotion and subsequent judgement cloud perception and prevent looking past things for a lot of people who cant detach themselves from their own emotions and or judgement.
people change all the time, and sitting in a small box without freedoms will surely cause deep introspection even in the most outward of people.
you can befriend anyone if theg are friendly to you, regardless of what happened in their lives historically. ofcourse be careful and learn lessons, but no need to be judgemental on things that never involved you in the first place.
for most people you can find some slice im their life and mark them as bad (maybe not wife murdering bad, but bad nonetheless). if you look critically at how you view people you will find that the people you do accept in your life simply dont have slices that you know of that trigger your emotions and cause judgement.
this is why i like some religions say judgement is only reserved for god. other then that it just causes more negativity from something that was already negative. spreading it more and more. (yes i know this last part will likely be hated on by the atheists, thats ok, judge away ;), still love ya!)
So, should we not refer to them as "murderers" but "people who experienced committing murder"?
Well the article hinges on whether he is lying about his innocence.
I'm reminded of Edgar Smith and William Buckley ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Smith_(murderer) ), let's hope that however this particular story ends no one else gets killed.
Another example of something similar is Jack Henry Abbott and Norman Mailer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Henry_Abbott
Dang Buckley got played
If you're interested in this kind of thing, I just finished reading a book where the author improbably was commissioned to write a book about a serial killer but the killer was a friend of theirs!
It's a decent read, the author went on to being a bestselling true crime writer. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/15654.The_Stranger_Be...
My father (then a local public person) had a driver who used to take us to school in his absence. Nicest guy ever, would joke around, take us to other places when we didn't wanna go to class, absolutely the best. One day I was looking for the fire extinguisher in the car (then required in my country) and found a Glock G19 underneath the driver's seat.
I asked "what the hell?" and he said "this is for me to use in case somebody talks shit about your father".
Upon some investigation, it turns out that the nicest guy in the world was actually living in my city because he was on the run for a murder he committed in another city many years back. The nicest guy in the world had an altercation with another patron at a bar, while drunk, broke a beer bootle on a table, stuck into the stomach of the other guy, and twisted left and right until internal organs started showing.
I did befriend a murderer once.
Similar in theme to the Nathan Fielder documentary about Elizabeth Holmes "You Can See Everything", which is also about a criminal professing their innocence, the journalist/documentarian's relationship with them, and attempting to find out if they lie. Both include a prison visit as well!
Has there been a discussion of the movie on HN ? Seems like we're the intended audience.
Some of us are the intended subjects.
Billy seems to spend too much time on twitter to show up here, and I don’t think Liz has the internet in prison
Soft disagree: Billy watches science videos at 2x speed and considers himself an expert on topics where he's a novice at best.
> considers himself an expert on topics where he's a novice at best.
Surely he is on this forum, then
As an aside, a decent number of very guilty murderers have support among family and friends, especially because nobody wants to believe they're family or friends with a murderer; much easier to believe the story.
I've read many of these stories over the years. I find it fascinating that well-meaning and seemingly quite intelligent people are so eager to exonerate the very-obviously-guilty whenever they have any redeeming features at all. Charisma, intelligence, or just a similar background to the befriender. They refuse to accept that liars, cheaters, thieves, murderers, fraudsters, etc are often normal people like themselves who may even have admirable traits and qualities. Often, they do victimize people they truly love.
I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain, which play out in politics daily in all quarters. Like a kind of primal social anxiety - people have irrational fear of the crowd turning against without them having done anything wrong.
The undated and anonymous tip is meaningless and incredible, the policeman returning from holiday a few days early for a brutal murder investigation sounds very normal, the lack of DNA on the thoroughly cleaned murder weapon is irrelevant, the notion of the murderer killing Dianne hours before the robbery and waiting for the rest of the town to wake up before leaving is absurd, his 'alibi' for 4:30-6:30 is that there was such a continuous stream of customers to serve - yet not so many that any observed the robbery at 8:30 or saw the burglar enter hours earlier, or heard the brutal murder, and is anyway dependent on a theory that she was alive at 6:30 which presupposes the time of death was wrong, and therefore creates the opportunity for Robin to have also murdered her after 6:30.
Also, when a jury finds that a defendant probably or very likely committed a crime they must find them not guilty. A guilty verdict is reserved for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt though - an impossible standard). The minority jurors did not necessarily consider him innocent.
> I find it fascinating that well-meaning and seemingly quite intelligent people are so eager to exonerate the very-obviously-guilty
> I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain
Guilty conscience. People like that know they've done something, not necessarily criminal per se but at least antisocial, and that they deserve to be punished for it.
I tend to think they need to be hurt to get less neurotic and go back to making a positive contribution to society.
that kind of reminds me of a writeup by this exiled Chinese dissident; she ended up knowing her CCP surveillance officer so well, he was almost like a family member.
I personally know 3 murderers. Met them all in space of just a year as homeless.
Two ex-professional criminals who killed other criminals back in the 90", and one guy who killed someone in a pub brawl that went wrong.
Those people are relatively normal and can be 100% rehabilitated.
I also know a guy who was forced to watch execution while a teenager - he on the other hand is mentally badly damaged 2 decades later.
Those guys are far less psychotic and toxic than many corporate leaders I met in my career.
I'm from Central Europe.
It is probably was crime of passion that he had covered up. Apparently she was having affairs and he didn't. Robbers don't kill people for mere $50k. He maybe a nice guy but also a killer. It was not because of money I would guess. Anger management issues are likely and those are not visible now.
> Robbers don't kill people for mere $50k.
What a laughably insulated statement. An example from NZ - Janek Patel was murdered in 2022 while attempting to prevent the cash register at his corner store from being stolen.
The figure has been described as "a few dollars".
Things like that happen all the time but a masked rubber killed the wife in her bed and waited to get unknown amount of money from the husband from the safe. I don't know how to say this, he should have done a better job with the story... He hadn't watch enough murder shows on TV.
> Robbers don't kill people for mere $50k.
Here in the US, people kill for a lot less.
> Here in the US, people kill for a lot less.
In Australia, organised crime has taken to hiring teenagers as hitmen; e.g. the perpetrators of a failed assassination attempt against a retired footballer (they shot him but he survived) included a 15 year old and 16 year old – https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sixteen-heart-pumping-ab...
Reasons for using teenagers include that they cost less, they are impressionable, easier to manipulate, eager to "prove themselves", and receive more lenient sentencing (especially those under 18). Adult hitmen demand thousands, they'll find a teenager willing to do it for $500 (AUD 500 = USD 350). https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/at-the-crossroads-offend...
Apparently, this strategy wasn't invented in Australia, Australian criminals have copied it from Europe where it was already established (particularly in Sweden and the Netherlands)
Another example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw8rzpl1ldkdo
> Apparently, this strategy wasn't invented in Australia
It's an old strategy. It's commonly been part of plots of various stories/movies in the US going back decades.
> It's an old strategy. It's commonly been part of plots of various stories/movies in the US going back decades.
I think significant aspects of it are quite novel – e.g. teenagers being recruited via Signal or Telegram, often by overseas fugitive gang leaders; some cases have even (allegedly) involved Iranian government agents
Also, there's a difference between something repeatedly happening in fiction over decades, and law enforcement seeing multiple real life cases of it over a few months in a single metro area
People do indeed kill for the kick of it. But professional robbers stick to robbing, sometimes going as far as to not use real weapons in case they get caught. But there are all kind of offenders, some with mental health probelms or some panicking who end up killing even if they did not intend to do that initially.
Professional robbers aren't really a thing. It's more a lifestyle, and it tends to be quite short. Many people who would consider robbing others would kill for 50k, because most robbers and thieves are not rational profit maximizers, to say the least. 50k is the kind of money that makes normal people start getting ideas, let alone criminals.
Most robbers are not "professional robbers".
And incidentally, in case you didn't know, to classify as a robber you need to either use, or threaten, with violence.
The average burglar is not a robber.
The wife was bludgeoned to death in her bed. Do you think the rubber would do that? why in her room? not at the site of the safe. seriously?!
Or it was her stepfather who she was going to report to the police for allegedly sexually abusing her.
This is probably more of a reddit thread than a HN thread, but it seems unlikely that he would make up a story about a robbery in that case.
Unless the step father robbed the store as a cover for the actual motive.
Also, given he opened the safe and called the police a few minutes later, what happened to the money from the safe.
Or was it the butler?
Truth is in these situations we don't know so no one outside of the case should speculate.
I feel the tendency to turn criminal cases into public spectacles does more harm and disservice to justice than anything else. The public has no business passing judgement or deciding for themselves. Leave them out of it.
My point was that the post I was responding to had left out a significant point from the article and was passing a slanted judgement. Effectively the same point that you are making, which I agree with.
Though the gruesome spectacle of public obsession with criminal cases like this has a long and (ig)noble history. There were late Victorian and early Edwardian “police reports” that filled exactly this sort of lurid fascination with the macabre.
However, I found the wider premise of the article more interesting than the speculation about the crime - which is whether someone convicted of an unpleasant violent crime can be simultaneously a warm and friendly person, and whether the justice system is as cut and dried as people like to think.
I found it very thought provoking beyond (or possibly in spite of) the “unsolved mystery” aspect.
Easier to befriend someone who murdered his wife rather than, say, murdered the last guy that befriended him.
(you might have a different opinion if you are female)
It's supposed to be proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but the system prefers the principle of one crime, one sentence.
I read it. It was engrossing.
But ultimately what is the point of these stories? I didn’t learn anything, no mystery was unraveled. It’s information fast food but dressed up as intellectual.
Huh... I thought it was pretty obvious. Man becomes obsessed with the details of a murder. He starts to question what his motivations are if he doesn't actually know one way or the other whether the man is guilty. His focus on the case begins to fade and he is asked by his daughter if the convicted man is his friend or not.
For twenty minutes it was an engrossing read for me, but to each their own I guess.
It highlighted the flaws in the justice system. Regardless of his innocence or not, it seems to be the case that his appeals are not being taken seriously even when there are compelling reasons to do so. At least that's what I got from it.
Maybe an important thing to take away from this is that part of life is being forced to sit with uncertainty.
it's a human interest story
not everything has to have a plot or an arc, this is real life
I'm finding more and more onerous the social expectation that I should be punishing transgressors of law or morality through shunning and disrespect. In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state, and I don't believe that someone should be looked down upon because they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.
This isn't some cancel culture story, the author is reflecting whether the author is themself a "bad judge of character". There are basic reasons related to self-preservation why you might want to figure out whether your friends are murderers, the article wasn't talking about how the potential murderer didn't deserve dignity and respect.
You're right, my comment was off topic and a knee-jerk reaction from just the title, though I didn't have the phrase "cancel culture" in my mind when I wrote it. While on that topic though, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with "cancelling" someone, but more-so that second degree cancelling of someone who doesn't join in on the cancelling
Social media turned the whole world into a high school cafeteria.
I'm pretty sure that societies have had social pressure for not interacting with people who society frowns upon as long as there have been societies. If anything, the "affairs of the state" that handle a lot of this nowadays developed because of the social pressure, not the other way around. Social media didn't somehow invent the idea of societies shunning people that are not deemed acceptable, although it did probably make it more visible.
Yes, the only thing that changed is that in the past people had the option to move far away and start anew, hopefully behaving better this time. Now thanks to technology, others from anywhere in the world have the means to dig up your world no matter where you are.
Yes, everything that we experience today is reflected in social patterns that wax and wane and exist in parallel throughout history and across the world. Humans and their group behavior are all just a constant whirl of remixes.
But what you embrace as historical and perennial in shunning, shame, and ostracism is in like historical and perennial company with compassion, forgiveness, mercy, etc.
But for many of us in the US, in the GenX and Millenial generations that we grew up in, we experienced the worst of the shunning culture in high school, among small town cliques, and in the midst of certain church groups; and then social media came, and we witnessed a clear turn where the dreaded "Mean Girl" dynamics that we hoped to have escaped in a liberalizing adult world of funky tattooed weirdos, long haired UNIX nerds, rainbow-flagging Unitarians somehow became the dominant voice of social media culture and it was somehow being championed loudest of all by some of those same colorful weirdos!
Maybe you're happy with that turn, but you can't really take away the disappointing and disorienting transition that many of us experienced as it took hold.
You're making a pretty huge logical leap about what I "embrace" or am "happy with" based on my disagreement about whether social media is singularly responsible for what you're describing as a massive societal shift.
> the dreaded "Mean Girl" dynamics that we hoped to have escaped in a liberalizing adult world of funky tattooed weirdos, long haired UNIX nerds, rainbow-flagging Unitarians somehow became the dominant voice of social media culture and it was somehow being championed loudest of all by some of those same colorful weirdos!
The colorful weirdos were never better people in the first place, so I don't know why you're surprised. People who don't presently have the power to exploit others tell themselves that they don't, or wouldn't anyway, because they're better people. This is self-flattery. Give them power and they'll promptly demonstrate their corruption.
Nietzsche wrote quite a bit about this dynamic.
I think that the argument is that social media amplified the effect. It obviously didn't create social pressure, but pressure was limited, and people were just free to be more diverse--or, to put it in the opposite way, there was less pressure to conform.
When something bad happens (like, say, a murder), people want to talk about it. But now, the conversations happen in view of the public--the _whole_ public. So people don't want to be on the wrong side of the conversation. In private, among friends they understand and trust, they might express doubt or complex thoughts. But out in the general public, where their opinion could be boiled down to a soundbite, they don't dare lean on nuance. So, they play it safe.
Go onto Reddit, and under some controversial story post a nuanced take. Chances are you'll get downvoted to oblivion. And that's fine--it's pseudonymous. But if it were attached to your real name, and you happened to be wrong (or some part of your statement could be taken out of context and made to look wrong), then it could always be dredged up and used against you. OTOH, there's basically no scenario where it would be dredged up to help you.
So the result is, all nuance is drained out of the conversation. We end up with junk food for public discourse: no fiber, no nutrition, just feel-good sugar: "fuck that guy, he should be locked up for life!" And seeing everybody carry that line unanimously makes anybody who doesn't look immediately suspicious.
I don't find this particularly convincing as a fundamental change in how social pressure in communities works. I grew up in a suburb (around 25,000 people), and social pressure didn't need social media to cause real-world consequences; a priest at a church got reassigned and later quit being a priest altogether because of a rumor that he had an affair with a married woman, which in reality never happened and was a rumor started by the husband with no actual evidence. No one discussed any of this publicly at any point, and yet everyone knew that the priest was well-liked at first, and then everyone knew that he was reviled right after he got reassigned, and then everyone knew that everyone felt bad for him when the truth finally came out.
I'm not saying that social media can't bleed into real life, but I think the effects it has on how communities choose to ostracize people is completely exaggerated here. Your high-level theory for how it could result in a huge societal shift might be plausible, but it would also be plausible to argue that it causes people to move on much more quickly from events like this because it's so much easier for a new one to pop up for everyone to focus on, which leads to people no longer caring about the previous one faster. All of this is is just armchair philosophizing though, without any real evidence.
I think there are very real problems caused by excessive social media that are documented with compelling evidence, but I have trouble believing this is one of them.
> In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state
The issue here is that we should expect 'the state' to be fairly objective in it's determination of illegality, the correct punishment for the event, and to publish what actions are illegal in a way that is publicly consumable prior to the events it arbitrates.
Lessor transgressions should be handled directly by the peers of the transgressors. I don't want the government holding a court case about something trivial to society at large but relevant to the small community it occurs in.
>they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.
Well, many have victims who weren't treated with dignity or respect.
Recidivism is high, and so there's a statistical basis that people are who they show you to be.
Choosing to believe in an idea of them may hurt you, and its unfortunate if you choose to believe on society's behalf in an idea of them rather than who they actually are.
> Ten of the 12 jurors agreed, and Robin was found guilty by a majority verdict.
God bless America. I’m glad I’m here and not there.
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and particularly not nationalistic flamebait. That is easily avoided, unlike the flamewars that start raging once it appears.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do note that if only nine of the jurors agreed, he would not have been found guilty. "Majority verdict" doesn't mean a simple majority in these cases.
For an example of the sort of distress that the American unanimity requirement can impose on jurors, read A Trial By Jury, D. Graham Burnett.
Yeah, I was really shocked to read that.
Why though? Let's be real, juries are human and requiring a unanimous verdict will 90% of the time just mean that people that disagree with the majority will give in so that they get to go home.
There's no fundamental difference in justice, just minor differences in thresholds.
Have you ever served on a jury? It's easy to get out of jury duty. The people who really don't want to be there, usually aren't. When I did grand jury, everyone wanted to be there and was very engaged. To me this is like saying people aren't interested in juicy gossip, having an opinion, debating the smallest details, and wielding power - that's not been my experience.
But the bigger problem is that, if the process were really so precarious, then that's exactly why we would want stronger controls. There may be a good argument for a different threshold but it isn't this one.
That's correct. We shouldn't be convicting people unless it's obvious.
Indeed. It is just a bit unfortunate that people often come to different, obvious conclusions.
In the American system the 10 just convince the 2 to agree so they can all go home, and you just don't know how many actually agreed.
Really?! https://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-data/highest-lowe...
Came to say something similar...
The US is first on prison population (total) and forth on rate on incarceration (behind El Salvador, Cuba, and Turkmenistan).
The odd thing is that the incarceration rate in the US is 542 per 100k, but the murderer rate is probably something like 200-350 per 100k.
5.9 homicides per 100k annually [1]. Assuming the average person who commits homicide commits 1 homicide in their lifetime (known homicide distributions support this) then that is 5.9 new murderers per 100k annually. Distributed over expected lifetime that would be 200-350 murderers per 100k.
So, if the US successfully imprisoned every murderer and only murderers, it would still be ~25th (~Nicaragua) to ~80th (~Russia). Nearly 2x the total incarceration rate of France and 3x the total incarceration rate of Germany if only murderers were incarcerated and we used the low estimate.
If we assume that homicide is relatively rare compared to severe physical violence that most nations consider worthy of incarceration, then just imprisoning all violent offenders in the US would likely require 1,000+ per 100k at the low end, over twice the actual rate in the US.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm