5 ms·

Really fascinating to read the comments here. Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or another. Not much being said about the

by xrd 7y ago

Really fascinating to read the comments here. Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or another. Not much being said about the fact that they were children and that even if they did commit another crime at another time or were witnesses to the crime or whatever, it's not necessarily a "good thing" that they were in jail long into adulthood. Hacker News showing its true colors here.

xmmrm 7y ago
they attacked another jogger, hitting him in the back of the head with a pipe and stick They pummeled two men into unconsciousness, hitting them with a metal pipe, stones, and punches, and kicking them in the head. The first policeman who saw her said: "She was beaten as badly as anybody I've ever seen beaten. She looked like she was tortured." It’s a very “good thing” that they were in jail long into adulthood.
dang 7y ago
> Hacker News showing its true colors here HN is a statistical cloud of millions of people. Since you're commenting here, you're as much a part of it as anyone. A run of comments sharing a common quality doesn't show anything about "true colors"—pure randomness exhibits the same patterns. What happens, though, is that after seeing a few (say, 3) comments taking an offensive or opposing position, people feel surrounded by hostile voices, and that feeling 'sticks' to the community in the form of the perception "HN is X". HN isn't X. It just feels that way after a few noticeable signals in a row.
rayiner 7y ago
None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand that difference.
- xrd 7y ago
  Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are. I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling. Correct my thinking: They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children. Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? Another way to ask, were these sentences just (not asking for your opinion personally but is this typical for those types of cases) And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it? My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are. I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling. Correct my thinking: They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Yes. But he (Salaam) claimed to be sixteen and produced a transit document to that effect. > Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? It matters, but that doesn’t mean it automatically invalidates the conviction or the evidence. When an accused lies about their age and the police them without a parent, that’s a violation of the law. (At least the law here in New York.) But automatically vacating the conviction based on that would not be fair to the state: the police proceeded in good faith, based on the accused’s lie. So the judge tries to figure out whether that error was really prejudicial enough to warrant excluding the evidence. > If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. In Maryland, the age of consent is 14 for people who are close in age. That recognizes that teenagers are able to consent to certain adult behavior. Now, it’s 16 if the partner is much older, because there could be coercion. Here, if there was a much older ringleader I’d support a more lenient treatment for the teenagers. > I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children. The question isn’t whether brain development is complete. The question is whether it is sufficiently far along that they can understand the consequences of their actions and distinguish right from wrong. There is evidence that teenagers are, for example, more impulsive than adults. But if you look at the data, adult criminals also tend to have problems with impulse control. That’s not an excuse. > Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? If they were guilty of the other assaults of which they were convicted, I don’t see that sentence as unreadable, especially given the concerted action. > And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it? I think they were probably not guilty of the rape, based on the DNA evidence. So the vacated of the conviction was correct. But note that DNA testing was pretty new and not routine during the original trial. Also note that the evidence for their other convictions that occurred at the same time are stronger. E.g., o e defendant was carrying a pipe that was used to beat someone else at the park. > My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically. It was definitely improper. But the facts are more complicated than the cartoon villain version promoted in the press: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-five https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we believe the one sided narrative of the NY Times camp, or we believe the one sided narrative of the Trump-like camp. The only things we really know as fact, is that the DNA at the scene belonged to the perp. Which perp turned out to be none of the people we actually convicted of the crime. Everything else requires us to believe suspect entities. Were the confessions uncoerced? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe the NYPD and the courts. Was it actually these kids who committed all these other crimes? Well, again, depends on whether you want to believe the NYPD and courts, or the guys who are now speaking without fear of further torture. This whole thing went off the rails when the initial exculpatory evidence was ignored. From that point on, every decision just made things worse and worse.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    There was physical evidence linking them to the other crimes for which they were convicted.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Again, if you trust the entities producing the evidence, there was. List the evidence, and an intellectually honest guy would have to concede that it's all based on trust. So it really does come down to, who do you trust? I think the only thing we can say for certain is none of these guys committed the crime they were convicted of. And even that is only because we actually have the DNA, not because we trust the actual perp who confessed to the crime.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        They were convicted of more than just that crime, first of all. Second, I don’t think there is any indication the police fabricated evidence here. I think confessions are weaker evidence than we assume, and should be treated with more suspicion. I think the police and prosecution pursued a case while ignoring the inconsistencies in the confessions. But there is no indication that anyone manufactured evidence or tried to frame these young men. And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>Hacker News showing its true colors here. Your high horse certainly isn't helping. >Not much being said about [...] What exactly are you getting at here? Do you want everyone to talk about this to the exclusion of other aspects of the case? Or if there is some room for other topics, as long as there exists a certain percentage of us giving perfunctory agreement on this point? Your post reads to me as a roundabout saying-without-saying accusation of moral failing among people who very well may agree with you, for wishing to discuss other aspects of this case.

by xrd 7y ago

xmmrm 7y ago

they attacked another jogger, hitting him in the back of the head with a pipe and stick They pummeled two men into unconsciousness, hitting them with a metal pipe, stones, and punches, and kicking them in the head. The first policeman who saw her said: "She was beaten as badly as anybody I've ever seen beaten. She looked like she was tortured." It’s a very “good thing” that they were in jail long into adulthood.

dang 7y ago

> Hacker News showing its true colors here HN is a statistical cloud of millions of people. Since you're commenting here, you're as much a part of it as anyone. A run of comments sharing a common quality doesn't show anything about "true colors"—pure randomness exhibits the same patterns. What happens, though, is that after seeing a few (say, 3) comments taking an offensive or opposing position, people feel surrounded by hostile voices, and that feeling 'sticks' to the community in the form of the perception "HN is X". HN isn't X. It just feels that way after a few noticeable signals in a row.

rayiner 7y ago

None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand that difference.

xrd 7y ago
Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are. I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling. Correct my thinking: They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children. Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? Another way to ask, were these sentences just (not asking for your opinion personally but is this typical for those types of cases) And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it? My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are. I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling. Correct my thinking: They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Yes. But he (Salaam) claimed to be sixteen and produced a transit document to that effect. > Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? It matters, but that doesn’t mean it automatically invalidates the conviction or the evidence. When an accused lies about their age and the police them without a parent, that’s a violation of the law. (At least the law here in New York.) But automatically vacating the conviction based on that would not be fair to the state: the police proceeded in good faith, based on the accused’s lie. So the judge tries to figure out whether that error was really prejudicial enough to warrant excluding the evidence. > If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. In Maryland, the age of consent is 14 for people who are close in age. That recognizes that teenagers are able to consent to certain adult behavior. Now, it’s 16 if the partner is much older, because there could be coercion. Here, if there was a much older ringleader I’d support a more lenient treatment for the teenagers. > I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children. The question isn’t whether brain development is complete. The question is whether it is sufficiently far along that they can understand the consequences of their actions and distinguish right from wrong. There is evidence that teenagers are, for example, more impulsive than adults. But if you look at the data, adult criminals also tend to have problems with impulse control. That’s not an excuse. > Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? If they were guilty of the other assaults of which they were convicted, I don’t see that sentence as unreadable, especially given the concerted action. > And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it? I think they were probably not guilty of the rape, based on the DNA evidence. So the vacated of the conviction was correct. But note that DNA testing was pretty new and not routine during the original trial. Also note that the evidence for their other convictions that occurred at the same time are stronger. E.g., o e defendant was carrying a pipe that was used to beat someone else at the park. > My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically. It was definitely improper. But the facts are more complicated than the cartoon villain version promoted in the press: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-five https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...
bilbo0s 7y ago
Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we believe the one sided narrative of the NY Times camp, or we believe the one sided narrative of the Trump-like camp. The only things we really know as fact, is that the DNA at the scene belonged to the perp. Which perp turned out to be none of the people we actually convicted of the crime. Everything else requires us to believe suspect entities. Were the confessions uncoerced? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe the NYPD and the courts. Was it actually these kids who committed all these other crimes? Well, again, depends on whether you want to believe the NYPD and courts, or the guys who are now speaking without fear of further torture. This whole thing went off the rails when the initial exculpatory evidence was ignored. From that point on, every decision just made things worse and worse.
- rayiner 7y ago
  There was physical evidence linking them to the other crimes for which they were convicted.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Again, if you trust the entities producing the evidence, there was. List the evidence, and an intellectually honest guy would have to concede that it's all based on trust. So it really does come down to, who do you trust? I think the only thing we can say for certain is none of these guys committed the crime they were convicted of. And even that is only because we actually have the DNA, not because we trust the actual perp who confessed to the crime.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      They were convicted of more than just that crime, first of all. Second, I don’t think there is any indication the police fabricated evidence here. I think confessions are weaker evidence than we assume, and should be treated with more suspicion. I think the police and prosecution pursued a case while ignoring the inconsistencies in the confessions. But there is no indication that anyone manufactured evidence or tried to frame these young men. And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>Hacker News showing its true colors here. Your high horse certainly isn't helping. >Not much being said about [...] What exactly are you getting at here? Do you want everyone to talk about this to the exclusion of other aspects of the case? Or if there is some room for other topics, as long as there exists a certain percentage of us giving perfunctory agreement on this point? Your post reads to me as a roundabout saying-without-saying accusation of moral failing among people who very well may agree with you, for wishing to discuss other aspects of this case.