3 ms·
Interesting how many people's first thoughts go to fairness to the defendant, despite the seriousness of his crimes and the utter certainty that he committed th
by dkarl 15y ago
Interesting how many people's first thoughts go to fairness to the defendant, despite the seriousness of his crimes and the utter certainty that he committed them. Apparently, because of the means he used, many folks here find it easier to identify with him than with his victims.
It reminds me of the discussions of local bicycle-car accidents I read when I was reading through cycling forums looking for commuting tips years ago. You could put Pol Pot on a bicycle, and suddenly people would see things from his perspective.
Anyway, I urge people to consider that anxieties about being unfairly treated and fantasies about satisfying computer-based acts of retribution are pretty common and have NOTHING to do with this guy's very rare and very dangerous ability to commit such cruelty, not once on an impulse, not to one family, but to multiple victims over long periods of time. If he was a little less clever and/or had a little bit more physical bravery, he might have physically tortured and killed people instead of just trying to ruin their lives.
- inoop 15y agoI wholly agree the guy's a total dick and probably has some serious mental issues, but come on, just because you troll your neighbours by hacking their WiFi doesn't mean you're capable of torture and murder. What this guy did is no different from trying to destroy someone professionally by spreading lies and rumours in more conventional ways, as has been done in most corporations pretty much ever since they were invented.
- three14 15y ago"What this guy did is no different from trying to destroy someone... in more conventional ways" is exactly the point. If someone did exactly the same things in conventional ways, he should still get the same sentence, and he probably would have.
- inoop 15y ago> If someone did exactly the same things in conventional ways, he should still get the same sentence, and he probably would have. Huh? I never said anything to the contrary?
- dkarl 15y agoExcept you referred to "destroy[ing] someone professionally" which is not the same thing as what this guy did. He tried to send them to jail. Going to jail for child porn and threats to kill the Vice President is a little different from being "ruined" professionally. Planting evidence (which was illegal for him to possess in the first place) and sending death threats to the Vice President is a little different from "spreading lies and rumors." You might disagree, but the justice system in the U.S. is supposed to sentence people according to the severity of their offense and the danger they pose to other people, not facile logical equivalences between acts that have vastly different effects on their victims and vastly different costs for society.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]