6 ms·

Why is there always a comment from the legal fatalism gallery in every HN thread like this? Can we not strive for victim's rights or for more human policy-makin

Why is there always a comment from the legal fatalism gallery in every HN thread like this? Can we not strive for victim's rights or for more human policy-making? Beyond that, it's annoying, obvious, and contributes nothing.

overcyn 14y ago
someone who has a different opinion than you "annoying, obvious, contributes nothing"
- heretohelp 14y ago
  It's annoying, obvious, and contributes nothing because: 1. Any state actions that promotes the current legal hegemony is inevitable, making a comment noting the fatalism inherent in taking an action (principled or not) that could trigger blowback from this legal hegemony is by definition obvious. 2. It's annoying because it doesn't say anything that isn't already evident from a passing understanding of the power dynamics of western society, especially as it relates to the courts. You don't need to say something emphasizing the power of the judicial system to ruin your life...we know that already. 3. And it contributes nothing because such comments rarely go beyond capitalizing on the opportunity to be snarky, doing nothing to describe the ethics of the situation or how the system could be improved.
  - overcyn 14y ago
    I guess I read his comment differently. "regardless of whether she's right or wrong" about the crimes/identities of the attacker. Rather than regardless of whether she's in the right/wrong for posting their names.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
TheCount 14y ago
This is one of my biggest pet peeves - you see something and ask "why the hell is it this way?" You even speculate about some possible solutions, but someone will chide you, condescendingly, that 'that's the way it is.' It's usually delivered in a tone insinuating 'you're a foolish naive little one aren't you' And that theirs is a profound, valuable observation. It seems like entrepreneurs in particular are willing to ask, and not be content with an endorsement of the status quo.
Danieru 14y ago
Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous. I understand the frustration of her and her family and I cannot say she was wrong to make the injustice public. With that said, this is not a clear cut issue. I hope grace prevails and we do not attempt to ruin the boys lives in pursuit of vengeance. This is not something a mad internet does very well and would be a justifiable reason for the court to ban publication.
- heretohelp 14y ago
  >Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous Yes, it is! And this is what I want people talking about! I don't have a particular point to make here, except to say that the discourse could be better.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  So sexual assault is OK as long as they are kids? I have four kids and often think courts are ridiculously stupid for trying them as adults. However, two of my kids are daughters. As the victim, their rights should trounce the rights of the attackers. That doesn't necessarily mean naming them, but if they aren't going to be named (which is usually the right thing to do for juveniles), they must be appropriately punished. Unfortunately, we are missing whether they were appropriately punished. From her perspective, I'm sure the answer is No, but objectively, we don't know the answer. I can't imagine how much it would suck to be a judge.
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    As the victim, their rights should trounce the rights of the attackers. Why? Assuming we're still talking about rights as citizens under the law, here.
  - lmm 14y ago
    >So sexual assault is OK as long as they are kids? OK? of course not. But it shouldn't destroy their whole lives, the way being publicly named would. As long as you're a kid you deserve another chance, even after murdering someone. That's the whole point of trying juveniles differently.
codex 14y ago
Legal fatalism is one of the few responsible comments one can make about a case like this. We don'k know much about the case--the facts are sealed, and we have no context--and I'm not willing to second guess a judge based on one sided, incomplete, inflammatory comments leaked by an angry first-party. But by all means, pass judgement and cast the first stone yourselves. It wouldn't be the first time vigilante justice has been performed.
- mikescar 14y ago
  Well, we know that they both pled guilty. That's publicly available. Other than that major point, we don't have context. Yes, I would like everything to be public so we know what we're paying for. I'm going to 'pass judgement', and leave you to responsible commenting.
  - nkurz 14y ago
    Here are two cases where rape defendants chose to plead guilty to a crimes they did not commit: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/12/why_innocent_people_confess.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/... http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2012/05/when-innocent-clients-plead-guilty.html http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2012/05/when-innocent-clients... I presume that such cases are a minority, that those who plead guilty generally are. But I don't know what the actual odds are. What makes you certain? Or are you comfortable passing judgement regardless?
    - capitao 14y ago
      Yeaaaah this isn't one of those cases, I'm pretty comfortable judging on this one
    - mikescar 14y ago
      Yes, it has happened. I'm comfortable forming an opinion based on the facts available. As I said in my comment, I'd like more info since it's ostensibly a public function to run a government court. Otherwise we can all just run around with our hands in the air crying about how we just can't make a decision on anything in which we weren't directly a party.
mikescar 14y ago
Victim's rights? More human policy-making? I wish. Apparently not, guess the GP must be right and the victim got what was coming to her. It's insane how detached we've become from the real world. Arguing about patents and iOS vs Android and open source. Two people pled guilty to a rape, within a court that we all pay for, and somehow there's a random smart-ass that wants to sound smart with the legal fatalism angle on this.

overcyn 14y ago

someone who has a different opinion than you "annoying, obvious, contributes nothing"

heretohelp 14y ago
It's annoying, obvious, and contributes nothing because: 1. Any state actions that promotes the current legal hegemony is inevitable, making a comment noting the fatalism inherent in taking an action (principled or not) that could trigger blowback from this legal hegemony is by definition obvious. 2. It's annoying because it doesn't say anything that isn't already evident from a passing understanding of the power dynamics of western society, especially as it relates to the courts. You don't need to say something emphasizing the power of the judicial system to ruin your life...we know that already. 3. And it contributes nothing because such comments rarely go beyond capitalizing on the opportunity to be snarky, doing nothing to describe the ethics of the situation or how the system could be improved.
- overcyn 14y ago
  I guess I read his comment differently. "regardless of whether she's right or wrong" about the crimes/identities of the attacker. Rather than regardless of whether she's in the right/wrong for posting their names.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

TheCount 14y ago

This is one of my biggest pet peeves - you see something and ask "why the hell is it this way?" You even speculate about some possible solutions, but someone will chide you, condescendingly, that 'that's the way it is.' It's usually delivered in a tone insinuating 'you're a foolish naive little one aren't you' And that theirs is a profound, valuable observation. It seems like entrepreneurs in particular are willing to ask, and not be content with an endorsement of the status quo.

Danieru 14y ago

Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous. I understand the frustration of her and her family and I cannot say she was wrong to make the injustice public. With that said, this is not a clear cut issue. I hope grace prevails and we do not attempt to ruin the boys lives in pursuit of vengeance. This is not something a mad internet does very well and would be a justifiable reason for the court to ban publication.

heretohelp 14y ago
>Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous Yes, it is! And this is what I want people talking about! I don't have a particular point to make here, except to say that the discourse could be better.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
So sexual assault is OK as long as they are kids? I have four kids and often think courts are ridiculously stupid for trying them as adults. However, two of my kids are daughters. As the victim, their rights should trounce the rights of the attackers. That doesn't necessarily mean naming them, but if they aren't going to be named (which is usually the right thing to do for juveniles), they must be appropriately punished. Unfortunately, we are missing whether they were appropriately punished. From her perspective, I'm sure the answer is No, but objectively, we don't know the answer. I can't imagine how much it would suck to be a judge.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  As the victim, their rights should trounce the rights of the attackers. Why? Assuming we're still talking about rights as citizens under the law, here.
- lmm 14y ago
  >So sexual assault is OK as long as they are kids? OK? of course not. But it shouldn't destroy their whole lives, the way being publicly named would. As long as you're a kid you deserve another chance, even after murdering someone. That's the whole point of trying juveniles differently.

codex 14y ago

Legal fatalism is one of the few responsible comments one can make about a case like this. We don'k know much about the case--the facts are sealed, and we have no context--and I'm not willing to second guess a judge based on one sided, incomplete, inflammatory comments leaked by an angry first-party. But by all means, pass judgement and cast the first stone yourselves. It wouldn't be the first time vigilante justice has been performed.

mikescar 14y ago
Well, we know that they both pled guilty. That's publicly available. Other than that major point, we don't have context. Yes, I would like everything to be public so we know what we're paying for. I'm going to 'pass judgement', and leave you to responsible commenting.
- nkurz 14y ago
  Here are two cases where rape defendants chose to plead guilty to a crimes they did not commit: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/12/why_innocent_people_confess.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/... http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2012/05/when-innocent-clients-plead-guilty.html http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2012/05/when-innocent-clients... I presume that such cases are a minority, that those who plead guilty generally are. But I don't know what the actual odds are. What makes you certain? Or are you comfortable passing judgement regardless?
  - capitao 14y ago
    Yeaaaah this isn't one of those cases, I'm pretty comfortable judging on this one
  - mikescar 14y ago
    Yes, it has happened. I'm comfortable forming an opinion based on the facts available. As I said in my comment, I'd like more info since it's ostensibly a public function to run a government court. Otherwise we can all just run around with our hands in the air crying about how we just can't make a decision on anything in which we weren't directly a party.

mikescar 14y ago

Victim's rights? More human policy-making? I wish. Apparently not, guess the GP must be right and the victim got what was coming to her. It's insane how detached we've become from the real world. Arguing about patents and iOS vs Android and open source. Two people pled guilty to a rape, within a court that we all pay for, and somehow there's a random smart-ass that wants to sound smart with the legal fatalism angle on this.