In October 2006, Hans Reiser, creator of the ReiserFS filesystem, was arrested under the suspicion of the murder of his wife, Nina, who had disappeared off the face of the earth after dropping their two children off at Hans’ home. The two were divorced, and fighting a legal battle over ownership of the Namesys company and the custody of their children. Even though the body was never found, he has been declared guilty of first degree murder.According to reports, the six-month trial culminated in a two and half day long deliberation. The prosecutors presented a “mountain” of circumstantial evidence, such as emails in which Reiser called his wife and her family “nazis”, the fact he ripped out the carpeting and passenger seat of his car, and withdrew thousands of Dollars. In addition, traces of Nina’s blood were found in Hans’ home, and Hans did not help in the search after her disappearance.
Hans Reiser’s defence pointed to the lack of direct evidence linking him to the disappearance, and that there were normal explanations for his behaviour after the disappearance. They also stated that since no body had been found, Nina might still be alive – although several people testified she would never leave her children.
Hans Reiser appeared shocked as the verdict was read. DuBois, Reiser’s attorney, said: “We’re disappointed, but we’re not completely surprised.”
Hans Reiser was very dumb, he should have listened to his lawyer from the start. Personally, I still believe that Nina fled to Russia, where her mother and her kids are, if I’m not mistaken. She didn’t abandon them, it was only a temporary separation.
Edited 2008-04-29 09:01 UTC
Hans was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
If true that Nina is (hiding) in Russia, I hope she’ll reappear soon.
Time will show I guess…
If that’s what she did, it hardly explains his OWN actions after she vanished.
I’m sorry, but murder also doesn’t explain his own actions. At least not for me.
A sudden casino tour at the time of her disappearance, two blood stains, ditching a seat out of your car and washing it’s insides out can’t be explained by murder? I’m not saying that it’s a smoking gun but it’s a very reasonable explanation there.
I’m sorry, but this behaviour sounds very silly to me, wether the protagonist murdered his wife before or not.
Some aspects of his odd behaviour even speak against him being the murderer, at least in my opinion.
That said I respect the conclusion drawn by the jury. It’s just not that plain simple.
p.s.: About the blood stains… backread the coverage on Wired.. they are a _very_ weak evidence..
Edited 2008-04-30 16:08 UTC
Not so dumb to have created ReiserFS though
Um…Intelligence != “Smarts”
I wont speculate in if he’s guilty or not, but I find this a bit disturbing:
What does this have to do with the case and why is it even allowed in the court? This is obvioulsy just to appeal to the jurors emotions, thereby blurring their judgement, and says nothing about whether he’s guilty or not.
I’ve read about other cases as well where the prosecutor used realtives to the victim to get someone convicted when they otherwise had nothing to do with the case.
I imagine this was used to illustrate how close Nina and her children were, to aid in the argument that she wouldn’t leave them willingly.
Still, I know a mother who does not live with her kid and she kisses him/her on the cheeks regularly and her kid says he thinks his mum is awesome. It’s absolutely irrelevant what they showed in court. (Note I’m not disagreeing with you, but with the court process here.)
It is routine for defense lawyers to do exactly the same thing: picture a weeping old lady saying, “My boy would never do such a thing. I don’t know why you people are pickin’ on ‘im. It’s his friends that did it and set him up.” &c.
There’s a reason that lawyers don’t have the best reputation in this country.
I was under the impression that prosecutors could not do this sort of thing until the sentencing phase of the trial, in which case it would be relevant to how heinous the crime is, and how long the perpetrator deserves to sit in jail. Apparently I was wrong.
You may have been right but there is always precedence …
So I’m going to kick start the discussion on ReiserFS
I’m a flawed human plagued by emotional response, and I’m kind of hoping they’ll rename the filesystem.
I’m still waiting for good ZFS support in Linux though.
I don’t see a reason to rename the filesystem. I’m not claiming not to be a flawed human plagued by emotional response (I think we all are that), but the filesystem is as much a part of Hans’ legacy as the murder of his wife.
He, and Namesys, made it. If they want to rename it, okay, otherwise use it or don’t.
What I hoping is that no FS-zelots from other camps use the ruling as flame-fodder. On the other hand, reiserfs(v3) is nearing obsolete I guess… and v4 isn’t in linux so…
I think we’ll want some time still for good ZFS in linux though. I highly doubt it’ll come “native” to linux ever.
Edited 2008-04-29 10:31 UTC
We don’t need ZFS. We’ll have BTRFS within a few years
Is there any news on a ZFS implementation for Linux? I thought there was some licensing issue and couldn’t be implemented.
The ZFS license isn’t compatible with Linux’s GPL licence.
As I understand it, this only means ZFS support can’t be written into the Linux kernel. However, ZFS support can run outside of the kernel using a bridge called FUSE.
He is such a talented programmer… it just seems so sad that he would commit such a crime.
That is, if he really is guilty.
Now lets think positive about this situation and ReiserFS. Simply give the man a computer in jail. Now he has all the time in the world to keep coding on ReiserFS. No excuses!
Edited 2008-04-29 11:58 UTC
Does them give in the great nation them inmates a connection onto the internets? otherwise, he’ll be facing himself wit some mightly hacking to get his Code past them prison bars.
That might inspire him to the most.. secure file system ever.
Oh come off it. The fact that he had talent and that so many people bought into Namesys’ hype has no bearing or relevance on the matter. He killed his wife or he didn’t. Before this, positing that Hans was guilty brought down the wrath of all the Holier-Than-Thou Reiser4 fans who were “outraged” that anyone would have the audacity to look at the facts and speculate that he was guilty… always, indignantly arguing that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Well, now a jury of his peers has painstakingly considered the evidence in the case and determined that he is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty as sin. (And yes, that includes considering even the outlandish possibility that she might have defected to Russia with the kids.) So I would remind the “Innocent until proven guilty” contingent that the guy has now been proven guilty. And having been proven guilty, he should be *considered* guilty. So let’s dispense with all this “if he’s guilty” crap.
Hans murdered his wife. And no amount of Reiser4 hype, deserved or not, changes that fact a whit. Nor does his relative level of ability as a programmer.
Edited 2008-04-29 14:04 UTC
And what if you’re like me, and you consider the jury system to be medieval and immensely error-prone?
I’m not saying the system erred in this specific case (I don’t know if he’s guilty or not) – I’m just stating that “a jury of his peers found him guilty” doesn’t bear a lot of weight for people with scientific objections against the jury system.
So what do you propose? A public phone in? Text Yes to 80111 if Hans Reiser is guilty, No to 80111 if he’s not guilty. Phone lines close at midnight?
The jury system, while not perfect is the best thing that we’ve got.
Err, what about using *gasp* judges to determine if someone’s guilty or not? That’s what many countries do – including mine. We don’t have juries.
Just because the US uses juries, doesn’t mean everyone does.
So you do not trust the judgment of 12 people, and prefer to rely on the judgment of 1 person?
Only minor cases get 1 judge. Anything remotely serious gets 3 or more.
And yes, I trust educated people who studied the law for God knows how long a lot more than people like myself when it comes to determining someone’s guilt or innocence.
I believe the idea behind the US system, was that the judges might be biased against you for some political reason or another. So you always have the right to be judged by other people off the street.
As sbergman mentioned, you can request to be judged without a jury instead, and I don’t think that kind of request is ever denied.
I would generally trust the judgment of the judge more than a jury as well, if I were innocent. I think a lot of people think it’s easier to fool and manipulate juries, since you only have to convince a few to let you go.
The general public is prejudiced as well, and not randomly either. The popular press has IMMENSE power over public opinion and can seed ideas and prejudices very easily. At least Judges can be trained to ignore outside influences.
Why would I trust 12 people who are too stupid to get our of jury duty?
In the U.S. a jury trial is considered to be a defendant’s right. He can, however, waive that right and request a bench trial.
If the defendant and his legal council choose not to request a bench trial, I really don’t see the problem.
Edited 2008-04-29 20:41 UTC
It’s a strange sort of thinking that considers having the judge act as the jury in criminal law a modern innovation, and using a jury of peers a medieval-ism. Next let’s have the judges recodify the law, and then reconvene the Inquisition.
A judge does have the ability to make decisions (at least in some types of cases). I was on a case in NH where the judge was afraid we (the jury) would somehow make the wrong decision in a very one-sided case so while we were deliberating, he dismissed the case outright based on his analysis of the evidence. We (the jury) had in fact come to the same conclusion, but we were not offended that the judge decided to take matters into his own hands.
You should have been offended. That’s an example of a current of thought now popular in American law that juries should be excluded from setting precedent whenever possible, or be confined to rendering verdict in accordance with statutory law or judicial instruction. Basically it is a systematic effort by many in the law profession(s) to marginalize the influence of peers in case law; but one of the fundaments of common law is the ability of juries to curtail the unjust application of codified law or legal precedent.
see the current argument over the right/idea of Jury Nullification. Oftentimes prospective jurors will be asked about this and dismissed if they know of / believe in it.
Yes, I am very anti-precedence. But in this case I don’t even think it had anything to do with precedence. The case was so obvious, the prosecutor was so inept, that I think he really felt he had no choice. I don’t know how he dismissed the case, maybe he called it a mistrial, I don’t know. We weren’t told everything.
In the US, the role of judges is to referee the prosecution and defense, and ensure that legal procedings closely mirror statutes in place.
The point of a jury is the idea that fellow human beings – your peers – are reasonable. And there are many of them, who can debate the evidence.
While this is imperfect and you can argue that one’s peers may not be reasonable, many of us would certainly prefer for us to roll the dice with our peers than put the fate of the accused in the hands of the State.
So no, I don’t agree. I am not thrilled with the jury system and I am always open to considering possibilities to address its deficiencies, but the idea that putting a guilty/not guilty determination in the hands of a single person – a representative of the State…
No thanks.
It seems a bit strange to call having a jury of your peers medieval, implying that having your fate decided by a single person or small group in power as not being so despite that being.. well.. how it was done then.
Though really jury or judge alike, neither is going to be all that scientific at all. In both cases it’s people looking at evidence presented by both sides and coming to a conclusion. That’s not science. (Unfortunately though, regardless of which of those two systems you prefer there, they’re both in ways about as good as it’s going to reasonably get.)
It’s proven guilty *by those people on court only*. How much you trust their ability and correctness is another thing. Court *prove* something guilty doesn’t mean it is really guilty. You have your own judgement.
At a certain point in real-life affairs, it simply does not make sense to continue to play the epistemological skeptic any longer.
A jury of his peers, each member accepted as such by the defense, viewed the known evidence and considered it over a period of nearly 6 months. They were each personally exposed to the arguments and evidence of both the prosecution and of the defense. They rendered a verdict of guilty.
Now, answer me this: Why should I weight the opinions of random OSAlert posters, who have gotten their sketchy information mostly from news stories in the press and posts here on OSAlert and perhaps in other forums, higher than I weight the determination of those 12 people.
Beyond this point, we may as well be debating the actual existence of a christian god.
Hey, sbergman. I usually agree with you, but I think you’re drifting badly here.
The guy is NOT saying Hans is innocent. He is just saying that he prefers not to make any concrete comments on his innocence because he doesn’t have enough to say he is guilty or innocent.
Now, you can argue that “when it comes to the law” he IS guilty, but there is more than law in this world and I’ve seen courts messing up before, at least in my country.
Regards,
Alexandre
PS: At least that is how I read the guys post. Not too sure if that is exactly what he meant, though.
That is a reasonable view. It’s really a matter of “If the show fits, wear it”. I’m basically speaking to those people who criticized others for having opinions regarding Hans’ guilt, previous to the rendering of the verdict, insisting that all defendants must be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
Now that he has been convicted, what I am seeing is some of those people assuming the fall-back position that a court of law finding him guilty doesn’t really mean anything because courts *can be* wrong. Of course they can be wrong. So can physicians. But do you ignore your physician because physicians “can be wrong”?
At some point, practical reality, and meaningful communication, require that some operational definition of “guilt” be determined. So far, no one has has presented a more credible criterion than the determination of a verdict by peers agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense after deliberating over all the known evidence. All that has been presented are vague suggestions that the courts are somehow corrupt, stupid, or too biased to be taken seriously.
If courts were OSes, we’d *ALL* being screaming bloody murder^W^W^Wcrying FUD on that one! (On that note, perhaps it was Microsoft, afraid of Reiser4, who framed him and paid off the jurors?)
One other general comment. I suspect that some on the “courts can be wrong” bandwagon have been participants in some legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in which they feel that the court got something wrong. But I’ll bet the case did not drag out for 6 months and involve as much testimony and deliberation as a murder case does. There *is* a difference between how homicides and traffic violations are handled.
Edited 2008-04-29 19:21 UTC
Because judgements of men are insignificant compared to laws of God with eternal consequences. And one of those posters might cite the mind of the Lord based upon God’s historical and future dealings with mankind as revealed in holy writ.
Isaiah 2:3
…and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
Are you being serious or is this some kind of troll?
Man, I so wish I hadn’t already replied in this thread so I could mod you up.
That is like saying you are surprised by Hitler’s actions because he was a talented leader.
I think it is pretty obvious that he did kill her if you read the article. However, as the books on murder were bought after she went missing, I don’t believe it is first degree murder at all. He probably beat her to death in an argument and then tried, and failed miserably, to get rid of the evidence.
Of course, until a body appears there will be the possibility that she or the murderous ex-friend she was cheating on him with have framed him.
didn’t see this coming at all!
The guy’s as guilty as sin, if this was anyone else you’d probably all be saying death row for him. There was solid evidence to convict him, good riddance I say. I don’t care if he created a great Linux file system, the guy was an asshole at the best of times, just see some of his posts on the LKML, and just because of what he’s done, doesn’t mean we should absolve him of his crimes.
Sorry, but I have no pity for him, I have a lot of pity for his children though.
I suppose some of you wanted a OJ style case?
Dave
There was no solid evidence, it was all circumstantial (although there was an awful lot of weird circumstantial evidence). Also just because somebody is an asshole does not mean they deserve to be locked up.
Without being in on the case other than through the occasional web article, I have no opinion on whether he has or has not done it, but imagine a scenario where your wife hates you that much that she deliberately plants evidence (a bit of her blood here, a bit more there) then goes missing. The kids are back in Russia now, where she would be if she indeed just left. It is just as possible that she hated him enough to let him hang himself like this.
In US law there are two types of evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
What is “solid evidence” legally speaking?
I believe Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson once described circumstantial evidence as being like a rope, each strand of evidence laid along side of the others builds a stronger and stronger rope. It is that rope of evidence that finally leads to the conviction of the accused.
If your wife hates you that much maybe you’re just getting what you deserve.
Not us Europeans. We’re much too civilized for that. For that kind of crime he’d get 5-10 years in Denmark and a nice hotel-like room with professional people to take care of his mental condition.
so you’d send him on vacation for murdering his wife? What kind of punishment is that?
I think he was exaggerating things a bit. That said I don’t see a point in treating people who temporarily lost it as Charles Mason types. The sentences you see given in most western countries for things like 2nd degree murder seem acceptable.
he’s being tongue-in-cheek (sarcastic to the European light sentences).
I’m a European and where I live (Netherlands) a life sentence means a life sentence. You can get sentenced to life imprisonment if you’re enough of a sadist.
It’s true there are cases where the penalty is way too mild (although it’s changing aamof).
But that includes the US – where the greatest murderers of all, you know the people that get soldiers killed by the thousands and citizens by the hundreds of thousands, waging wars based on lies? They always walk.
Hans Reiser doesn’t walk. But they’ll probably give him a computer in jail, won’t they?
(ed.) that was a double.
Edited 2008-04-29 11:55 UTC
But that includes the US – where the greatest murderers of all, you know the people that get soldiers killed by the thousands and citizens by the hundreds of thousands, waging wars based on lies? They always walk.
Ouch!
You say that like it’s a good thing.
The guy’s as guilty as sin, if this was anyone else you’d probably all be saying death row for him. There was solid evidence to convict him, good riddance I say.
I disagree. There isn’t even a body, nevermind a murder weapon, or a witness. Those are the three biggest pieces of evidence in a murder trial and they don’t even have one of them! There seems to be only circumstancial evidence in this case and I’m actually surprised the verdict turned out the way it did.
Mental note: Incinerate bodies and bury weapons well in secret. That makes me innocent.
Is it not possible that Hans Reiser is just an evil, murdering son of a bitch? Is it not possible that someone who rips seats out of his car, washes the car floor out (!?), carries a mess of cash around, and so forth, MIGHT JUST BE GUILTY?
All I keep reading in this case amounts to, “He looks completely guilty, therefore he must not be because it is far more enlightened to just believe the whole system has a 100% failure rate.”
Sounds like a guilty, murdering, lying SOB who deserves to rot.
Yes he is a guilty, murdering, lying SOB, but it seems the loonies do not care. I am sure if he was the author of FAT32 or WinFS this same crowd would be screaming for a public stoning.
Is it not possible that Hans Reiser is just an evil, murdering son of a bitch? Is it not possible that someone who rips seats out of his car, washes the car floor out (!?), carries a mess of cash around, and so forth, MIGHT JUST BE GUILTY?
You do understand that the state needs to prove BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that the defendant is guilty in order convict don’t you? The evidence you speak of is what is called “circumstantial evidence”, which basically means that it proves nothing. This type of evidence is usually useful to support other facts that put the suspect at the crime scene or provide motive. The state doesn’t even have any hard evidence to show that a murder even occurred. The justice system in the United States doesn’t work around the idea that a person is acting guilty, it’s based around EVIDENCE. Show me any evidence from the trial that PROVES:
A. A murder occurred.
B. Reiser committed the murder.
and
C. There is no reasonable doubt to Reiser’s guilt.
I just don’t see how you can prove any of that without a body, a murder weapon, or a witness.
If you read my post you would have noticed I didn’t say whether or not I think Reiser is guilty. That is irrelevant to the fact that I don’t think the state made their case. Reiser probably would have been better off without a jury. A judge is less likely to convinct based on only cirumstantial evidence and emotion.
traces of her blood were found in his home and car
I can’t really imagine a reason why her blood would be found inside his home and car aside from serious violence. If she had been injured accidentally of course she would have tried to get to a hospital. Blood is blood and it’s supposed to stay inside one’s body unless something goes very much awry, and for this reason I do believe Hans Reiser is guilty. I may be wrong but I just personally doubt it. Sad that is though, I feel sorry for the children and I abhor violence..
Maybe she had a nosebleed?
Although I think that him removing that passenger side seat from his car was very suspicious. The stories that have come out of this case have just been really bizarre. Everyone involved seems to have some pretty serious mental issues going on, one family friend even confessed to murdering Nina and several other women, and the police decided that he was just crazy.
I haven’t read the details of the case, I’ve only been following it loosely. However, I do work in law enforcement and I know the difference between visible blood and trace amounts of blood. Something as insignificant as a pricked finger, or a ripped fingernail, can leave traces of blood that can only be picked up by applying a chemical such as Luminol and looking at it with an alternative light source. If it was only trace blood found in the car, it is a possibility that there is a benign explanation. Granted, if he did do it, it’s also quite possible that he wasn’t careful enough to notice leaving any trace behind when placing her body in the car. Also, it could be more than trace amounts found which would indicate something more serious than a simple cut.
I’m not disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out the possibilities in a case like this.
I’ve had nosebleeds in my car and home. You would find traces of my blood in both of those places. It doesn’t mean I’m dead.
That depends. Do you have an unrelenting need to consume human flesh? If so, you may be a zombie. ;-p
*mumbles something about women and biology*
And that’s my cue to leave!
I do think he’s guilty. I don’t understand how he was charged with 1st degree though. I don’t usually feel contempt for perpetrators of “crimes of passion” — which I believe this was — but his unrepentant behaviour picks me, so it’s a little hard to feel sympathy.
So you feel “compassion” for someone who is enough of a childish, tempermental damage case that they beat their spouse to death, later citing “She drove me to it, she was being bitchy and I just lost it?” If a person is enough of a c*nt that they cannot step away from their wife and/or kids when they’re had a “bad day” they deserve the grinder just like a hardcore predator IMNSHO. Accidentally killing someone in, say, a bar fight or something might be different, but preying on the weak, whether you know them intimately or not, is f–ked up.
the same happens here in Greece. Especially here if you kill more that 100 people you will be never sent t o prison (the same as when you steal 10000 people).
Personally I am against death penalty although the death penalty in Europe has not been withdrawn because of human feelings (personal view).
In Reiser’s case the impression conducted by the article is that he is guilty but it is difficult to prove. Such cases happen all the time, even in a small country like mine. I believe that time will show what happened. I cannot be sure that he did it but if we remove “law language” common sense shows that he is likely the killer.
I do not know the juror but can you feel how difficult is for a juror to cope with such a case? I think that they should not close the case until they find something.
ReiserFS is a donation to the community and mankind.If there is a slight possibility that he is innocent they should try hard to find it (or the opposite). He deserves it.
I am very much pro death penalty. I can never understand how society can send a message out there that no matter what kind of crimes you commit you will never pay for them with your life. I can never understand how a society can collect taxes from the friends and relatives of the victims of a serial killer and use that money to provide shelter, clothing, milk a cookies for this very same serial killers. We are talking about the overpopulation, food shortage, global warming and recession, and yet we spend food, water, oxygen and money to support a life which does not deserve any support.
Don’t misunderstand my statement, I am not advocating for the death penalty to be used left and right a center, but I believe it should be available as an option for truly extreme cases.
I am very much pro death penalty. I can never understand how society can send a message out there that no matter what kind of crimes you commit you will never pay for them with your life.
Because there is always a chance for error in a crime sentence. A jail sentence can always be removed if for some reason something comes up but a death sentence can’t because the person is already dead. In any case, technically speaking, you don’t own someone’s life. Taking a criminal’s life is in no way less wrong than murdering some kids’ mother.
Off topic, as an engineer myself, I think it is a disgrace that someone would kill another person just out of an argument about kids.
I find it difficult to believe that a serial killer who was convicted with direct evidence (DNA and such) of killing, say, 10 people will suddenly turn out to be innocent of all 10 killings. Death penalty should be available as an option for EXTREME cases, much more extreme than a single 1st degree.
You don’t own someone’s freedom either, so, would locking up a criminal be the same as locking up your own daughter in the basement for 24 years? http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/29/austria.cellar/index.htm…
There have been many people on Death Row that were eventually cleared by DNA testing, so apparently current death penalty cases don’t live up to your standards. And there’s been a lot of complaining that even the current process takes way too long and costs too much money.
That said, I don’t think wrongful convictions are really the issue here. You either believe that killing someone is justifiable punishment for their sins, or you think that killing someone is itself a sin and can never be justified. It’s the same as abortion, you either view it as a medical procedure, or as murdering a child. Good luck convincing anyone on either side that they’re wrong.
Are you referring to convictions done 20 years ago cleared by modern techniques? If so then yes, those convictions are not up to my standards.
Not quite sure where you are going with this. Are you recommending not going through the “process” today but keeping criminals in jail until it becomes faster and cheaper? What if when such time comes we’ll find out that half of those people were in fact innocent?
And yet, here you are…
No, my point was that many people think the current system is too rigorous already. They’d like it to be easier to carry out the death penalty, which is inevitably going to lead to more mistakes, not fewer.
You misunderstood me – I’m actually not advocating either position here, just trying to point out both sides of the argument since the OP said he couldn’t understand the other side. Personally, I feel a lot like you – that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with capital punishment, but that it should be put to very limited use.
You are probably referring to States. In Canada, where I live, unfortunately there is no death penalty at all, hence my whole argument that it should be available as an option for extreme cases.
Agreed.
The Dutch constitution states in its first article that everyone is equal – the principle of unconditional equality. As a consequence, the death penalty is not possible in this country, since if everyone is equal, how can one person decide over another person’s life?
In addition, there are moral issues, of course. The very concept of state-sponsored murder makes me sick to my stomach. How people can be so utterly barbaric and uncivilised is beyond me.
Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon. And when you do, could you please explain the fundamental difference between “state-sponsored murder” and “state-sponsored imprisonment” in the framework of everyone being equal and no person having the right to decide over another person’s freedom.
Edited 2008-04-29 18:09 UTC
The fact I have to explain the difference to you between murder and imprisonment says enough. A prison sentence may not be reversible in case of court errors, but at least the person gets to live. If he gets murdered by the state, falsely, the damage cannot be undone.
In addition, state-sponsored murder punishes the perpetrator’s family and friends much heavier than a prison sentence.
I’m opposed to capital punishment, as long as the state can keep the person incarcerated and prevent them from committing more crimes. For me, it’s a moral quandry. I don’t like the idea of state-sponsored killing; particularly when there’s a reasonable (albeit expensive) alternative. But that’s the price for living in a civilized society. One additional advantage is that, in the rare circumstance that an innocent man goes to prison, at least he can live.
I quite agree. I believe that a truly civilized society cares about preventing further harm to others, but does not get into anything so petty as revenge and punishment. (Think “Organians”.) To me, the institutionalization, by a society, of what amounts to murder is *worse* than any isolated murder committed by an individual.
In addition, although I have challenged the “courts can be wrong” defense of Hans that I am seeing under this story… capital punishment *is* awfully irreversible. One really does have to consider the possibility of new evidence turning up in the future. Can we ever really be *that* certain?
Edited 2008-04-29 19:36 UTC
What does it say exactly? If it’s so blatantly obvious and already being discussed many times before, could you please copy/paste it for me or give me a link?
I dunno, sound kind of weak to me. I mean, you start off with “The Dutch constitution states in its first article that everyone is equal – the principle of unconditional equality.”. It is such a strong statement, I can almost picture tens of thousands of demonstrators marching down the streets with “Unconditional Equality” written on their banners. And then, a few minutes later, your argument is reduced to something along the lines of “well, at least they get to eat soup”. I mean, equality is equality, especially the UNCONDITIONAL one, so how come it’s acceptable for the people to imprison people but not acceptable to execute them?
Again, your whole argument against death penalty is based on making it sound that if death penalty exists then I will be applied to everyone from serial killers to parking offenders, although I am repeatedly, in every post, stating that I think it should only apply to extreme cases where there is undisputed independent evidence of the accused being guilty of MULTIPLE deaths.
So, it’s wrong to “punish” relatives of a mass murderer, but it’s ok to take money from victims’ relatives and use that money to cloth, feed and shelter that murderer? I mean, this money could be used for cancer research, or to feed hungry kids, or to provide care for elderly.
Well, maybe you should experience both. I suggest experiencing imprisonment first.
It’s an additional argument. Not a reduction of the equality principle.
Because one involves taking the life of another human being, while the other involves taking away his freedom of movement? You seriously cannot see the difference between these two?
The purpose of a punishment is to prevent the person from doing the harm again in the future. Because, you see, a punishment can never bring a dead person back to life – nor death penalty, nor imprisonment can do that. The best way to punish a murderer is to give him a serious prison sentence, in addition to a financial compensation to the victims.
At least, that way, the victims get something in return (no matter how small) and the murderer is removed from society.
Even the greatest murderer is still a human being.
Yes.
Seriously. That sentence of yours is so utterly populistic, oversimplified, and nonsensical I won’t even bother with a proper reply.
Edited 2008-04-29 20:09 UTC
You know that’s not what I am asking. Here, I’ll repeat the full question for you: “…could you please explain the fundamental difference between “state-sponsored murder” and “state-sponsored imprisonment” in the framework of everyone being equal and no person having the right to decide over another person’s freedom.”
Of course I can see the difference between the two forms of punishment. What I can’t see is why it violates “unconditional equality” principles to execute a person, but it doesn’t violate it to imprison him.
…and a death sentence will fulfill this purpose perfectly, while imprisonment, on top of being costly and unfair to relatives of victims, carrier an inherent risk of criminal escaping and murdering again.
How is that the best way? The murderer will still enjoy life to some extend at the considerable expense to the society. There is always a risk him escaping. How is that the best?
Financial compensation to victims’ families is an altogether different subject, although it would be much easier to implement if no money was spent on caring for the murderer.
Physiologically – yes, but so what? Mentally – I don’t think so, but even if he is, again, so what? A human can not be executed simply because he is a human? Sounds pretty fundamentalistic to me.
I am sorry that you feel that way as I have no reason to resort to populism since I am not here on a political campaign. I am simply explaining my personal views on the subject in the most concise and logical manner I can.
I don’t know about that, the sordid details of their personal lives sets up for me a situation where murder may have flowed almost naturally out of the situation. The battle between them was nasty and continual.
I married a woman who had kids from a previous marriage, and at the worst point of the dispute, which involved almost daily harrassment by the Ex, I found myself wishing he would do SOMETHING that would force me to kill him. It would be self defense, of course, but even if it wasn’t I would spend a few years in prison, and when I got out my family could live in peace. When I realized the significance of what I was fantasizing about it scared the crap out of me. I moved my family to Alaska without telling anyone and in defiance of a court order. Despite the legal fallout of defying the Judge, I know I made the right choice…
If Hans Reiser, in a much worse situation than mine, made the other choice, I’d understand. I’d still send him to prison though.
You’re absolutely right. It’s a shame that we spend so much feeding and sheltering murderers. One answer would be to kill them, but a simpler and much less brutal one exists: Just let them go. If they kill again and there is a probability that they will keep doing so, then lock them up for that. The overall cost will be so much lower due to the lower volume of incarcerated people that the tax burden will seem light.
Most people who are convicted of murder would never do so a second time and are unlikely to be any kind of harm to society.
Given the flawed nature of the justice system, represented by the number of people later found to be innocent, it is impossible to justify killing. The framers of the US constitution attempted to design a legal system that minimized false positives. It is far better to have a hundred guilty men go free then it is to deny freedom to a single innocent man.
I support the death penalty; it simply must exist. Sometimes killing people is the only thing to do. However, its application is to me only theoretical; I do not think I can imagine many cases in which it would actually be applied.
Killing someone for revenge is morally wrong. You can call it “justice” if you like, but for the families it is largely just revenge. The questions to ask are “What is the advantage to society?” and “What is the harm to society?”
If you allow a murderer to live and go free society is harmed. There is a potential for another murder, which is inherently harmful. Those still alive who feel victimized are harmed psychologically, which harms society.
If you kill the murderer society is harmed for the same reason that society would be harmed if he killed again. The family of the murderer are harmed psychologically, which harms society.
I see these as almost equal, but since in the case of allowing the murderer to go free you have merely the /potential/ for the harm of killing, that case works out to be less harmful. I know what you’re thinking: “What about the harm the murderer already did to society by killing someone?” but this is not important. That harm has been done anyway, the task afterward is to find the best way to minimize the harm to society going forward. Killing the murderer for any other reason than minimizing future societal harm is simply revenge, and thus morally unsupportable.
The defence speculation that the whole thing was a set up and that she’s happily living in Russia with her family and kids seems a bit of a stretch. You’d think it’d be easy to prove she was alive if this was truly the case, hire a private investigator to go to Russia and watch the kids. You’d think eventually Nina, being a loving mother, would show up to see the kids. Video tape her alive, and bang! Hans is out of jail.
I find the thought of her framing him and heading to Russia rather hard to swallow, and assuming it’s true, I’d find it even harder to swallow the thought that she would avoid her kids for any length of time to keep the fraud alive.
Now, to throw water on the flames that are a-brewin’, I know getting a PI to Russia (or hire an honest one there) might prove a bit logistically tricky, and probably would be expensive, but if I was Hans, knew myself innocent, REALLY believed this line of reasoning and was facing all the punishments packaged with a 1st deg. murder conviction, I’d probably move heaven and earth to prove myself innocent.
Just my $0.02
I don’t think so. I’ll bet that quite a few Russians do this sort of thing. Tracking her down would almost certainly be routine, unless (a) she is heroically able to avoid contact with anyone she knows in Russia, or (b) she is involved with organized crime. Even then it shouldn’t be too hard if you know the right people; it’s not as if you’re going after the organization.
I understood that money was not a problem for Reiser, but I could be wrong.
Raising money to keep Namesys going and make payroll was an ongoing Hans Reiser theme. He’d tell you about it at the drop of a hat.
On the other hand, he sought out Russian employees because they’d work cheap. (This is according to Hans.) He made trips to Russia. He no doubt has contacts there. And services are, apparently, rather inexpensive there. And yet there was no attempt by the defense to actually find Nina there. If the defense did not have enough confidence in the “she defected to Russia with the kids” theory to actually look for her there, why should anyone else accord it more credibility?
Edited 2008-04-29 14:31 UTC
Quite a few Russians simply disappear without a trace? Without any kind of passport record? How did she get back to Russia? Stow away on a cargo ship? Forged passport?
That seems way too far-fetched. Using Hakim’s Razor (the simplest explanation is most often correct), Reiser committed murder and disposed of his wife’s body — and that’s probably what happened.
Edited 2008-04-29 19:08 UTC
I was replying to the assertion that it would be logistically difficult to find someone in Russia. So, I was saying that it is quite likely that quite a few Russians do that sort of thing: that is, find people in Russia.
Sure, I’ll grant you that it’s probably easier to disappear in Russia than here in the United States. But, in this particular case, Reiser’s wife would have had to travel back to Russia first. That isn’t exactly an easy thing to hide. There are certainly undocumented means of travel (eg. private boat, cargo ship, etc), but (a) it isn’t easy to do, and (b) she wouldn’t need to hide how she went back to Russia because Reiser would know where she went and she could hide once she got there. Therefore, I don’t think that she ever left the United States at all; it’s more likely that Reiser killed her, and buried her somewhere so she wouldn’t be found. Sad.
Edited 2008-04-29 23:00 UTC
I’m surprised at the relative lack of interest, by this imaginative and creative readership, in the captivating question of just what he *did* do with the body. I’m not one of those people around here who seem to think that if you hide the body well enough you’re entitled to a “Get out of jail free” card. But he is certainly due some sort of recognition for his cleverness regarding the disposal of the body. Where’s Columbo when you need him?
If I were him, and this was a really bad movie, I’d cut her into pieces and send one piece to each of the guys on the lkml who ever turned down the proposal to include ReiserFS 4 into vanilla.
Then I’d pick up a phone and say in a creepy voice: “Hello Clarice…”
Well, has anyone thought to *ask* Christoph if he’s received any suspicious looking body parts via parcel post? Kernel devs, while generally brilliant, tend to get so wrapped up in their kernel work that unrelated issues can get pushed aside.
Edited 2008-04-30 00:19 UTC
Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote???
I am not saying that quite a few Russians disappear in Russia without a trace. I am not saying that it is probably easier to disappear in Russia than in the States.
I am saying, against the first writer, that it is probably quite easy to find someone in Russia whose job it is to find missing people. I am saying that it is quite easy to find a Private Investigator. I am saying that it is not logistically difficult to find someone who has tried to disappear, against the original author who claimed otherwise.
Would you stop misrepresenting what I wrote now?
Finding a PI in Russia would be no more difficult than finding one in States, and offering a hefty bonus if he gets reliable evidence of Nina being alive would make him as honest as Themis herself. If Nina was alive they WOULD find her.
Or you could hire a PI from Russia for that matter, much cheaper probably.
That story is just too much unrealistic. That she’d be smuggled out of country and that Russian’s would keep her presence secret, it’s just too much. If she’s alive, the place is probably in the U.S. But he probably dumped her body somewhere, and instead of running away believed that he could still win the case.
I think the idea of is wife disappearing in Russia ridiculous. It’s a kind of phantasy that we deal with the dark and secret Russia behind the iron curtain and no western citizen can gain access to that country. In a case like this and mass media around everywhere it would be difficult for her to hide without a vid being posted on youtube.
It depends on Nina’s connections in Russia. If she were from a poor village, it would be easy to hide away. Some Russian villages are incredibly remote and insular, and won’t have electricity or welcome outside visitors, tracking down a ‘native’ who doesn’t want to be found in that sort of social environment would be practically impossible.
Yep. But PI will obviously start from her family, from asking the neighbours.
If Nina is alive and going to live till her death in some Huevo-Tutuevo without ever seeing her kids and parents – well, she’s as well as dead.
If not – too many links. People usually go missing all alone…
as far as i know, they didnt have any evidence?! they dont even know for sure if she is dead?!
the great land of liberty at its best!
one better damn hope he did it, with this sentence.
IOW, if you can hide or destroy a body well, that makes you innocent.
no but you cannot sentence a person guilty without evidence.. Now sure, if they knew for a fact she was dead, but couldnt find the body.. well.. that would be a start, but then they also actually have to PROOVE that HE did it.. well.. i have seen no proof.
I know for sure that i wouldnt put much trust in the USA courts if i were innocent, but tried as murdorer.. would you?
At least he is guilty of multiple instances of killing a perfectly sane and healthy filesystem.
What I find really really troubling is that there was even a murder trial without a found dead body, or proof that Nina Reiser is in fact dead.
I’m not necessarily saying Reiser is innocent. If he did it, let him receive his punnishment.
But how can there be a muder trial, and conviction, without irrefutable proof that the victim is indeed dead?
Missing != Dead
And with this long rope of individual strands of circumstantial evidence, you’d think that the prosecutors and investigators could have come up with some evidence that Nina Reiser is in fact dead. But, AFAIK, they haven’t.
Again, doesn’t the victim have to be dead for there to be a murder trial on the perpetrator?
Edited 2008-04-29 16:26 UTC
What I find really really troubling is that there was even a murder trial without a found dead body, or proof that Nina Reiser is in fact dead.
They don’t need a body to have a trial and conviction, they simply need a body of evidence.
But how can there be a muder trial, and conviction, without irrefutable proof that the victim is indeed dead?
Likewise where is the irrefutable proof that she is alive?
Likewise where is the irrefutable proof that she is alive?
Since she was known to be alive before all of this, she should be assumed to be still alive until proven dead.
Proof of her being alive is not needed because that was her natural state. Still being alive is simply a continuation of her natural state.
Being dead is a change in her natural state. Being that death is a catastrophic change, it needs to be proven.
That being said, that does not prove Hans Reisers innocence. The fact that blood was found, and he removed a car seat and pressure washed the car, makes him look really guilty of “somehing”. But that does not prove Nina Reiser’s death. Heck, in a fit of rage, he could have slapped her in the face and gave her a bloody nose for all we know, which would be enough to leave blood on the premises, and probably would not have killed her. That is plausable.
And assuming he did kill her in that incident, couldn’t the investigators have found some evidence of body removal?
But the fact that there is no found body or proof of death, it just seems sensible to me that the charges should be different – perhaps assault or domestic violence – both enough to get him locked up for a while. Then if, later on, a body is found, a murder charge (and likely conviction) can be put forward.
Again – It just seems logical to me that a murder charge means someone is dead, and you know they are dead beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And I’m not talking in a complete legal sense. The law is too complex, and I’m too ignorant of the intracacies of it, to know how the law views all this – IANAL.
I’m just trying to talk commen sense and logic.
there are massive amounts of circumstancial evidence, and highly suspicious behavior on the part of Hans.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser?cu…
What a lot of people don’t realize is that most convictions are built on circumstantial evidence. It’s fairly rare to have hard proof that is beyond any question. Lots of prosecutors have complained about the “CSI effect” on juries, who assume that if there’s no absolute proof of guilt then they must be innocent.
All a conviction requires is belief beyond a reasonable doubt. Do the jurors think that it is reasonable to assume that Nina is alive in Russia? Apparently not.
There is ample precedent for murder cases even when there isn’t a body and only when circumstantial evidence exists (example: http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/1.html). But the bar is pretty high. You have to convince the jury of the defendant’s motive, intentions, ability to carry out the crime, and opportunity. Most of the time, it seems, the cases are about the behavior of the defendant before and after the alleged crime. In this case, Reiser did some truly bizarre things — things that most people would indicate someone who is actively trying to destroy evidence of a crime.
So if you hide your victims well you should get off scott free?
Yes.
If there is no proof you should go free.
Far better to let a thousand dangerous, clever criminals roam the streets then to lock away a single innocent person.
And if the dangerous, clever, criminals, previously acquitted of murders they committed, kill just two innocent people? Is that still a good bargain?
Yes.
Either you can prove they did it or you can’t. If you cannot prove it then you must assume they didn’t. Prosecuting people just because isn’t a good idea, and if you don’t have proof then you are doing it “just because.”
Maybe you don’t like them, maybe they’re immigrants, black people, pale, smelly, rude, bombastic… for some reason you want to lock them away without being sure that they are involved in whatever grievance currently bothering you. That is always bad.
Go ahead and follow them. Spy on them. Do whatever you like to gather evidence, but don’t just lock them up. That’s not just and that’s not moral.
Unless you’re the unlucky one who got killed. Or it was your wife. Or child. Or parents.
Your grasp of legal proceedings are lacking. Lack of body does not mean lack of sufficient evidence.
Wow.
Too bad pretty much every country has, and is, putting innocent people in jail no matter what their legal system is. If you think this is unique to the american system (which I don’t like, but that’s not the point) you must be living in a fantasy world.
When did I say that? I am talking about what is moral, what is just and what *should* be. I assert that the american legal system was designed to minimize false positives, and to hell with false negatives.
The American, and all, legal systems incarcerate innocent people every year, but if you’re having a debate about what is *right* on a philosophical level (which we are, what with these hypothetical “In this scenario what is the desired response from the legal system?” questions), then the answer I provide is easy and morally correct.
Did he catch her play around with ZFS?
Everyone defending him seriously need to do some more reading on this. He had really really big problems. I would not be surprised if he killed his wife. He was paranoid, delusional, and downright abusive to his child.
I think a large part of the defense of someone like Hans Reiser comes from his prominent position in the community. I think we really need to seperate the man from the technology. Another example of this is Eric Raymond, who wrote my favorite literature on the open source movement, but is also a Gun nut, a racist, and a witch. As a technologist, I have a huge amount of respect for both reiser and ESR. As a person, I have no respect for either.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser?cu…
some highlights
I find it troubling that he was convicted of first degree murder with such flimsy evidence.
IMHO he is as likely to not have killed her as having done it.
The actions Hans took were odd however you look at it.
But not evidence of a murder.
So I guess the moral of the story is, don’t act odd.
Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but it’s pretty damning. Blood traces found in his home and car. He was seen hosing out the inside of his car, and tried to explain that as “routine cleaning”. He removed the passenger seat of the car. The car contained books about murder. Why is it so difficult to believe that the guy committed murder? He was human (like the rest of us), he was going through a bitter divorce, his wife was apparently seeing someone else, and he was under extreme emotional stress. People do horrible, irrational things under similar circumstances and, while I don’t excuse the behavior, I can at least appreciate that it happens sometimes.
That said, it isn’t clear to me whether a case can be made for premeditated murder. The books about murder were supposedly obtained after the alleged crime. I’m not sure why someone would want such a thing but, then again, people have all kinds of weird fetishes. There’s also a world of difference between a planned killing and a crime of passion. One is absolutely intentional and the other is more accidental. Reiser would have been better off if he had gone straight to the police, and confessed to accidentally killing his wife during a fight. Hiding the crime created enough ambiguity that the prosecutor was able to exploit to accuse Reiser of premeditated murder.
Sad, truly sad what has happened to his family. If there’s any lesson in all of this, it’s that violence is never an answer to life’s problems (aside from self-defense, that is). Reiser should have done what most people do: Deal with the emotional pain through therapy, move on after the divorce, raise his children, rebuild his life, meet someone else, be happy, etc. I suspect, though, that he’s the kind of guy who was convinced of the primacy of his own intelligence, and believed that it was enough to push him through any obstacle — and was more concerned with “losing” than trying to find some reasonable middle ground with his ex-wife.
Let this be a lesson to all of you single-minded fanatics out there. You know who you are.
Although many things might suggest that he did kill his wife – there does not seem to be hard proof .
For lack of real proof ,25 years seems to me like a way too severe sentence .
I just love American law system. They have everything what is the best: greedy lawyers, judges that stand above the law, capital punishment and murders without victim’s body. If there is no proof even for that crime was made and _no_body_ – how can you judge anyone guilty?
Personally, I think that Hans could do it. The other thing is what judges should do about it – it’s a paradox, but no one should be found guilty in this trial. And in most European countries no one would be even charged if no body is found.
To all those suggesting capital punishment for “extreme cases”:
1) It’s MORE expensive, not less!
At least if you want to make sure somebody is guilty before you kill him. You could, of course, opt for the el cheapo “He looks guilty, let’s blast his head!”-method.
2) People don’t commit murder because the punishment isn’t hard enough. Nobody says “Wow, just one or two decades in jail for murder? I’ll do it!”. That’s just not how it works. People commit crimes because they think they won’t get caught.
3) It sends the wrong message. You can’t tell people that life is precious and killing is wrong and then turn around and say “Hey, he killed somebody. Let’s fry his sorry ass!”.
Killing people is only acceptable if it’s the ONLY option – let’s say a person starts shooting hostages or something along these lines.
4) People often sit in prison for years before they’re killed so the “OMG he could get out!”-argument isn’t very convincing.
Revelation 13:10
…he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword…
Ezekiel 22:31
31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God.
Does it say anything in there about getting a life?
Note: I’ve looked over this guy’s posting history, and they consist *entirely* of bible quotes with no original material added. So I don’t think my quip is out of line.
Edited 2008-04-30 00:44 UTC
“Does it say anything in there about getting a life?”
Actually it says if someone kills then they must be killed. You are right, nothing in there about having a life.
Furthermore, they must be killed via the same method as they employed. No mention of what to do if multiple methods were used for different killings. Then again, we may be generalizing too much. This may only be applicable to killing with swords. Or, it might only apply to killing with one particular sword. It’s all left quite ambiguous.
Edited 2008-04-30 00:56 UTC
It also says something about turning the other cheek, and lots of other stuff about raping and killing all non-Christians. You can support just about any possible action you can take by quoting scripture, no matter which side you’re on.
And how can any such set of documents represent truth when it totally neglects the issue of the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea?
http://doxdox.vox.com/library/post/bottom-of-the-sea.html
True if a person is willfully devoid of the Light of God.
Doctrine & Covenants 1:16
They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.
I just love the “Quote the Bible”-game. Specially without any further information, as you can interpret Bible in many ways.
Like “For wages of sin is death…” Rom 6:23a.
Anyways, I too find it a bit weird to be sentenced without any hard evidence, but hey, here in Europe (Estonia at least) you’d probably only get 5-10 years for homicide, even when there’s a body and witnesses.
Edited 2008-04-30 05:26 UTC
Yes it can be interpreted in many ways [without the Light of Christ and excluding context].
Charliee the law should be written on your heart, the law should not be written on stone. You should only apply the law with love and compassion as part of the equation. It should be dynamic.
Doctrine & Covenants 1:19-20
…man should not counsel his fellow man…
But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;
Alma 42:25
What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit.
Fortunately the law isn’t based on this story book.
You forget, Jesus renounced “an eye for an eye.” Since this occurred /after/ the old testament texts it can be presumed that god changed his mind.
There are wide differences between what is moral, what is just, what is legal and what is doctrine of a church. Political philosophy needs to be practiced, as far as possible, outside religion, because religion is not the end-all when it comes to morality. As a certain pirate once said, it’s more of a guideline.
Edited 2008-04-30 11:57 UTC
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Moroni 8:18
For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
Mormon 9:9
For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?
2 Thessalonians 2:8
And then shall that Wicked[lawless one – greek translation] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelations is of somewhat dubious origin and questionable interpretation, so let’s skip it for now.
As for the rest: You can say if you like that god is unchanging and anything that supposedly was said by god is true forever, but you’d be wrong several ways. Ignoring fallable human transcribers, most of the citations you provided were referring to the *eternal* nature of god and not, in my opinion, referring to the unchanging nature of divine instructions.
As evidence that the christian god changes his mind you have only to look at the “simplification” of the ten commandments that Jesus provided, and to the fact that in the old testament you see a vengeful, wrathful and jealous god who defends the chosen people,, whereas in the new testament all people are welcome.
I wont dispute it with you if you are a fundamentalist, literalist, or anything like that. There’s no way to disprove a belief.
Let me part by saying that a citation can be found in the bible to back up any and every position and point of view, even contradictory ones. It is not the best basis for any argument not purely theological and theoretical.
Note that Doctrine and Covenants is not a translated work.
Doctrine & Covenants 29:15-21
And there shall be weeping and wailing among the hosts of men;
And there shall be a great hailstorm sent forth to destroy the crops of the earth.
And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.
Wherefore, I the Lord God will send forth flies upon the face of the earth, which shall take hold of the inhabitants thereof, and shall eat their flesh, and shall cause maggots to come in upon them;
And their tongues shall be stayed that they shall not utter against me; and their flesh shall fall from off their bones, and their eyes from their sockets;
And it shall come to pass that the beasts of the forest and the fowls of the air shall devour them up.
And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign.
D&C 38:12
…the angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth, to gather the tares that they may be burned; and, behold, the enemy is combined.
D&C 63:32,34
I, the Lord, am angry with the wicked; I am holding my Spirit from the inhabitants of the earth.
And the saints also shall hardly escape^aEUR|
Enoch 47:2 (apocrypha)
[in the last days people]…with united voice petition…that for them he[the Lord] would execute judgment; and that his patience may not endure for ever.
D&C 133:50-51(revelation recieved November 3, 1831)
And his voice shall be heard: I have trodden the wine-press alone, and have brought judgment upon all people; and none were with me;
And I have trampled them in my fury, and I did tread upon them in mine anger, and their blood have I sprinkled upon my garments, and stained all my raiment; for this was the day of vengeance which was in my heart.
There is more text not in the Bible that is consistent with vengeful and wrathful God as pertaining to a yet future day. Not sure about jealous though. Excluding the New Testament there are additional texts showing the same character of God in LDS scriptures and the Apocrypha.
Do you wish to revise this statement?
I will rephrase your words. Yes, the Bible can be misused by those with ill intent, without sound reason, and not well informed. The holy Spirit is the best way (best basis) for obtaining truth, especially moral truth.
I humor people who quote the bible and treat the ‘evidence’ they find therein as reasonable, because it is a widely accepted view that what is found in the bible is the word of god. Other texts less well established that purport to be the word of god do not get a pass from me. Sorry, but there are only so many sources I am willing to pretend are authoritative for the sake of argument.
No. If I insist the world is flat, for example, because that is my belief, then no evidence you can supply will sway me. You can’t disprove someone’s faith, because it is by nature not based on reason. You can disprove evidence for it, but few people seriously base their religious views on provable facts, figures and events. Almost all go by belief.
Aside from some terminology issues I find that I can agree with this.
To return somewhat to the topic: though I am anti-christian and anti-church I find everything admirable in Jesus’ views on morality and the law. Views which, I will note, are a far cry from *** law outlined in the old testament. Either god changed his mind or, perhaps more likely, Jesus hijacked the religion for his own ends.
Do you regularly reject testimonials of life after death too?
Are you familiar with Josephus the historian and his work?
I will disagree with an example. As a child someone asked me in school if I was scared of a butterfly. I said no, and then the other kid clapped his hands before my eyes and I blinked thereby showing by his childish humor that I was indeed scared of a butterfly. Once a person is presented with sufficient evidence for a belief there comes an inevitablity that they cannot disbelieve. In the example, I believed that my eyes were about to have contact with another object therefore I blinked. If I believed that my eyes were safe then I would not have blinked. Therefore the evidence of the clapping of the hands caused the inevitabilty of the belief that my eyes were not safe which resulted in eye blinking.
I will used the word, “belief” in place of, “faith” in the following argument. Belief is based upon evidence as shown in the example above. Whether the belief can be disproved will depend on establishing the evidence as being true or false. In cases that involve likelyhood, or in other words, cases that use circumstational evidence to form a belief, inductive logic is used to arrive at a conclusion and this is also called reasoning. Now I will restate your above sentence into something in which you probably meant to type but that is logically coherent: ‘You can’t disprove to someone their faith who willfully ignores evidence that their faith is false. Such a person is being unreasonable.’
Historical note: The Jews of the time were expecting a military Messiah to save them from their overseers and to setup a kingdom. Furthermore there are Old Testament references, as you may already know, of the expected Messiah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_of_Jesus
Mark 2:21(see also Matt. 9:17; Luke 5:37-38)
No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
I will offer an interpretation of Mark 2:21 keeping in mind the theory that the *** religion was hijacked. The teachings(new cloth) that the Lord gave could not be established within *** customs, tradition, or meticulous observance of what some people interpreted the law to be which would cause conflict or confusion. Also note that the Lord picked and ordained men(to the priesthood) not from the ruling classes of the day but more common folk. You may also remember the part when the Lord was asked by the chief priests where he got his authority.
Matthew 21:23-27
And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
I say John’s baptism was from heaven. And John testified of Jesus who said that Jesus was mightier than himself who was given more authority than John which is to baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matthew 3). This authority was not hijacked from heaven or the ruling classes of men of the day.
Also note in Matthew chapter 3 the “wrath” and “unquenchable fire” to come as a supporting view of an unchangeable God between the old and new testaments as your doubt lingers over the nature of God as mentioned in the Book of Revelations.
Linux lost one of his killer application
Hans could never do such a thing, its time for action. Time to start a Free Hans campaign. We could all take up a fund. Eben Moglen could provide him with proper defense. If Eben Moglen can send Bill Gates running scared and throw a monkey wrench in MS’s Patent plans he can get Hans aquitted.
“There was no solid evidence, it was all circumstantial (although there was an awful lot of weird circumstantial evidence)”
yeah, which is why i stand on the fence between not guilty or guilty. i mean, if it’s so hard for me to tell what the situation was. i personally kinda FEEL like he is guilty, but that’s a feeling and NOT a fact. theres no evidence he did kill her. i guess your not really innocent until proven guilty. i guess you can get proven weird and that’s enough. they should change that old adage “innocent till proven guilty” to “innocent until the jury feels your guilty”. That’s pretty scary, better hope you never get arrested for something you diddn’t do.
Obviously old Hans needs to partner up with OJ so they can look for the “real” killer along with his “missing” wife!
Come one, get real. It is sickening how so many of you want to make excuses for this loser just because he wrote some software.
Back in 2003. No body was found, but my brother was the last person seen with the victim (and old man). The prosecution and his ex-wife painted him as worse than Hitler and the fact that he folded his socks in his drawer was used against him. No DNA. Jury gave him Life without parole at age 44. Real bummer. Cost the family a fortune, and still does.
If you know of any violent, stupid youth in your family or neighborhood, take them to a murder trial and let them see how EASY it is to convict someone. If you don’t have at least $1-15 million to defend yourself, just plea and hope to get out in 17-25.