Hacker News Reader

Comment by kstrauser | Hacker News Reader

That was fascinating. It sounds like he’s done some real introspection during his lockup, and I hope he’s able to apply those learnings to future situations.

I felt bad for him[0] while reading. He was a brilliant young person with a big dream, yet without the interpersonal skills to help him realize it. I’ve seen that so often. Maybe this will help me look past the next person’s challenging communications, and think here’s someone who means well but doesn’t know how to explain it. Reiser wants to learn how not to be an ass. I can try to learn how to recognize when someone being an ass is caught in the same traps he was. That, and how to be sure I’m not the one being the ass.

Best of luck on the continuing personal growth, Hans.

[0]Minus the obvious, of course.

View on HN

I don't believe he did. He's just angling for his next parole date as he got denied this year.

He was denied two years ago.

He planned the murder of the mother of his kids, I'm pretty sure he can plan well in advance for a parole hearing. I wouldn't put anything past the likes of Hans Reiser or Peter Madsen.

Was there something I missed? I just reread his wikipedia page, and it seems to confirm the crime-of-passion narrative that I remember from 15 years ago. That said, I would not disagree with your character evaluation.

He hid the body for 2 years.

A crime of passion does not normally include studying up on body removal, ways to hide further evidence and not owning up to the crime for years because you - wrongly - believe that you can't be convicted if the body can't be found. This was premeditated murder, not a crime of passion.

Premeditation means planning it beforehand.

The books were purchased after the deed was done.

A crime of passion can be covered up without making it premeditated.

I'm not going to split legal hairs here, merely point out that 'sudden strong impulse' (a requirement for 'crime passionel') is incompatible with subsequent testimony by Reiser claiming that he had 'killed their mother to protect his children'.

That's one of the problems with all of the Reiser defenders: they are usually unaware to what degree Reiser has incriminated himself.

I take offense at being called a "Reiser defender". I think we can all agree that he's a creep, a manipulator, and a murderer. I don't hear anyone defending him.

The guy strangled his wife. I don't think that's the kind of thing you premeditate. He's also a liar; I wouldn't read too much into his attempt to manipulate his later civil jury. The crime-of-passion narrative would still find for the plaintiff, so he made up some nonsense that the jury saw right through.

Those things happened after the murder, and don't necessarily preclude a crime of passion. When someone does commit a crime of passion, they don't always just come out and confess as soon as they're clear headed again.

Reisers' own evidence precludes a crime of passion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/software-guru-ordered-pay...

What part of that article supports your point? The only thing I see there is that he made up multiple different stories to try to explain her absence.

That he claims that he killed her to protect his children. You don't make up a reason like that on the spur of the moment while involved in a crime of passion.

"His defense essentially was that he killed his wife to protect his children from her."

That he made up different stories at different times is besides the point, the point is: you can't believe a word he says either way so any defense of a crime of passion is just as baseless as this one, though this one is actually much more believable and fits the evidence available. All of it points to a very smart guy who killed his wife because he thought he could get away with it but failed at that (and not for lack of trying) and who now thinks he can present himself as 'a changed man' when really he isn't.

"According to a later confession by Hans Reiser to authorities, on September 3, 2006, Nina Reiser dropped their two children off with Hans Reiser at his mother's house, where he was living at the time. The pair got into a heated argument over Nina Reiser taking the children to the doctor, with Nina referencing that she had custody over the children, and so was free to do as she wished. Defense lawyer William DuBois later said that Hans Reiser alleged that Nina Reiser was fabricating illnesses in the children. Hans Reiser hit her in the face and strangled her to death."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser

I do not read this as planned, but as "Handlung im Affekt", dunno the English term.

He later made the argument that he killed her to protect his children.

That's very possible. Some of his phrasing sounded like he hoped the parole board would be reading it: I accept responsibility for my crime, I'm using the skills I'm learning in prison, etc. etc.

Still, if you asked me about my own sins, I might say similar things: I accept responsibility for acting like a jackass, I'm using the skills I've learned from mentors and through meditation and mindfulness, etc. etc. I'd be completely earnest about all that. I've behaved poorly in the past, decided I wanted to be a better person, and genuinely try to do that. If I want people to take me at my word and believe that I'm trying to be better, I have to take him at his word until proven wrong.

(One of my sins was unnecessary cynicism. I have the luxury of it not mattering to me whether he's sincere or not, and I think it's a healthier mindset for me to accept stories like his at face value than to default to mistrusting everyone. I'm not naive, though. The people in his life need to weigh that a lot more carefully than I need to.)

Some of his phrasing sounded like he hoped the parole board would be reading it: I accept responsibility for my crime, I'm using the skills I'm learning in prison, etc. etc.

This is true; but it also struck me as being very similar to things I've heard from recovering addicts going through 12-step programs -- I'm an addict, I'm sorry for all the harm I caused through my addiction, I'm learning skills to help me overcome my addiction, etc. -- so my hunch is that it's there as a result of the anger management program he's going through in prison.

Definitely, and I hope for his sake that's the actual explanation, and that it's sincere.

That is, while we're talking about a specific person here, that person is someone I have zero connection with. I hope all the Hanses around the world are working on themselves with good intent. That's obviously untrue, but I can still wish it.

California is comically light on crime, I'm sure he'll be out within 2-3 parole hearings.

... He's spent 15 years in prison (the original sentence) and has been denied a parole already. Not sure what i'd describe as "comically light".

I was talking about the state in general, it's a liberal state that is soft on crime.

Would there be anything he could say?

Honestly? No not really. Not until he gets his parole I guess. The stakes are way too high for him to be honest. He might very well be, but the phrasing is just very "list checking" to me still. As someone else said, it's like the generic stuff you learn from therapy (at best, if we assume he's honest).

I get that, but at the same time it seems like a bit of a dystopia if there is no path to this person being rehabilitated despite his sins (i wanted to say "forgiven", but that seems like a whole other thing i guess). I don't know, maybe he doesn't deserve to be treated like a normal person ever again. But then is he just condemned forever? Is there no way for him to obtain grace for lack of a better word? How horrific that feels.

Hell, i dont know. Maybe there are no good answers in the face of such things.

Maybe he wants to learn, or maybe he's a psychopath trying to upgrade his human emulation software so he can get out sooner. Even experts find it hard to tell.

Psychopaths are still people even if their brains are broken. It is indeed hard to integrate them into society, especially if their family did a bad job of it in their childhood.

In a better country he'd be in therapy rather than in prison. Alas the US legal system only exists to detain people, not to allow them to become unbroken.

I wholly believe psychopaths can be redeemed and live a fulfilling life without hurting anyone if given the proper support and guidance. I don't for a second believe the US legal system is equipped to do that, especially the prison system.

He'd be in prison and receiving therapy.

Closed institutions are a thing. You can be in therapy under close supervision and unable to leave until it is safe to allow you to do so. Arguably that is better than therapy in prison because even with trained staff on site a prison is still a prison. You could say that closed institutions are functionally a form of prisons and you'd be right but the difference in motivations matters: mental institutions exist to provide mental support, prisons exist to lock people away.

Philosophical question: if "fake it 'til you make it" allowed someone to emulate a human (I like your phrasing here) well enough that they, indeed, act like a human... isn't that good enough?

The biblical advice to "judge not, that ye be not judged" seems relevant here. It's pretty obvious to me that it refers to a person's heart, that is, their internal desires and motivations that no one but them can truly know. If that motivation leads to a person acting the way I'd like them to, and they claim it's for reasons I agree with, and I'm not on the parole board or one of their family members where I have a need to look deeper, then fine.

It would if you would be sure that they'd never break out of character. But that's a tricky question: if someone who has already murdered someone in cold blood with substantial premeditation presents a changed exterior do you perceive the chances of them doing that as premeditation as well as larger than the chances that they've really changed? I'm happy I'm not on that parole board, and I hope they have budget for a good psychological evaluation.

Yeah, you and me both. I acknowledge it's a lot easier for me to wax philosophical about some person I don't know, safely far away in prison, and with almost zero chance our lives will ever cross. If he were my son-in-law, or dad, or neighbor, the issues would be way more complicated.

> with substantial premeditation

You really need to come up with actual evidence for that if you keep repeating it everywhere.

I mean nothing personal by it but all I see when I see posts like yours (and many others in this thread), is that the average person understands nothing about psychopathy. What he did was premeditated. His brain is wired in such a way that killing his wife was always an option. No amount of neuroplasticity will override this baked-in reality of who this man is. Teaching psychopaths social skills will not provide them with the idealized "personal growth" you imagine. I highly recommend, "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson (of "The Mean That Stare at Goats" fame) as an amusing but on-point introduction.

Is he a diagnosed psychopath? I'll grant that murdering one's wife seems like good supporting evidence, but I'm not aware that he's known to be one.

It's not even the murder so much as it's the premeditation. Even the most non-psychopathic mentally ill individuals with the most awful intrusive thoughts will still have an active conscience telling them not to do the things their minds are telling them to do. This is a big part of the torture schizophrenics are going through. Psychopaths do not have a conscience and psychopathy is not a diagnosis. The diagnosis given to psychopaths is typically Antisocial Personality Disorder, of which I have no idea if Reiser personally qualifies. But yes, premeditated murder is going to rank quite high in the scoring criteria. Hans believes/believed that he had the right to kill his wife. Even if he legitimately feels sorry (and I would be highly skeptical), the question becomes whether he actually feels sorry for the murder or the fact that it has landed him in prison (and that he only really feels sorry for himself).

What's your evidence that the murder was premeditated though? As far as we know he didn't even look into how to cover it up until afterwards.

All the known facts are congurent with someone who acted in the heat of the moment and then tried to get the best result for himself considering the very bad situation he got himself in. Trying to cover up the act and mislead the court is certainly not very ethical but it is a far cry from the murder itself being premeditated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com