Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

doublepulsar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#121

Post by kwhitefoot »

reitanqild wrote: post #111
ad_hominem wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if only America were as "ethical" as other countries like the one that gives a person who murders 80 children a little 3-room apartment with a Playstation 2, personal PC, kitchen, exercise area, etc. where they can write their memoirs

Speaking as someone who has possibly paid less than a millionth of his playstation 2 I think it is kind of ok. I would preferred they found him insane and ordered mandatory treatment for the rest of his life. This might sound weird but it's not really IMO: being found insane was the only thing he feared. As soon as he was sentenced to life in prison it was pretty clear he wouldn't appeal to a higher court. From what…

Treating him as a common criminal was the key decision.

Why do people outside Norway keep bringing it up anyway. They weren't there, they don't have friends or relatives who were there. Yet while almost everyone who lives in Norway either knows someone who was on Utøya or has a close relative who knows someone who was there we mostly get on with our lives and ignore him.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#122

Post by kwhitefoot »

sanderjd wrote: post #102
syshum wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I would say drug dealing and using should not be a crime in the first place but that is off topic. >Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons. I understand the purpose and you seem to have taken my comment to mean something it does not. It is also ironic that you mention the church because given the geographic location where this trial will likely take…

What, specifically, is your problem with jury selection? Prosecutors don't get to pick the jury they want, they have a limited number of vetos, just like the defense. How would you like it to work?

The limited number should be much smaller for one thing. In fact I don't see why they should get to object to a jury member at all. If a juror is unfit it should be up to an impartial organ to determine that not the opposing sides in the fight.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#123

Post by madez »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #121
reitanqild wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has possibly paid less than a millionth of his playstation 2 I think it is kind of ok. I would preferred they found him insane and ordered mandatory treatment for the rest of his life. This might sound weird but it's not really IMO: being found insane was the only thing he feared. As soon as he was sentenced to life in prison it was pretty clear he wouldn't appeal to a higher court. From what…

Treating him as a common criminal was the key decision. Why do people outside Norway keep bringing it up anyway. They weren't there, they don't have friends or relatives who were there. Yet while almost everyone who lives in Norway either knows someone who was on Utøya or has a close relative who knows someone who was there we mostly get on with our lives and ignore him.

This reminds of how people react when someone says hes vegan. Quite a few people react negatively to it, even when there was no evangelism occurring but just plain stating. It seems to be insecurity.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#125

Post by wildmusings »

humanrebar wrote: post #104
wildmusings wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. Despite your snarky tone, you are mistaken. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867

Honestly, the exclusionary principle seems to value the process of the trial over the actual pursuit of truth in the case. I'm fine with excluding evidence that is false or somehow contaminated , but it's hard for me to justify pretending a murder weapon wasn't found because of a procedural mistake. There are surely other ways to enforce the relevant rights and procedures.

The idea of the exclusionary principle is that it's the only way to have the right incentives for the authorities to abide by constitutional restrictions on their power. If they don't follow the rules, then they can't use their evidence in court. As a result, their internal procedures are designed to prevent that outcome. Despite the high profile cases and media coverage that makes it seem otherwise, law enforcement procedures tend to be much more restrictive than the constitution demands, because they want to avoid any doubt that their actions are legal and that their evidence is admissible. They also want to avoid edge-cases that could lead to court rulings that add to their constitutional restrictions, which will tie their hands in future cases where they might have a pressing need to exercise the full scope of their powers.

Without the exclusionary rule, you rely on the authorities following restrictions purely out of the goodness of their hearts, or only as much as the voters of the day demand. What incentive would the prosecutors and police have to limit their own authority? You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#126

Post by dogma1138 »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #122
sanderjd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, specifically, is your problem with jury selection? Prosecutors don't get to pick the jury they want, they have a limited number of vetos, just like the defense. How would you like it to work?

The limited number should be much smaller for one thing. In fact I don't see why they should get to object to a jury member at all. If a juror is unfit it should be up to an impartial organ to determine that not the opposing sides in the fight.

And what that impartial organization would look like? The Jury selection process is more important for the defense than for the prosecution.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#127

Post by thieving_magpie »

hysan wrote: post #117
thieving_magpie wrote: post #28

Still waiting for actual details related to the charges to come out before rushing forward with my opinion on the matter.

I'm not and here's why. 1. If evidence proves afterwards that the handling of the arrest was just and for good reason, then I'll admit my fault and apologize. My error in overreaction will mean nothing in the long run. 2. However, if my overreaction is correct but I withheld it, it would be far too late to point out errors by the government later on. News moves too quickly in this age to call out bad actors later. No…

That seems like you're just perpetuating the reactionary news cycles. No - I am not willing to try and hold news outlets accountable. I'm not even sure how I'd do that except doing what I already am (not participating). I am willing to ignore reactionary news outlets, that's how I do my part.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#128

Post by celticninja »

wildmusings wrote: post #49
celticninja wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are not a US citizen you have fewer rights if you are arrested in the US. Even fewer if it's via extraordinary rendition.

This is simply not true. Everyone on US soil has the same rights when accused of a crime. Incidentally, the rights of the accused are stronger in the US than in any other jurisdiction in the world. He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded. He would have neither of those in the UK.

> in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded.

If you discount parallel construction

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#129

Post by icpmacdo »

thieving_magpie wrote: post #28

Still waiting for actual details related to the charges to come out before rushing forward with my opinion on the matter.

We can still point you the bullshit things the US is doing like trying to say he was breaking felony gun laws going to the shooting ranges on the strip and using that as a reason to stop his bail

https://twitter.com/ChristyNews3LV/status/893603855266492416

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#130

Post by humanrebar »

wildmusings wrote: post #125
humanrebar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the exclusionary principle seems to value the process of the trial over the actual pursuit of truth in the case. I'm fine with excluding evidence that is false or somehow contaminated , but it's hard for me to justify pretending a murder weapon wasn't found because of a procedural mistake. There are surely other ways to enforce the relevant rights and procedures.

The idea of the exclusionary principle is that it's the only way to have the right incentives for the authorities to abide by constitutional restrictions on their power. If they don't follow the rules, then they can't use their evidence in court. As a result, their internal procedures are designed to prevent that outcome. Despite the high profile cases and media coverage that makes it seem otherwise, law enforcement…

> ...it's the only way...

How can this be true? "Only" is a strong word. And there are functioning judicial systems elsewhere that have different evidentiary rules.

I agree that there should be external incentives to obey rules and procedures, but there have to be other incentives out there. Why can't sanctions against individuals and organizations work just as well, for instance?

The exclusionary principle is remarkably indirect, if incentives for law enforcement officials is the primary reason for the principle.

Post reply on HN