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

From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

themarshallproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#71

Post by hsod »

moneytalks wrote: post #60

Can't believe we're to the point of debating whether a private educational institution can base an admissions decision, in part, on a past murder conviction. This isn't about redemption or rehabilitation. No one is suggesting she's going to beat, starve, abandon and murder another 4-year-old. That's very unlikely. But, what we are suggesting is that a private institution should be able to consider a person's entire s…

Why fall back to this level of abstraction? We know the facts of this case. Do you think this particular decision was a good one or not?

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#72

Post by Geekette »

pc86 wrote: post #62
Geekette wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of very highly qualified scholars who didn't grow up in the context that she did, whose backgrounds aren't comparable. Doesn't make her less deserving of this opportunity; she committed a crime and did her time, she's allowed to move on.

She absolutely is and should not have any impediments from the state in moving on with her life. Private individuals and institutions are under no such obligation, though.

Nobody's disputing the rights of private institutions but everybody has a right to express their distaste over their actions, especially when it is arrived at in a manner which runs against what such institutions claim to stand for.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#73

Post by radicalOH »

moneytalks wrote: post #60

Can't believe we're to the point of debating whether a private educational institution can base an admissions decision, in part, on a past murder conviction. This isn't about redemption or rehabilitation. No one is suggesting she's going to beat, starve, abandon and murder another 4-year-old. That's very unlikely. But, what we are suggesting is that a private institution should be able to consider a person's entire s…

But this is exactly about what punishment should be. She was judged and punished by the laws that we have created. Extrajudicial punishment is arbitrary and unstandardized. Furthermore, this social exclusion after prison drives increased rates of recidivism. Reformation would be a benefit for society and the individual. Also, her son could have been the next Hitler as much as the next Jesus. I have never been convinced by that type of argument.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#74

Post by Helmet »

Geekette wrote: post #47
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can claim that. Prior abuse does not preclude cold or premeditated murder. In fact we don't have much details at all except that she beat her son, left him alone for several days and then buried the body later. That's reprehensible enough for me to say that I wouldn't want to work with her.

The post states she had a suffered psychological breakdown at that time, which clearly indicates she wasn't in the right frame of mind. It also outlined how the patterns of abuse she grew up with contributed to how she treated the child generally; its what she'd learned and knew no better.

Stop making excuses for her. Many of us grew up in abusive households and/or have suffered emotional and mental breakdowns.

She murdered her 4 year old child. And not manslaughter or crime of passion or whatever murder - but cold blooded beat him to death then hide the body murder.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#75

Post by jamesrcole »

Beltiras wrote: post #53
Gracana wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be difficult for her to talk about.

That's the presentation by the journalist, not a quote.

the bit you quote above does say "what she called", which seems to indicate it's an indirect quote.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#76

Post by _dps »

jackmott wrote: post #3

I don't understand why we let people out of prison if we aren't prepared to actually let them out of prison. I'm not really bleeding heart about this, I'd be fine with any murder of this sort meaning life in prison. What does not make sense is letting someone out and then not treating them as normal humans again. It only encourages people to revert to evil.

I think it's a stretch to call denial of entry to one of the most exclusive institutions of the world as "not treating them as normal humans".

Reading between the lines from the text here (which I admit is speculation), I think there's substantial chance the admissions office feels there may be a shoe yet to drop (note that her son's body was never found... which based on the text of the article is likely to mean she never told the authorities where it was, which raises questions about what else might have happened).

They specifically cite the possibility that her description of her crime amounted to deception. Between that and the possibility of more secret land mines that might reveal she has done something even worse (i.e. actively killed the child), I think it's totally reasonable for the administration to say "No thanks, we're full to the gills with no-risk applicants."

No one is entitled to be selected for graduate study at Harvard. And she seems to be doing fine with other offers. So I think as a society we've done reasonably well in giving her a chance at a new life.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#77

Post by Beltiras »

jamesrcole wrote: post #75
Beltiras wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the presentation by the journalist, not a quote.

the bit you quote above does say "what she called", which seems to indicate it's an indirect quote.

"What she called" is the minimization that I object to.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#78

Post by Jtsummers »

danso wrote: post #27
kbart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Also, murdering a 4 year old child should lead to lifelong sentence in any case imho, so sorry, no sympathies here.

Why?

Because many people think that crimes require punishment and suffering. Eye for an eye type bullshit. They depend on their emotions rather than their reason to analyze situations.

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#79

Post by pyre »

pc86 wrote: post #62
Geekette wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of very highly qualified scholars who didn't grow up in the context that she did, whose backgrounds aren't comparable. Doesn't make her less deserving of this opportunity; she committed a crime and did her time, she's allowed to move on.

She absolutely is and should not have any impediments from the state in moving on with her life. Private individuals and institutions are under no such obligation, though.

So, you're stating that I'm not allowed to have an opinion that disapproves of the actions of Harvard in this instance?

No one is stating that Harvard had an obligation to accept her. People are expressing their dissatisfaction with Harvard's actions. That's still allowed, right?

[As a side note: If all private individuals/institutions impose additional hardships on ex-cons, then it's highly hypocritical for any of those individuals/institutions to complain about the recidivism rates. You may as well just send them all away for life in prison for any crime and be done with it if your plan is to hamper their efforts to move on after prison.]

Re: From Prison to Ph.D.: The Redemption and Rejection of Michelle Jones

#80

Post by aaron695 »

Beltiras wrote: post #25

> Jones got pregnant at 14 after what she called non-consensual sex with a high-school senior. Why minimize? Sounds like rape.

She murdered a 4 year old child. Kept it secret for a period of time (two years).

Hid the body and mislead police on it's location to confuse them.

To this day it has not been found (One assumes because she is still keeping it hidden)

Also her boyfriend (the high-school senior) has never been charged with rape (and had custody of the child until he was 3 so one assumes no allegations were made back then)

But assuming it's true, she was the one who had 'non-consensual sex' so if she wants to call it that, that's her choice.

What right do you have to force her to chose the language of something that happened to her to conform to your politics?

Post reply on HN