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

The Central Park Five

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: The Central Park Five

#51

Post by MRD85 »

40acres wrote: post #11

I really resented my parents growing up because they would never let me play outside. I was raised in Central Brooklyn in the 90s and stories like The Central Park Five and Abner Louima were cautionary tales in our neighborhood. We were too broke for summer programs so I spent a lot of my summers watching daytime TV, playing video games and browsing the internet. Brooklyn has changed a lot since the Regan / Bush days…

Surely your parents also wanted to stop you falling in with "the wrong crowd"? I'd wager a lot of people in jail are good people who fell in with the wrong crowd.

Re: The Central Park Five

#52

Post by bilbo0s »

hugi wrote: post #33
40acres wrote: post #11

I really resented my parents growing up because they would never let me play outside. I was raised in Central Brooklyn in the 90s and stories like The Central Park Five and Abner Louima were cautionary tales in our neighborhood. We were too broke for summer programs so I spent a lot of my summers watching daytime TV, playing video games and browsing the internet. Brooklyn has changed a lot since the Regan / Bush days…

If it's any consolation; your parents must really have loved you since they kept you inside. I have three kids and I cherish every moment that I get to send them outside to play. But I live in a safe place and honestly, "random murder and rape" might change my mind.

I might be wrong, but I get the sense that his parents were not concerned about random murder and rape. More about the cops coming after their kids.

Just pointing that out because I don't think you would agree with that sentiment. So you might want to adjust your comment to indicate that you would be more afraid of criminals than cops.

Re: The Central Park Five

#53

Post by dmix »

rayiner wrote: post #35

One of the things I hate about coverage of false convictions is that all the nuance gets lost. It’s important to note that the Central Park five were convicted of multiple attacks in the park, of which the rape of the jogger was one. Their responsibility for the other felonies are not seriously contested: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f... > Was what happened to the Central Park Five comp…

They were beating random people with metal pipes and knocked two unconscious the same night? Funny, I've previously watched a long documentary on this trial (not the new Netflix show) and I don't remember this part at all. It's interesting to contrast the popular perception of the case with the on-the-ground reality.

It seems one of the reports concluded that either one or some of the boys were there before/after the rape based on their detailed statements related to the crime scene and knowledge of the exact location.

I'm curious if the boys knew the Reyes guy whose DNA was found on the victim beforehand or if they happened to come across the crime scene during a particularly violent night in Central Park and/or were in a particular section of the park where local kids tended to congregate.

Re: The Central Park Five

#54

Post by xrd »

rayiner wrote: post #47
xrd wrote: post #39

Really fascinating to read the comments here. Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or another. Not much being said about the fact that they were children and that even if they did commit another crime at another time or were witnesses to the crime or whatever, it's not necessarily a "good thing" that they were in jail long into adulthood. Hacker News showing its true colors here.

None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand that difference.

Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are.

I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling.

Correct my thinking:

They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children.

Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? Another way to ask, were these sentences just (not asking for your opinion personally but is this typical for those types of cases)

And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it?

My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.

Re: The Central Park Five

#55

Post by bilbo0s »

rayiner wrote: post #47
xrd wrote: post #39

Really fascinating to read the comments here. Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or another. Not much being said about the fact that they were children and that even if they did commit another crime at another time or were witnesses to the crime or whatever, it's not necessarily a "good thing" that they were in jail long into adulthood. Hacker News showing its true colors here.

None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand that difference.

Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we believe the one sided narrative of the NY Times camp, or we believe the one sided narrative of the Trump-like camp.

The only things we really know as fact, is that the DNA at the scene belonged to the perp. Which perp turned out to be none of the people we actually convicted of the crime.

Everything else requires us to believe suspect entities. Were the confessions uncoerced? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe the NYPD and the courts.

Was it actually these kids who committed all these other crimes? Well, again, depends on whether you want to believe the NYPD and courts, or the guys who are now speaking without fear of further torture.

This whole thing went off the rails when the initial exculpatory evidence was ignored. From that point on, every decision just made things worse and worse.

Re: The Central Park Five

#56

Post by throwaway987665 »

pitt1980 wrote: post #50

[flagged]

To be fair, it’s not just Reyes’s “word “. If you read the motion to vacate, Reyes gives a full account of the rape beginning to end that is consistent with the evidence and included some details only the attacker would know. There is also evidence that he was later in the park by himself and not with this group of teen agers.

Re: The Central Park Five

#58

Post by throwaway987665 »

throwaway622019 wrote: post #18
jwr wrote: post #2

I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.

> I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recommend reading both the recommendation from Morgenthau to vacate the convictions[1] (which ended up happening) and the Armstrong report[2] (which came to the conclusion that the Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack). Doctors involved in the case…

The Armstrong report is problematic. Its main goal is to justify the conduct of the NYPD and it does so by inventing new theories of the crime. In presenting the report the committee members themselves said that they could not rule out the possibility that the defendants are completely innocent of the crime (which is the definition of “reasonable doubt “). For some reporting on this committee at the time see

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...

Re: The Central Park Five

#59

Post by throwaway987665 »

DuskStar wrote: post #46
themgt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report is incredibly damning. Just to use one example, Korey Wise is in the NYT, described as: Wise, 16, wasn’t a suspect, but he agreed to go with his friend for moral support. He ended up being charged as well No description of why he would be charged. Clearly a gross miscarriage of justice. Armstrong report: In addition, several statements were made by witnesses to officers investigating the incident and by th…

Shit like this significantly contributes to the legitimacy of calling the NYT "fake news". When you tell a story from one side, and one side only... (I don't mean that it's a good thing to call news orgs "fake news". I mean that if someone is already calling you "fake news", you should really take care to have impeccable reporting to avoid giving those accusations weight)

The nytimes is very much aware of this report and there is a reason it doesn’t take it seriously

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...

Re: The Central Park Five

#60

Post by whastplants05 »

dang wrote: post #43
peisistratos wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are going to flag or downvote please tell me what the article gets factually wrong Half the articles on the "Weird Republic" web site you link to are bashing a host of various black people and things. Jesse Jackson, Kwanzaa, reparations for slavery, it's just article after article bashing blacks. I don't have time to read this white trash gutter nonsense, I've heard it enough before. Two comments back you're…

Please don't break the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how bad another comment was. Racial and ideological rants are not ok here, let alone "I look down on pathetic white trash". Would you please review the site guidelines and use this site as intended? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hi dang, thanks for all the work you do around here moderating. The article georgemonck linked goes into a lot of details of the case others here ignored, and yet he was banned while peisistratos is using racial slurs and mockingly refusing to discuss a single thing georgemonck's article gets wrong. It seems like peisistratos is not interested in engaging in meaningful conversation.

Thanks.

Post reply on HN