Comment by bjorkandkd
Comment by bjorkandkd 4 days ago
[flagged]
Comment by bjorkandkd 4 days ago
[flagged]
Good man. I've worked with a man who did time. I never knew until he told me, and once he did, I didn't give a rats ass.
I knew the person, and whatever was done in the past. Is the past. He's done his time. It is not mine to add penalties over what the state imposed.
Thank you for having a strong constitution here.
It's obvious from the comments in the thread that the internet hate mob still wants its pound of flesh and for Preston to be judged for life regardless of current circumstances.
They don't realize how damaging their posts are to people who have done wrong in the past and want to change their lives. Once again I am ashamed to be part of the Hacker News community, but thank you for your fairness and goodheartedness.
I just presumed "all the evidence in the world" was a little more expansive I guess.
The vast vast majority of DV complaints are unsubstantiated, so speaking to the wife is generally a poor predictor of whether the presumption of innocence will be overcome.
DV is a very complex legal minefield. I have years of working with defendants. I would say that a majority of DV complaints are valid in some way, and that many times the DV goes both ways (but it's rarer for the woman to get charged, even if the instigator).
The biggest issue is that once the perpetrator is removed and/or charged the victim often petitions the prosecutor and police to drop the charges. The prosecutors I know will generally not do this and will push for a guilty plea or trial. It's hard for the prosecutor to know whether the victim is being manipulated into asking for the charges to be dropped, and regardless, a crime has probably been committed, and in the justice system the plaintiff is the state, not the person who was battered. This can lead to a stand-off where the victim refuses to come to trial to testify, and where the prosecutor has a Hobson's Choice of whether to arrest the victim and jail them until trial to get them on the stand or let the case drop.
DV cases are hard.
Some say that prosecutors in your jurisdiction are so reluctant to drop charges, that they may keep a man in jail for nearly a decade without trial, isn't that right 'years of working with defendants' jailhouse lawyer charles? I hope someday you receive compensation for this tyranny that was imposed upon you.
If you're going to extend kindness to Preston then perhaps a little kindness towards others wouldn't go a miss either. Preston isn't rare, the prison system is filled with normal kind hearted people who were unfortunate in life and things went awry. Everyone deserves a chance, not just someone who can provide economic value to you.
You could have said this:
"I am the one who hired Preston. Whatever he has done in the past, I have all the evidence in the world in front of me to assure me that he has a transformed heart."
Instead, you had to drag down others, the people who you haven't blessed with your benevolence.
"It is not a common thing to see."
You are being praised for showing kindness to one of us (a nerd, a programmer) while disparaging the others. You can show kindness to Preston without condemning the others. Ask ChatGPT to explain exceptionalism to you if you still do not understand. Every person in prison is a person who can change given the opportunity.
Preston isn't uncommon, Preston isn't rare or exceptional, Preston is the average prisoner: someone who, when given an opportunity, has been able to reform. You can celebrate Preston without disparaging his less fortunate cellmates.
The only rare thing here is that he was given an opportunity (and for that you should be praised).
From your link:
> The defendant, Preston Thorpe, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell
He may have done other things, but his conviction was for possession with intent, and that seems to be why he's locked up. It doesn't make anything else he's done acceptable, but in America he's innocent until proven guilty, and it doesn't seem he was found guilty of assault.
Indeed. I quickly searched and found this article:
The original link does not say that the girlfriend reported the broken arm to the police. The police were called by her mother, who made the allegation against Thorpe. The article above says:
> According to [Thorpe's lawyer]’s appeal, Abogast told police she had fallen three days before Thorpe’s arrest and doctors at Elliot Hospital said her arm was broken in three places.
The original link says that she had scars and scabbing on her face, but this link says that Thorpe also had scars and scabbing, which the police noted in their report as consistent with drug abuse.
I'm not one to disbelieve women when they report abuse. In this case, the alleged victim didn't report any abuse, a third party who was not witness to any alleged crimes did. It's also very unusual to have your arm broken in three places, call your mom to say what happened, and then not seek any kind of treatment. I feel sad for everyone involved, because it's clear to me at least that the drug issues were the crux of the matter (which is corroborated by the actions and findings of the state). Without a statement from the girlfriend or a finding by the state, any suggestion of domestic abuse is unwarranted speculation.
I feel ok that there's a distinction between legal rulings and other circumstances of the case that I as an internet person can use my judgement to understand.
Just because someone is guilty or not doesn't separate other facts of the case.
In an extreme example: I'm ok with the court letting someone off who murdered someone, because the police didn't follow proper procedure wrt evidence/confessions/witness testimony. Our legal system should be held to the highest standard when convicting someone of a crime. That doesn't stop me from believing that the defendant actually did the crime or not.
There was no crime reported by the girlfriend. The allegation of abuse was made by the girlfriend's mother, who was not present. As far as I can tell, there were no charges of assault or battery, even after the police interviewed the girlfriend for their report. There's really no basis for forming any kind of judgement here, legal or otherwise.
Sure, but bjorkandkd unpromptedly accused Preston of being a liar, which is just incorrect as far as I can tell.
Everyone is of course free to make up their own mind, but when making public accusations I would at least expect an honest effort to keep those accusations factually correct.
"Prosecutors said Thorpe was on parole for other drug convictions when he was arrested last year and also had two suspended sentences for drug offenses over his head."
https://www.wmur.com/article/man-facing-carfentanil-charge-r...
We're allowed to form judgments about people based on evidence that wouldn't be sufficient to convict them of a crime. The consequences of me forming the opinion that this guy is a domestic abuser are far lower than the consequences of a court doing so. And of course, even courts use a much lower evidential standard than 'innocent until proven guilty' when deciding civil cases. Making a derogatory comment about someone on the internet is much more analogous to a civil court finding against the plaintiff than it is to a criminal court giving someone a jail sentence.
In any case, HN is very selective about this high evidential standard. People will make a lot of effort to give probable domestic abusers the benefit of the doubt, but pick one of HN's official enemies and suddenly any little scrap of evidence is considered quite sufficient!
I agree with this sentiment but I'm also willing to explore/consider the possibility that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't strictly only useful as an esoteric legal construct, but a philosophy that could potentially have applicability to an individual's worldview.
That being said I wouldn't have much patience for a "merely" accused murderer or child predator in my personal life, just as I also don't have much patience for a doctor who refuses to prescribe me antibiotics because the chance they could help me is "only" 1%. I don't really care that it's socially irresponsible when it comes to my personal assessment of risk.
I agree that it is nice to keep in mind as a general philosophy, however I also think it's important to keep in mind that the people who originally wrote "innocent until proven guilty" were all treasonous sepratists, and their philosophy may or may not always align with my own.
He’s not just saying he was locked up due to drugs. He’s saying that “all” his “poor decisions and lifestyle choices” in his twenties were related to drugs.
In a generalized sense, sure. There's both a strong correlation and a proven causation that drugs and domestic abuse go hand in hand across the prison population.
However, on any individual case the same is not true, because that moves from talking about averages and general cases into specifics, and the burden of proof changes significantly. While there is a connection on average, that isn't enough to say any specific drug abuser commits domestic abuse. For that, ideally, you need criminal charges proven in court. That's missing here.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is only for the justice system. You are deliberately avoiding the fact that the entire reason the cops showed up was to respond to a domestic violence call. People do not need an entire court trial to determine that the woman's arm was swollen and her face was bruised because her partner hit her.
> ...in America he's innocent until proven guilty...
...in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't extend to internet comments.
>Innocent until proven guilty doesn't extend to internet comments.
That's not a good thing.
Edit: I cannot really believe that this, of all comments, is controversial. Living life treating everyone as guilty until they prove themselves innocent is... just shitty, let alone exhausting. Do people forget about how many times reddit and other ruined innocent people's lives?
Sometimes HN amazes me with new technology, interesting conversations, etc. Sometimes it amazes me when people are arguing that we should go through life treating people as guilty first, until they are proven innocent. I think I'll go back to not participating for awhile.
>Living life treating everyone as guilty until they prove themselves innocent is... just shitty
There's no scenario here where this guy is innocent. The distinction here is whether he's a wife-beating drug dealer or just a drug dealer. There's some evidence to suggest the former but not really enough that you can definitely state it.
Personally, I'd give a convicted drug dealer less benefit of the doubt than the average person.
On one hand, I agree that internet comments tend to judge people unfairly, and “treating people as guilty first” probably leads to an unhealthy society (considered “unhealthy” by its own members).
On the other hand, GP is objectively right ("innocent until proven guilty doesn't extend to internet comments"). I also think that it’s better for random people to be able to post their terrible judgements than any feasible alternative, because such an alternative probably leads to good judgements also censored. We can mitigate (not eliminate) bad judgements, e.g. by educating people better and shaming those who shame others more; and we can minimize mob justice’s effect on critical government functions like welfare and prison sentencing, e.g. by running them on mostly objective procedures and with staff who aren’t influenced by mob opinion.
Targeted harassment and doxxing (and swatting, getting people fired/divorced/ruined when they don’t deserve to be, etc.) is different (and to be clear, IMO very bad). People posting opinions in a way that the target can block (which they can usually do with blocklists and word filters) is fine. The main point I’m trying to make is: if opinions in random internet comments lead to targeted harassment and real-world consequences even when the opinions are “bad” (e.g. bigoted, hypocritical), it's less effective to try and prevent the internet comments' existence, than to reduce the factors causing them to influence the real world and create factors preventing influence.
The point is that people should be able to use their own judgement on a wide variety of issues and not be forced to delegate their decision making power to the courts/third parties.
There's a difference between "we want to lock this person up and take away their liberty, so we should be basically certain" versus "look man he's been done for drugs and she ended up with a broken arm, I don't trust this person".
Why? Different fora have different standards of proof. For example, in civil cases (even in America) the standard of proof is 'preponderance of evidence', not 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Why should internet comments follow criminal law, and not eg civil law, or some other standard?
Yes, it is. The courts are flawed, the courts get things wrong all the time. Many innocent people are found guilty. If we must apply the legal standard to internet comments, must we condemn people we believe to be innocent? The legal standards exist for the system, not for people. Saying that the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply outside of the legal system is lazy and avoiding making decisions for yourself about how you treat people.
People proven guilty are not necessarily guilty. People proven not guilty are not necessarily innocent. The legal standard exists because a system needs standards.
In my experience "drug-related" can definitely include serious violent crimes (some that can result in execution, or life without parole). Through my extracurricular work, I personally know a lot of drug offenders, and breaking their spouse's arm easily fits. I also know women that have drained their husband's retirement, people that have snorted their kids' college funds, mothers that have pimped their kids, and other stuff that would have a lot of folks horrified.
There's a reason people don't like drug addicts, and there's a pretty significant portion of the population that wants them all dead (except for my little Muffy, who was corrupted by her boyfriend, of course).
The Second Chance stuff is important. Surprisingly enough, Jaime Dimon is a big supporter of it[0].
I wish this chap well. The proof will come, when he leaves the structure of prison.
[0] https://www.jpmorganchase.com/impact/careers-and-skills/seco...
https://secondchancebusinesscoalition.org/
Lists other companies which are part of the coalition.
I don't know what to make of this document and claim, is that a report, an actual conviction? I don't understand it. It definitely sounds horrible in any case.
However, the point of a program of hiring or educating people who are in prison isn't to judge them. They are already in prison. 10years is a long time, so it's likely they did something bad and have been judged for it.
This is to give people who are capable and willing a chance to grow and integrate. From the little knowledge I have about this, it seems like this is very effective.
It’s a judicial opinion denying his appeal. The facts listed are findings from the trial court where he was convicted on drug charges.
He wasn't charged with injuring his girlfriend, and notably fled with her after that confrontation, setting off a national manhunt that led the TV news in the area.
https://apnews.com/general-news-d68dca63e95946fbb9cc82f38540...
Not an ordinary possession charge either, sounds serious!
> 15 to 30 years in prison for possessing a synthetic drug with the intent to distribute it
> like many synthetic opioids, the exact effects of U-47700 are little understood and a small amount could be fatal
> charged with possessing carfentanil, a powerful synthetic drug much more powerful then fentanyl
I'd like to see him get life in prison with no chance at parole. He's responsible for at least three deaths (probably more) but because he's proficient at social engineering and feeding people lines he's weaseled his way into the tech industry (from prison!). Over 78k people died in 2023 of fentanyl alone and this twerp was trafficking a substance far more lethal, he literally left a trail of bodies in his wake.
https://www.wbay.com/content/news/New-Hampshire-man-suspecte...
Yes, I believe Preston is responsible for those deaths. He paid for them for 10 years, and will still be met with the judgement of the Lord when his time comes.
But he will also be met with His mercy, and I am happy to extend him some mercy for his repentance here on Earth before his day comes.
While tragic, those people (or at least the vast majority) weren't forced to use drugs. They made that decision and faced the consequences. Shifting the blame for their poor decisions onto the drug dealer is unwarranted imo.
Not to defend the author, but I think a more generous reading of this section from the blogpost:
> A brief summary is that I'm currently serving prison time for poor decisions and lifestyle choices I made in my twenties, all related to drugs.
Is that their poor decisions were related to drugs.
The blog article that he links to has this in it:
>My name is Preston Thorpe, I'm 31 years old and I've spent just under 10 years of my life in Prison (all for non-violent drug crimes.)
Indirectly causing a death doesn't make a crime violent. A doctor guilty of fatal negligence isn't a violent criminal either.
The most common reason violent offenders escape charges or conviction or domestic abuse is that the victim(s) are too afraid to press charges, and/or they feel guilty about it happening or even the feeling that they brought it on themselves and deserved it.
This then combined with the fact that the abuser is going to jail for on unrelated convictions. This is a huge relief to any abuse survivor. The person is going away, and I will be safe.
The other component is all the steps involved with filing charges which will often feel invasive and have to bring it all up again.
I have seen this up close and personal on a few occasions, I have begged the victim to go to the police but they would not do it.
The worst outcome of this is when the abuser is let out, the abuser may seek out the victim again, or the abuser will find new victims.
In this case the police had a call from a close family member accusing the person of domestic abuse. They had suspicious behavior from the accused person. They also witnessed that the possible victim had multiple injuries consistent with domestic abuse. As well as the arm injury the call from the family member had initially reported. But probably no charges or at least no convictions.
So now you're openly condemning a person that you've never met about things you don't really know about other than just some random comments on an internet forum.
For fucks sake, have some human decency. If your name was the one involved, how would something like this make you feel?
That's not what your report says. Your report says there's evidence she may have been beaten and that her arm may have been broken. There's a likelihood of both and that he did it but there's no evidence in that report that he did it.
There is no actual confirmation in that document that her arm was broken, just that that was what was reported to the officer and that it was injured/swolen.
You're free to say "allegedly", just like the standards the media has to go by.
There was evidence of an exigency which lead to a warrentless search of his apartment.
The jealousy must be strong, does it really hurt that much that someone in the prison system reformed their life and is probably doing better than you for you to create a new account and try to drag them down? I don't know what hurt you are going through, but you can definitely do better if you are willing to be more positive in life.
I am the one who hired Preston. Whatever he has done in the past, I have all the evidence in the world in front of me to assure me that he has a transformed heart. It is not a common thing to see, but here the fruits are clear.
We are happy to have him with us.