Comment by unreal37 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by unreal37 | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. I don't think I would have done the same, and even with time to think long and hard about it, I still would have gone after him with all my might. I don't think letting him off with just a warning is in any sense "justice" nor in the end was the smart choice.

There's something psychotic about harassing someone you know for YEARS, anonymously, in such a vicious way as he did. It's just cruelty on a level akin to torturing dogs for fun. "It was kind of a game" is hardly an excuse. "I will kill you, I will rape your wife, I will do <unspeakable things> to your wife's dead body..." Sending ashes. Putting dead flowers on the door step. Causing the man to be paranoid in his own house. Causing him to cry over the safety of his family. This is beyond harassment, and lasted daily/weekly over a period of years.

I almost don't believe this is real. How could a psychotic 17-year old be let off with a handshake and a look in the eye? He's going to kill someone someday. I'm stunned.

I can't imagine that, as part of the deal, updates proving that counseling is happening aren't a part of the story. I agree with you that I wouldn't let it go without having some knowledge that he is getting the help he obviously needs.

I wouldn't want to ruin a 17-year-old's life, either, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment if I felt my family was in any danger. We don't know the relationship between the OP and his friend that might mitigate the "any danger" part.

On the other hand, kids' lives are ruined in the US (and possibly other countries; I don't have enough experience to know) on a regular basis because we want to have "justice" at all costs. Justice is important, but so is mercy. Mercy (NOT rolling over!) is, ultimately, what will progress society.

If a person takes such a personal, aggressive, and malicious position towards you and your family, by reporting them to the proper authorities you haven't "ruined" their life. You shouldn't feel guilty bringing the perpetrator of a serious crime to justice.

What you've said is ideal, but it is important to remember that the degree of "justice" can vary significantly around the world. This is especially true within the US. A crime in one state may amount to a "slap on the wrist", while in another it results in many years of prison time.

The author avoiding law enforcement leaves the perpetrator no one to blame but himself. The author shows that he is innocent of the hate that was delivered to him, which leaves only the perpetrator responsible for the crime. If the author had involved law enforcement there is a reasonable chance the perpetrator could not have made the same connection.

I think the authors intent was to show the perpetrator why his actions were unjust, where law enforcement could only punish the actions for being illegal. Of course a judge or jury could lecture him but he already knew it was illegal and inhumane, that knowledge still didn't influence his behavior.

If our penal system was able to rehabilitate, I would 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, given the incredibly high recidivism of convicts, I don't think that is true. Worse yet, prison appears to be a criminal training ground. As a result, I, personally, would be hesitant to throw somebody into that environment if I felt another option that could lead to rehabilitation existed.

The important piece is "another option". If it were my kid, you can bet he wouldn't he getting off easy, but I would hope for an opportunity to rehabilitate. On the other hand, if it were my kid, I would be he first to call the cops if that's what was necessary.

It's unfortunate that our zeal for "justice" has put us in a situation that we say "to hell with the people".

Yeah, I think I would be hard pressed to not report this kid to the cops if only so that I never had to regret not making the police aware of him.

Well, we don't know enough about this case to really judge it. But my key take away is NOT that this kid is a future murderer, but rather the opposite, that internet harassment is something very different than real harassment, something normal people can get into, somewhere where it's too easy to disconnect emotionally from the target and the suffering of the target. The kid may not have been able to visualize the suffering that he caused, getting de-sensitized to the words and images used in the harassment (you don't need to stay long in 4chan for that to happen). Of course, it doesn't make it more ok, it just means we shouldn't use the same ruler to measure internet harassment as real harassment.

How do you reckon what's described in this article doesn't count as “real” harassment? Just because the harassment is done anonymously online doesn't mean it's any easier to deal with, perhaps even the opposite. Not to mention the dead flowers and the other things which happened outside the web.

In the end I believe the internet just provides an easier way of stalking people than through the traditional means, but the victims are affected just as badly, so I don't think you shouldn't take internet harassment any more lightly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com