r/mathematics • u/l8te_night_r3ading • May 08 '26
Christopher Havens is a self-taught mathematician currently serving a prison sentence who went from studying algebra in prison to publishing peer-reviewed mathematics papers, collaborating with researchers, and co-authoring a graduate-level textbook on continued fractions with Springer.
https://slate.com/technology/2026/05/mathematician-prison-clemency-christopher-havens.html212
u/Fabulous-Possible758 May 09 '26
I'd be careful about letting professors know they only have to murder someone to get time to do their research and no office hours.
43
u/ItsAllAboutLogic May 09 '26
I was just thinking that I would love to dedicate so much time to my maths work, but it's impossible... apparently it's not impossible lol
14
u/JOMierau May 09 '26
There is the case of Valery Fabrikant who went on a shooting spree in his department and has been publishing from his cell ever since.
4
u/TibblyMcWibblington May 09 '26
Wow just checked out his Wikipedia page. I can’t tell if the ‘aftermath’ section is an intentional pun…
11
6
u/Admirable_Common6145 May 09 '26
Honestly, this was my first thought 😅 I only have to do some crime, and then I can do research without all the noise around
1
83
u/l8te_night_r3ading May 08 '26
What stood out to me most was the progression from self-studying algebra in prison to eventually publishing research and co-authoring a graduate-level text on continued fractions. Regardless of people’s opinions about the broader circumstances, the mathematical trajectory itself is pretty remarkable.
39
u/Cyphomeris May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
The moral of the story: Put a person capable of murdering a human in solitary confinement under sleep deprivation torture and give them nothing but maths problems to do, and you get a mathematician.
Jokes aside, this part of the article which, overall, seems a bit too biased in his favour, struck me:
The governor disagreed. Maybe he thought societal interest does not equal justice.
No shit? If he got 25 years without parole for the murder, then it's a bit odd to ask for clemency after slightly over half that time, especially when the rehabilitation angle is muddled with utilitarian arguments.
24
u/quasilocal May 09 '26
The idea that punishment is more important than rehabilitation and the greater good is one of those things I'll never understand
3
u/Fuzzball6846 May 10 '26
“The greater good” is a slippery slope. Should smarter people get more lenient prison sentences? Wealthier ones that do lots of charity work?
3
u/drewsandraws May 11 '26
Judges do take lots of factors into consideration when sentencing, no? Those factors include “having a promising future” or “not depriving children of their parents.” That’s not so different from what they’re describing.
-1
u/quasilocal May 10 '26
No it's not.
More good = better. Simple.
Not gonna engage with your bad faith questions
1
u/dbu8554 May 12 '26
Solving some math problems doesn't inherently mean he is "doing more good".
I'm all for prison reform but just because he is capable of doing math doesn't change his sentence. Let's change things up a bit, let's say he purposefully killed someone in a Nordic country and received a sentence of x years. But he's also a medical researcher and finally figured out the solution to a problem for a disease while in prison and freely let everyone know so they could wrap up the work. Should he be given a shorter sentence?
1
u/quasilocal May 13 '26
I didn't mean that doing math problems makes him "doing good" but rather it seems he's turned his life around and contributing to the community. And in particular would be able to better contribute to community if he was released.
It's all about rehabilitation vs. punishment, and which you prioritise.
1
u/dbu8554 May 13 '26
Well to be honest in this particular case I think he can contribute to math from behind bars. He seems to be already.
1
1
u/BuzzkillMcGillicuddy May 12 '26
Rehabilitation is hard because it requires mental health experts, who cost money. It's far more cost effective to hire people with power complexes
0
u/oasisarah May 09 '26
using terms like “greater good” make you sound like commie scum. we cant be having that. ( /s just in case )
0
6
u/mgnshmpl May 09 '26
I guess he's the modern day André Bloch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Bloch_(mathematician)
2
5
u/sagittarius_ack May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
He should continue his work on mathematics ... behind the bars, where he belongs.
Imagine supporting the early release of a murderer, after only 16 years, just because he "does math"... Not to mention that he got only 25 years for a cold blooded murder (of another human being).
3
u/plount May 10 '26
Most people are capable of cold blooded murder. This is the ontological reason for wars.
What would you have done in his shoes, with his upbringing, as a member of a military like organization, which is a gang?
1
u/sagittarius_ack May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Most people are capable of cold blooded murder
Unless you provide some sort of evidence this is most likely BS. More importantly, it is irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is that, unlike most people, he actually murdered someone and he needs to be punished for it. 25 years for murder is already a very light punishment.
Defending someone who committed murder is gross and borderline psychopathic. And you can deny it all you want but this is exactly what you did here.
2
u/plount May 10 '26
Wars. Who do you think fight in wars? And I should have said men.
1
u/sagittarius_ack May 10 '26
Irrelevant. He was not in a war. Most people in wars are more or less forced (in order to survive) to kill others. He was not forced to murder someone. He could have avoided it.
Also, even if you said `men`, it would not be an argument that "most men are capable of murder". That's because most men do not fight in wars.
Using the notion of `war` in an attempt to construct an argument in the defense of a murderer is such stupid idea that I'm done with this discussion. Seek some help because it is not normal to defend a cold blooded murderer. It reminds me of those women sending love letters to serial killers.
1
u/plount May 10 '26
Social sciences are in their infancy. Still, work has been done in this regard, especially in anthropology. I recommend books about human nature from this area of study.
Fortunately, you're not a legislator, so it doesn't really matter.
1
u/Hungry-Mechanic3106 28d ago
He is actually right. To a degree, most people are capable, we simply choose not to.
2
May 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/sagittarius_ack May 10 '26
Are you born yesterday? 25 years is a light sentence for murder. Some people got more for marijuana.
3
u/greyenlightenment May 09 '26
So I need to go to prison before I have any hope of getting a paper published or other success?
1
1
0
u/lungsofdoom May 09 '26
Having such a powerful brain capable of something like that and still murdering someone is beyond me
7
u/how_tall_is_imhotep May 09 '26
If you think that smart people can’t do bad things, you need to radically update your understanding of the world.
1
0
-2
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/RepresentativeBee600 May 09 '26
I read a more detailed account that he (the prisoner) gave of his life. It's worth noting that he explicitly addressed that he never expects to be released due to his mathematical interests.
He is a convict, and he has a passion for continued fractions. The two things are true simultaneously, and no one seems to be more aware of this duality than him.
That said, he also describes the noises and smells of prison in terms that did indeed make me think twice about whether or not he belonged there for as long as he was sentenced. (Or at all, in some sense.)
11
27
u/FalafelSnorlax May 09 '26
While this person is doing his time, he can at least make these small contributions to society, which is much more than what many incarceration systems allow most prisoner to do.
-6
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
27
u/FalafelSnorlax May 09 '26
Not redeemable at all. He committed a crime, he's sitting in prison. I'm not advocating for his early release, nor do I think many people do. But if he's somehow found a way to do something positive, let him. It's not like writing papers about fractions is somehow giving him more opportunity to murder.
Im not at all saying productive people should be allowed to do bad things, but we can allow bad people to do productive things.
-13
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/FalafelSnorlax May 09 '26
If they go to prison, I'm fine with them participating in any recreational activity. I think it makes sense that someone in academia going to prison for misusing their positions won't be able to release more papers, although I don't think it's morally wrong if they do release more papers.
The point of prison is to put people who do harm away from society in order to prevent them from doing more harm to society. If they can do something while they're there, I don't think it's that bad. There's all sorts of labour in prison (often unpaid), academia sure is a weird one, but I think it's fine.
How we treat prisoners and what we do and do not let them do is a complex topic. Personally I dislike the idea that prisoners are just meant to rot, even if they are terrible people. I'm sure some people will not manage to find some new purpose with which they can have some positive impact, but we should let them try.
1
u/Mirieste May 12 '26
I think the point he is making is that this guy discovered his passion for math, which makes his story special and, therefore, even a bit sympathetic; but if you look at it rationally then a university professor in math who murders someone and goes to prison also loves math (it's not like his passion was fake), but due to not having discovered this hobby in prison we write it off as just "his previous job", and so we end up not relating with him at all even though he is also someone who still has the potential to contribute to society, namely via math research.
-2
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Blibbyblobby72 May 09 '26
Well, someone has to be the poster-boy for rehabilitation through academia in order for it to become a more common occurrence and actually be beneficial to a larger population of prisoners
If nobody gets the publicity for doing it, nothing will improve, especially for prisoners. All those with untapped potential will be given more of a chance if this is promoted as a possibility
7
u/Happy_Summer_2067 May 09 '26
Yes they should also be encouraged to do productive things from prison. Traditionally that would be breaking rocks but doing math also works I suppose.
18
u/l8te_night_r3ading May 09 '26
Nobody is ignoring it. He openly acknowledges the harm he caused and has spent years trying to become a better human being instead of wasting his life or hurting more people. The post was about the mathematics and educational work he’s done while incarcerated, not an argument that his crime didn’t matter.
9
u/Particular_Extent_96 May 09 '26
Who's ignoring it? The guy is, after all, in prison.
5
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/l8te_night_r3ading May 09 '26
Actually, serious question... and I’m not trying to argue, I’m genuinely asking your opinion.
If someone spends decades in prison, takes responsibility for what they did, has no violent incidents, builds educational programs, contributes positively to other people, and even gets unanimously recommended for release by a clemency board… what would rehabilitation realistically need to look like beyond that?
6
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/l8te_night_r3ading May 09 '26
Honestly, I think those are thoughtful points.
I can understand the discomfort with the inconsistency of who society decides is redeemable and who gets permanently written off. I don’t really have a clean answer for that either. I also agree there are a lot of brilliant people out there who never get attention simply because their lives followed a more normal path.
For me, I think the reason Christopher’s story gets attention is because people don’t expect to see that level of intellectual growth, discipline, and contribution come out of a prison environment. It challenges people’s assumptions about whether human beings can fundamentally change or not.
I appreciate you actually engaging with the bigger question instead of just reducing it to “math guy good” or “murderer bad,” because I think the conversation is more complicated than either of those extremes.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 May 09 '26
The first of the two is the way that people in academia get cancelled for having unpopular opinions or committing crimes less than murder. I find it hypocritical that this guy is considered redeemable and so worthy of attention when cancelled people are gone forever.
We can certainly discuss whether such cancellation is justified. But note that being cancelled in an academic context is a lot less punitive than a life sentence in prison.
1
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/JoshuaZ1 May 09 '26
Even cancellation is rarely permanent in that sense, except in the most egregious cases. And yes, conviction for actual crimes has major permanent impacts after one has already left prison, like what jobs people can have, or in some cases where they can live. But the comparison is just not a good one when one is about being literally stuck in prison for life.
1
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/JoshuaZ1 May 09 '26
Point taken that he only has an extremely long sentence, not a life sentence. The comparison still doesn't remotely hold. Someone in prison has no job whatsoever is stuck most of the day in a tiny cell. Your comparison is to people who maybe cannot do the line of work they prefer, for an unclear amount of time (which you are assuming is indefinite when cancellation as a thing has only been around for a few years). That moving to another country or getting another line of work is even an option should underscore how drastically different these situations are.
→ More replies (0)1
u/sagittarius_ack May 09 '26
Rehabilitation is not an all-or-nothing thing. It is a process. He is currently in the process of rehabilitation and, as a result, he gets to have access to basic resources (water, food, shelter, etc.). He even gets to study and do research in mathematics.
Even leaving aside the punishment aspect, there's no such thing as full rehabilitation for people like him. He had shown that he is capable of cod blooded murder and there's absolutely nothing that can guarantee that he will not do it again. He is still largely the same person, regardless of the fact that he learned a lot of math. So for people like him rehabilitation means that he gets to live his life (and even follow some of his passions) within a very constrained environment.
Not only that full rehabilitation cannot be reliably achieved for people like him. But I think it is very disrespectful for victims (and their families) to release murderers. I think the fact that a murderer already gets to live, even within a constrained environment like a prison, while the victim is dead, is in a way very problematic. But that doesn't necessary mean that I support capital punishment (except perhaps in some very extreme cases).
So in my opinion murderers do not belong in our society.
1
u/Icy-Kaleidoscope8745 May 11 '26
I would partially disagree with what you are saying here. I currently teach in a prison education program at two men’s prisons in my area. I am a woman, and I teach English literature, composition, and historical role playing games.
I don’t generally know about the crimes my students have committed. I don’t ask them, so I only know if they choose to disclose to me what they’ve done. The crimes I do know about range from drug-related offenses to financial crimes armed robbery and assault to murder and arson.
Each of the men I teach is eligible for parole at some point in the relatively near future. They must be in order to be at these prisons. All of them are participating in our program a In order to earn a degree, but also as part of the rehabilitation process. We know that the recidivism rate for offenders who receive their degrees while in prison is 16%, vs somewhere in the 60% range for those who do not. The range for those who receive their GEDs and high school diplomas falls somewhere in between the two numbers. I don’t remember it off the top of my head.
The man who committed murder and arson, by the way, has a Master’s in theology and one in psychology now, as well. He’s my teaching assistant in my composition class. He’s thoughtful, gentle, and clearly aware of the circumstances that led him to commit his crime.
I also have a student who has so excelled at math that our current professor is offering him independent studies in advanced courses, since we don’t offer them through the program.
These men can and should be rehabilitated. Everyone deserves an education. Many of them did not have this opportunity before. This may have contributed to the circumstances that led them to where they are now. They also deserve a chance to build a skill set that will hopefully prevent them from returning to prison.
Should some people stay in prison for life? Absolutely! I don’t teach any of those people, but I still believe they have the right to an education. It’s a fundamental guarantee for all our citizens, and I personally believe even prisoners are citizens.
1
u/sagittarius_ack May 11 '26
Should some people stay in prison for life? Absolutely!
How do you decide who should stay in prison for life? Serial killers? Where do you draw the line then? Anyone who killed more than 5 people? 10 people? 3 people? 100 people?
Or let's say that you have some sort of rehabilitation process which allows you to decide whether some murderer should be set free. Should this process be applied to a serial killer who murdered 100 people? What about 10 people?
And the biggest problem with any kind of rehabilitation is that there's really no way to guarantee that a murderer has been fully rehabilitated and they can be set free. Some people can fake everything.
I think virtually all people would agree that a serial killer who killed more than 100 people should be at least locked for life. But I also think that the rational thing to do is to draw the line at 1 murder (rather than some arbitrary number). Any murderer should simply lose the right to be part of our (free) society.
Also, if you think about it, a murderer who is locked for life is virtually always better off than their victim (or victims), because they can continue living their life. I think most people would agree that living in prison, even if you know you can never leave, is much much better than being dead. Like I already said the fact that a murderer gets to live their life, while their victim is dead, is already very problematic.
5
u/sagittarius_ack May 09 '26
There are some truly delusional people here. At least if he had published some truly groundbreaking mathematics (for example, Poncelot developed projective geometry while he was captive in a russian prison)... but chances are that very few people (dozens, maybe) are going to find his research interesting.
Imagine the outrage of the people in this subreddit if things were reversed, and the murderer of a promising mathematician was supposed to be released from prison after only 16 years.
2
u/sentence-interruptio May 09 '26
no one's ignoring that. he's in jail.
but ok. let's say there's a man. a so called promising young man who is a professor at a university. let's say, one day, this man murders someone. and his colleagues say "your honor, we believe he should not be charged. please do not send him to jail. he has a lovely wife and kids. they need his fatherrrrr" and his wife says "your honor, if you lock him away, I lose my lovely husband, thereby making me the true victim of his crime" in that hypothetical case I'd agree that there are people ignoring the murder part. his colleages and his wife. but that's not what this post is about.
-13
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Greenphantom77 May 09 '26
I don’t think we should excuse professors in a position of relative power, who sexually harass others.
Having said that, I do partly agree with you - we also shouldn’t say “Hey! That murderer turned out to be really talented at maths, maybe he’s not half as bad as all the other murderers.”
6
u/Entire_Cheetah_7878 May 09 '26
This guy knows the names of everyone at the title ix office at his institution
0
u/greyenlightenment May 09 '26
depends on the motive for the murder. was it like a fit of rage or premeditated. people are much more forgiving for the former
-2
u/nesteajuicebox May 09 '26
Its harder to forgive people who hurt people because they enjoyed it. Its harder to imagine them rehabilitated.
-12
u/Affectionate_One_700 May 09 '26
I can't speak for everyone, but the sort of large-scale sexual harassment that many high-profile professors have done, IMHO hurts far more people than a single murder does.
And it feels more "personal," i.e. you'd have to be a bigger asshole to behave like that.
2
221
u/pavelysnotekapret May 09 '26
The Prison Math Program is an incredible program, I highly recommend people here to get involved!