Dharun Ravi- A mixed verdict

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:17 pm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dharun-ravi-guilty-invasion-privacy-counts-rutgers-spying-case-article-1.1040776?localLinksEnabled=false

To me the verdict seems fair. While he was not found guilty on some of the more serious legal charges, to me the lesser charge "intentional invasion of privacy" on an "ethical level" is extremely serious, and so is tampering with evidence. Think that this land mark care will help to make cyber spying, bullying and intimidation taken more seriously, and people will be more sensitive (at least in the legal sense), and Universities will pay more attention to these on campus- living issues as well.

Don't want to see him go to jail, will have to see what the penalties will be, including possible deportation.

by Guest Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:19 pm

hope he gets community service. no jail. and no deportation.

by doofus_maximus Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:28 pm

How come Clementi didn't get indicted for invasion of privacy? What...Too soon??

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:31 pm

Clementi?

Can you clarify DM?

The plea deal seems to have been quite good- with community service and counseling. He should have perhaps taken it..well, in hindsight, everything perhaps looks different.

by doofus_maximus Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:35 pm

Maria S wrote:Clementi?

Can you clarify DM?

The plea deal seems to have been quite good- with community service and counseling.

NaduKaalai vanakkam Maria,
That was an inside joke between the few of us who were on chat when Mr. JM suggested that Clementi was in violation of Ravi's privacy by having sex with another man in his (Clementi's) room.

by Guest Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:37 pm

Funny, nj.com is reporting something else.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/dharun_ravi_found_guilty_in_ru.html

Ravi, 20, was found guilty of bias, invasion of privacy, hindering apprehension and witness tampering for spying on his former Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman, with the jury concluding that he targeted Clementi, because of his sexual orientation.

The 15-member jury, including three alternates, reached its verdict shortly before noon, following three days of deliberation. The bias intimidation counts carried the highest possibility of jail time, and Ravi now faces the possibility of deportation to his native India.

Although Ravi was found guilty of all four bias intimidation counts, he was not convicted of all the charges within each count.

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:43 pm

Nadukaalai vanakkam DM Smile

!

Ah..I am obviously an outsider!

Seriously, witnessing a roommate having sex in a dorm room (mostly with the opposite gender, and occ with the same gender) is nothing new or unusual and will continue forever.

As technology is dramatically changing ( private acts made public) it can dramatically affect one's life in a matter of secs/mins..is a whole new level and therefore, new ethical/legal questions about privacy arise..cases like these will set some precedent..and the laws/Univ. policies will change as well.

by chameli Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:43 pm

maria,

yes the verdict is fair so far

why should he be deported ? and where ? He has grown up in the US hasnt he If a caucasian kid had done this where would he be deported

if clementi hadnt taken his own life the trial wouldnt even have taken place

bottom line is it was a prank ..but one that ended in tragic consequences

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:55 pm

Chameli,

I can agree that jail term/deportation is too harsh and perhaps dispropotionate..community service and counseling should be enough.

*But, to me this is not just "a prank"..pranks are silly - practical jokes which are basically naughty and do not involve intrusion of privacy-making it public "without consent"..deliberate setting up of equipment- secret taping..establishing a pattern (doing it again and again)..with no regard-respect for the other person's privacy.

*I do feel quite sorry for all families involved- there are no winners.

by chameli Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:03 pm

maria,

college pranks can take on hideous proportions ..remember IIT initiations ? ..many 1st year people have committed suicideor left because they were subjected to hard tests .

invasion of privacy is good for suburban residents ..not college roomies

and who knew this sissy would take his own life ?

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:11 pm

Sure Chameli,

I am very familiar with serious ragging/hazing-initiations and don't endorse that as well..as you know some people "fully recover" from it..others don't..it has affected their psyche forever- and some as you say..go as far as to commit suicide.

I would not call him a sissy..everyone has different sensitivity levels..Clementi was perhaps a very shy and sensitive young man..who was overwhelmed by fear.
*I would call people who bully others/are involved in serious ragging/hazing the real sissies..they have to make someone else feel bad to make themselves feel superior/good. I wish this Molly Wei person..would have put a stop to it by saying it was wrong..and no one else who knew about this, put a stop to it by telling Dharun it was wrong.

Do have some mixed feelings..but, think the verdict is fair.

by Impedimenta Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:03 pm

Kids do dumb things, but by the time you leave high school you should know that dumb things have consequences (two lives ruined, one kid dead).

This guy made tangible, a casual (and unfortunately accepted) homophobia that is pervasive among youth, especially men. I hope this verdict sends a strong message. But you can't read this article without feeling sad for everyone involved...

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:28 pm

Exactly Impedimenta.

It is a sad story, and feel bad for everyone involved.

Also exposes how this age of social media- with no boundaries..how things can spin out of control, Unless people are sensitive, and treat others as they want to be treated..there can be serious consequences. And feeling emotionally cornered/exploited/full of shame like perhaps Clementi did can lead to tragedies. No matter who is right or wrong..sometimes leaving people alone who are sensitive and fragile (pretending to be tough) is good for everyone, imo.

by Hellsangel Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:30 pm

Maria S wrote:Exactly Impedimenta.

It is a sad story, and feel bad for everyone involved.

Also exposes how this age of social media- with no boundaries..how things can spin out of control, Unless people are sensitive, and treat others as they want to be treated..there can be serious consequences. And feeling emotionally cornered/exploited/full of shame like perhaps Clementi did can lead to tragedies. No matter who is right or wrong..sometimes leaving people alone who are sensitive and fragile (pretending to be tough) is good for everyone, imo.

Good Afternoon, Maria!

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:38 pm

GA HA!

I have no problem saying I am def. sensitive, but, not so fragile..try my best to treat others like I want to be treated.

How about you? Are you sensitive? Are you fragile? How would you like to be treated?

by Hellsangel Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:45 pm

Were you pretending to be tough, Maria? This is not about you.

by Maria S Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:04 pm

Not sure..how you percieved what I said (it has been a long week!)..but, glad you got it! Hey, I don't have to pretend I am tough and can't let go stuff on line..will gladly say- tired, had enough..moving on Smile

.

by Guest Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:43 pm

Fair verdict. My guess is that he may not be deported. He may not get 10 yrs either. He probably may get 3-5 yrs of jail sentencing.

It's foolish of him not to have taken the plea bargain. That was just a slap on wrist. 600+ hrs of community service, no jail term, no deportation was a fair deal.

He's been stupid twice and will pay for it.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:55 am

kinnera wrote:Fair verdict. My guess is that he may not be deported. He may not get 10 yrs either. He probably may get 3-5 yrs of jail sentencing.

It's foolish of him not to have taken the plea bargain. That was just a slap on wrist. 600+ hrs of community service, no jail term, no deportation was a fair deal.

He's been stupid twice and will pay for it.

Lady...any GC holder who is convicted of a felony (starting with as low as Peeing on the street) is automatically deported after serving a sentence.

In fact, he has no life in US after this conviction. He is better off returning to India where no one will give a shyt, and he can work or start a company. He should become a biggie like Gates or Ellison and spit at the West.

Jail sentence for videocamming a couple of rich kids having fun in his own room... ? In the meantime the guy who killed 16 kids will get a lesser sentence bcz he is stressed.

Fairness - thy name is Amrikaa

by Kris Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:49 am

'Invasion of privacy' is a valid charge. This' bias intimidation' stuff is nonsense. It is nebulous and the basis for it- how Clementi would have *perceived* ravi's intent- will not hold up in an appellate court. This is getting into dangerous precedence territory and is constitutionally problematic. If you take that away, Ravi would have gotten some kind of community service deal. If Clementi had not committed suicide, this whole thing would have been a matter handled by Rutgers. Ravi would have been on some kind of probation or as a worst case scenario been expelled from Rutgers. There was no charge trying Ravi to the suicide, although the prosecution worked that into their presentation i.e. 'you can't take that into consideration' *nudge, nudge*

I think that this Ravi is a big fool, but this is railroading him. The deportation bugaboo is also exaggerated by the media. Ravi's father could probably set him up nicely in India. I think the focus now will be the appeal.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:33 am

Kris wrote:'Invasion of privacy' is a valid charge. This' bias intimidation' stuff is nonsense. It is nebulous and the basis for it- how Clementi would have *perceived* ravi's intent- will not hold up in an appellate court. This is getting into dangerous precedence territory and is constitutionally problematic. If you take that away, Ravi would have gotten some kind of community service deal. If Clementi had not committed suicide, this whole thing would have been a matter handled by Rutgers. Ravi would have been on some kind of probation or as a worst case scenario been expelled from Rutgers. There was no charge trying Ravi to the suicide, although the prosecution worked that into their presentation i.e. 'you can't take that into consideration' *nudge, nudge*

I think that this Ravi is a big fool, but this is railroading him. The deportation bugaboo is also exaggerated by the media. Ravi's father could probably set him up nicely in India. I think the focus now will be the appeal.

18 yr old COLLEGE kids do crazy things when it comes to sexual matters. 18 yr old making MMS using cell phones and making videos of themselves in crazy situations and posting on YOUTUBE are common and everyone knows it.

Actually, this case is about racism. They let a chinku girl escape and made a showcase out of a Desi kid in NJ at a time of Chris Christie.

30 - 60 yr olde jurors passing judgement by applying grown up laws on an 18 yo secretly indulging in a teenage mischief, and looking through complex race issues is utter non-sense. The guy who jumped off the bridge is a sissy who cannot put up with a few taunts, and he, his parents, and his own crowd should be the ones responsible.

by Kris Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:48 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:'Invasion of privacy' is a valid charge. This' bias intimidation' stuff is nonsense. It is nebulous and the basis for it- how Clementi would have *perceived* ravi's intent- will not hold up in an appellate court. This is getting into dangerous precedence territory and is constitutionally problematic. If you take that away, Ravi would have gotten some kind of community service deal. If Clementi had not committed suicide, this whole thing would have been a matter handled by Rutgers. Ravi would have been on some kind of probation or as a worst case scenario been expelled from Rutgers. There was no charge trying Ravi to the suicide, although the prosecution worked that into their presentation i.e. 'you can't take that into consideration' *nudge, nudge*

I think that this Ravi is a big fool, but this is railroading him. The deportation bugaboo is also exaggerated by the media. Ravi's father could probably set him up nicely in India. I think the focus now will be the appeal.
18 yr old COLLEGE kids do crazy things when it comes to sexual matters. 18 yr old making MMS using cell phones and making videos of themselves in crazy situations and posting on YOUTUBE are common and everyone knows it.

Actually, this case is about racism. They let a chinku girl escape and made a showcase out of a Desi kid in NJ at a time of Chris Christie.

30 - 60 yr olde jurors passing judgement by applying grown up laws on an 18 yo secretly indulging in a teenage mischief, and looking through complex race issues is utter non-sense. The guy who jumped off the bridge is a sissy who cannot put up with a few taunts, and he, his parents, and his own crowd should be the ones responsible.

>>>>I don't know the race situation in NJ as it relates to Indians, but the politics of the issue certainly played into how the charges were framed by the prosecution. The following is from Philly.com
"Annemarie P. McAvoy, an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School,
called the verdict "murky and confusing," however, and said it could
provide the basis for an appeal by Ravi's attorneys.

"The jury appeared to find that Ravi's intentions were not out of
hatred or bias," she said. "But the jurors believed Tyler Clementi
perceived them as such. . . . It's an outrageous standard."
This could open up a whole can of worms, if the bias-intimidation charge is allowed to stand on the basis of Clementi's perception.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:22 am

Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:'Invasion of privacy' is a valid charge. This' bias intimidation' stuff is nonsense. It is nebulous and the basis for it- how Clementi would have *perceived* ravi's intent- will not hold up in an appellate court. This is getting into dangerous precedence territory and is constitutionally problematic. If you take that away, Ravi would have gotten some kind of community service deal. If Clementi had not committed suicide, this whole thing would have been a matter handled by Rutgers. Ravi would have been on some kind of probation or as a worst case scenario been expelled from Rutgers. There was no charge trying Ravi to the suicide, although the prosecution worked that into their presentation i.e. 'you can't take that into consideration' *nudge, nudge*

I think that this Ravi is a big fool, but this is railroading him. The deportation bugaboo is also exaggerated by the media. Ravi's father could probably set him up nicely in India. I think the focus now will be the appeal.
18 yr old COLLEGE kids do crazy things when it comes to sexual matters. 18 yr old making MMS using cell phones and making videos of themselves in crazy situations and posting on YOUTUBE are common and everyone knows it.

Actually, this case is about racism. They let a chinku girl escape and made a showcase out of a Desi kid in NJ at a time of Chris Christie.

30 - 60 yr olde jurors passing judgement by applying grown up laws on an 18 yo secretly indulging in a teenage mischief, and looking through complex race issues is utter non-sense. The guy who jumped off the bridge is a sissy who cannot put up with a few taunts, and he, his parents, and his own crowd should be the ones responsible.

>>>>I don't know the race situation in NJ as it relates to Indians, but the politics of the issue certainly played into how the charges were framed by the prosecution. The following is from Philly.com
"Annemarie P. McAvoy, an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School,
called the verdict "murky and confusing," however, and said it could
provide the basis for an appeal by Ravi's attorneys.

"The jury appeared to find that Ravi's intentions were not out of
hatred or bias," she said. "But the jurors believed Tyler Clementi
perceived them as such. . . . It's an outrageous standard."
This could open up a whole can of worms, if the bias-intimidation charge is allowed to stand on the basis of Clementi's perception.

How I wish I had been on this jury.... is the NJ jury verdicts subject to unanimity or overwhelming majority?

Jury of the peers - of who? bunch of morons...what was the composition of the jury?

As for racism in NJ it is alive, well and kicking...just like the Kashmir jehadi movement, it goes through cycles and rears its head in times of conservative govts. The rich whities resent the rich phoren desis owning fancy homes (as well) and lower level whities blame these rich desis and the poor messicans.

remember the DOT-Busters?

by charvaka Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:54 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The guy who jumped off the bridge is a sissy who cannot put up with a few taunts, and he, his parents, and his own crowd should be the ones responsible.

It is tempting to blame the victim, but the one who broke the law -- and was stupid enough not to take a plea bargain that was on offer -- was Ravi. Reading racial undertones into this seems unnecessary to me. If race was a factor with the prosecution, he wouldn't have gotten such a good plea deal in the first place.

by Maria S Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:01 am

Let's be real..in this is age of social media-except for those who intimidate, bully, spy/stalk people..everyone knows they have crossed the line..and it is morally wrong.

*I doubt that if Clementi was having sex with a woman- Ravi would have been webcasting it on line..and seems like the jury (which was a mixed jury- in composition) believed that perhaps the privacy of a gay person was valued less than heterosexuals.

*Yes, Race (in the US) and other factors always are a consideration..when it comes to shaping the psyche of juries. In this case the jury was mixed, and while an affluent Indian young man..could have evoked some jealousy..him flaunting his wealth calling Clementi "poor"..did not help in these 99% vs. 1% times. While we can blame others..think it is not a great idea for Indian families let their children drive BMWs and other luxury cars to high school to show off and treat others badly.

*Ravi could have taken the stand (I would have advised it) and show his human side..and express how bad he felt..instead of putting his father's wealthy partners as character witnesses.

There is no question that Bullying, including cyber harassment is out of control..this is a landmark case..in that regard- making so called "funny pranks" criminal, including in social media- and everyone takes it more seriously.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201203/fighting-back-against-invisible-epidemic-bullying-in-schools-and

by Hellsangel Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:31 am

Maria S wrote:think it is not a great idea for Indian families let their children drive BMWs and other luxury cars to high school to show off and treat others badly.

Do they?

by Maria S Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:36 am

Apparently they do.

http://www.searchindia.com/tag/dharun-ravi/

*Did you see..how an Indian website..branded him a "Tamil Peeping Tom"..funny how the famous Indian synthesis..sometimes works in India!

Apparently when it's good news..it's an "Indian kid"..

http://www.searchindia.com/2012/03/13/indian-kid-nithin-reddy-tumma-is-winner-of-intel-science-talent-2012-contest/

by Kris Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:43 am

Maria S wrote:Apparently they do.

http://www.searchindia.com/tag/dharun-ravi/

*Did you see..how an Indian website..branded him a "Tamil Peeping Tom"..funny how the famous Indian synthesis..sometimes works in India!

Apparently when it's good news..it's an "Indian kid"..

http://www.searchindia.com/2012/03/13/indian-kid-nithin-reddy-tumma-is-winner-of-intel-science-talent-2012-contest/

>>>A *Tamil* Peeping Tom? Wonder how KV will react to this. There is of course the welcome distancing from Hindians, but on the other hand, the voyeurism is not positive. Yet, on the other hand, the father had friends with Hindian names... .. the mind reels on this one

Smile

by Guest Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:09 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
kinnera wrote:Fair verdict. My guess is that he may not be deported. He may not get 10 yrs either. He probably may get 3-5 yrs of jail sentencing.

It's foolish of him not to have taken the plea bargain. That was just a slap on wrist. 600+ hrs of community service, no jail term, no deportation was a fair deal.

He's been stupid twice and will pay for it.

Lady...any GC holder who is convicted of a felony (starting with as low as Peeing on the street) is automatically deported after serving a sentence.

In fact, he has no life in US after this conviction. He is better off returning to India where no one will give a shyt, and he can work or start a company. He should become a biggie like Gates or Ellison and spit at the West.

Jail sentence for videocamming a couple of rich kids having fun in his own room... ? In the meantime the guy who killed 16 kids will get a lesser sentence bcz he is stressed.

Fairness - thy name is Amrikaa

I read somewhere that Ravi rejected the plea bargain because though the county prosecutors promised him to fight tooth and nail to not have him deported, in reality, they can't (and nobody can, i believe) influence the immigration authorities. So there was a good chance of Ravi getting deported to India after the plea bargain and he took a risk by rejecting the plea bargain with the hope that he may be acquitted of all the charges.

Now that he's convicted of some of the charges, he probably may get deported after completing his sentencing. In fact, getting deported to India isn't a bad situation. He can live without stigma there. Acquitted or convicted, he has no life in US anyway.

I talked to my son briefly y'day, who is the same age as Dharun, about this case (he didn't know abt it). His response: 1. It's very very common for students to have sex with their gf/bfs in the dorm rooms. Nothing unusual there. It's rampant, everyone is aware of it, but it's something that cannot be controlled.
2. Setting up the webcam and recording was fine once. It was a prank and such pranks are pretty common among college kids. Once was fine coz u didn't know what would go on there and how the other person would take it.
3. Repeating it and doing it the second time was in poor taste. He knew that Clementi was upset the first time, so why repeat it again? Repeating it, he feels, is a crime.

by Maria S Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:13 am

Well Kris, it is what it is Smile

!

With Kayal..there is no ambiguity. I do feel conflicted - depending on the issues, when the many identities clash!

by Maria S Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:14 am

Hello Kinnera.

Long time! Good advice.

by Guest Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:15 am

Maria S wrote:Hello Kinnera.

Long time! Good advice.

Hey Maria! Good morning Smile

by Maria S Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:31 am

You too..huh Kinnera..kidding Smile

! Good Morning Kinnera!

by Hellsangel Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:35 pm

Good Morning, Maria!

by Maria S Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:47 pm

Ayyo, Ayye, Angel Ayya!

Bye, bye and have a good day:)!

by Guest Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:48 pm

she said goodbye, I said hello. hello, hello.

by Hellsangel Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:49 pm

Hello, #1!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:32 pm

Saying GM, thank you are western habits - good or bad - and practiced rarely in Indian households or workplace. it is practiced in some christian and super rich families (I doubt).

I have NEVER heard any of my friends or relatives say Good Morning, how was your day on a daily basis either in the house hold or at workplace.[b]

Once or twice I "thanked" my uncle and was blasted for treating him like an outsider.

Just imagining imaging everyone saying GM, how r u this morning in a Hindu marriage hall consisting of 500 relatives or to 20people in a working in an office section.

Of course, there may be different variations - hey wassup? hows it going? got up early?, whats new today, thanks da machi, etc...in an informal way once in a while.

Legal disclaimer: Name, incident, timing, or words do not reflect any real situation, and entirely imaginary for discussion purposes. Any resemblance is purely coincidental and should not be construed as directed at anyone, anything, or any particular incident.... Very Happy

by Kris Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:18 pm

kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
kinnera wrote:Fair verdict. My guess is that he may not be deported. He may not get 10 yrs either. He probably may get 3-5 yrs of jail sentencing.

It's foolish of him not to have taken the plea bargain. That was just a slap on wrist. 600+ hrs of community service, no jail term, no deportation was a fair deal.

He's been stupid twice and will pay for it.

Lady...any GC holder who is convicted of a felony (starting with as low as Peeing on the street) is automatically deported after serving a sentence.

In fact, he has no life in US after this conviction. He is better off returning to India where no one will give a shyt, and he can work or start a company. He should become a biggie like Gates or Ellison and spit at the West.

Jail sentence for videocamming a couple of rich kids having fun in his own room... ? In the meantime the guy who killed 16 kids will get a lesser sentence bcz he is stressed.

Fairness - thy name is Amrikaa

I read somewhere that Ravi rejected the plea bargain because though the county prosecutors promised him to fight tooth and nail to not have him deported, in reality, they can't (and nobody can, i believe) influence the immigration authorities. So there was a good chance of Ravi getting deported to India after the plea bargain and he took a risk by rejecting the plea bargain with the hope that he may be acquitted of all the charges.

Now that he's convicted of some of the charges, he probably may get deported after completing his sentencing. In fact, getting deported to India isn't a bad situation. He can live without stigma there. Acquitted or convicted, he has no life in US anyway.

I talked to my son briefly y'day, who is the same age as Dharun, about this case (he didn't know abt it). His response: 1. It's very very common for students to have sex with their gf/bfs in the dorm rooms. Nothing unusual there. It's rampant, everyone is aware of it, but it's something that cannot be controlled.
2. Setting up the webcam and recording was fine once. It was a prank and such pranks are pretty common among college kids. Once was fine coz u didn't know what would go on there and how the other person would take it.
3. Repeating it and doing it the second time was in poor taste. He knew that Clementi was upset the first time, so why repeat it again? Repeating it, he feels, is a crime.

>>>>>The 'deportation to india' bandied about about by many letter-writers to forums shows you the cluelessness of the writers. Ravi may do quite well for himself there, given (presumably) his father's industry contacts and his own computer-savvy.

On the matter of the charges, there is an invasion of privacy issue here definitely, although this would not have been elevated to the courts if Clementi had not killed himself. It is a crime, albeit I think at the misdemeanor level, which would have meant community service. The bias-intimidation charge is absurd. This would be kind of like Ravi turning the tables and saying the state of NJ had a bias against him because he was an upper middle class immigrant's son and therefore, intimidated him with the charges in court. Let's say the judge issues the likely finding this is not the case. What if Ravi then turns around and says it does not matter,,this was *his* perception and therefore the state has culpability. Absurd as this is, this is what the rulings in this case mean on the bias-intimidation charge by the jury. He was acquitted of bias or malicious intent toward Clementi but found guilty on the count of how Clementi would have perceived this. The charge should essentially be 'Was there bias? And was there intimidation based on that bias?' For there to be a conviction on this charge, the answer to both questions has to be a 'yes'.

Incidentally, the jurors cannot be faulted on this, since the charges were drafted by the prosecution. Ii would not have been within the jurors' purview to question the legal validity of the charges. That will have to be taken up by an appellate court. This appeal will turn out to be a landmark event from a legal standpoint given the far-reaching implications i.e: guilt based on perceptions, which more or less boil down to 'he said- she said' routines.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:30 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>>>The 'deportation to india' bandied about about by many letter-writers to forums shows you the cluelessness of the writers. Ravi may do quite well for himself there, given (presumably) his father's industry contacts and his own computer-savvy.

On the matter of the charges, there is an invasion of privacy issue here definitely, although this would not have been elevated to the courts if Clementi had not killed himself. It is a crime, albeit I think at the misdemeanor level, which would have meant community service. The bias-intimidation charge is absurd. This would be kind of like Ravi turning the tables and saying the state of NJ had a bias against him because he was an upper middle class immigrant's son and therefore, intimidated him with the charges in court. Let's say the judge issues the likely finding this is not the case. What if Ravi then turns around and says it does not matter,,this was *his* perception and therefore the state has culpability. Absurd as this is, this is what the rulings in this case mean on the bias-intimidation charge by the jury. He was acquitted of bias or malicious intent toward Clementi but found guilty on the count of how Clementi would have perceived this. The charge should essentially be 'Was there bias? And was there intimidation based on that bias?' For there to be a conviction on this charge, the answer to both questions has to be a 'yes'.

Incidentally, the jurors cannot be faulted on this, since the charges were drafted by the prosecution. Ii would not have been within the jurors' purview to question the legal validity of the charges. That will have to be taken up by an appellate court. This appeal will turn out to be a landmark event from a legal standpoint given the far-reaching implications i.e: guilt based on perceptions, which more or less boil down to 'he said- she said' routines.

Hope he fights the case all the way to the SC and make a name for himself in American history. Like you said, none of this would have been a crime if Clementi had not died or if he had not been white.

What next? start prosecuting the pro-lifers, ant-abortionists, pro-druggists, anti-druggists, anti-tall people, anti-short people and all other kinds? Any suicide can be (at least loosely) connect to some kind of bias and discrimination.

Like someone cited an expert opinion the jurors claim there was no bias and later claim convict him on bias charges. Shows the weakness of the case and the gray area in which confused jurors had to discuss.

by Guest Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:50 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>>>The 'deportation to india' bandied about about by many letter-writers to forums shows you the cluelessness of the writers. Ravi may do quite well for himself there, given (presumably) his father's industry contacts and his own computer-savvy.

On the matter of the charges, there is an invasion of privacy issue here definitely, although this would not have been elevated to the courts if Clementi had not killed himself. It is a crime, albeit I think at the misdemeanor level, which would have meant community service. The bias-intimidation charge is absurd. This would be kind of like Ravi turning the tables and saying the state of NJ had a bias against him because he was an upper middle class immigrant's son and therefore, intimidated him with the charges in court. Let's say the judge issues the likely finding this is not the case. What if Ravi then turns around and says it does not matter,,this was *his* perception and therefore the state has culpability. Absurd as this is, this is what the rulings in this case mean on the bias-intimidation charge by the jury. He was acquitted of bias or malicious intent toward Clementi but found guilty on the count of how Clementi would have perceived this. The charge should essentially be 'Was there bias? And was there intimidation based on that bias?' For there to be a conviction on this charge, the answer to both questions has to be a 'yes'.

Incidentally, the jurors cannot be faulted on this, since the charges were drafted by the prosecution. Ii would not have been within the jurors' purview to question the legal validity of the charges. That will have to be taken up by an appellate court. This appeal will turn out to be a landmark event from a legal standpoint given the far-reaching implications i.e: guilt based on perceptions, which more or less boil down to 'he said- she said' routines.

Good points, Kris. Another thing is that Clementi
disclosed his sexual orientation to his parents a few days before this
incident /suicide. I believe his mom was very upset abt it. The
non-acceptance (or rejection) of his sexual orientation by his mom
could've been pretty traumatic and depressing. That could also be one of the reasons for him to have committed suicide. Can the mom be held responsible and charged with bias?
Had the mom accepted him being gay wholeheartedly, the kid wouldn't have been depressed and would've been confident enough to face any kind of ridicule or pranks played by others. All ifs and buts!

by MulaiAzhagi Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:50 pm

The Star-Ledger editorial board got it right.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/03/dharun_ravi_doesnt_deserve_pri.html

by MulaiAzhagi Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:58 pm

Also if you think Ravi does not deserve jail sentence, please sign the petition.

http://wh.gov/NM1

by Guest Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:51 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:The Star-Ledger editorial board got it right.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/03/dharun_ravi_doesnt_deserve_pri.html

ouch at one comment:

Dolores1982 March 18, 2012 at 2:10PM wrote:

This petition campaign is insane, and represents again the arrogance of the Indian community. They need a good bucket of cold water. The kid was guilty.

we are arrogant?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:02 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:The Star-Ledger editorial board got it right.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/03/dharun_ravi_doesnt_deserve_pri.html

ouch at one comment:

Dolores1982 March 18, 2012 at 2:10PM wrote:

This petition campaign is insane, and represents again the arrogance of the Indian community. They need a good bucket of cold water. The kid was guilty.

we are arrogant?

That is grounds for a racial discrimination case...and throw her in the slammer.

by Guest Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 pm

Dunno, around 1998-99, when I was still new here, had met an old school teacher. And she had said she loved all Indian kids in her school, as that was the most obedient, polite, and respecting group. And I used to hear similar sentiments all over.

When did we go from that to arrogant?

by Another Brick Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:29 am

MulaiAzhagi wrote:Also if you think Ravi does not deserve jail sentence, please sign the petition.

http://wh.gov/NM1

damn these online petitions. nothing is more useless than these online petitions. anyone who thinks that an online petition can achieve something (except a false sense of accomplishment) is delusional.

by CB Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:34 pm

This whole case was blown out of proportion and unfortunately, Ravi became the poster boy for punishment on this issue. There's a good op-ed in NY Times today - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/opinion/make-the-punishment-fit-the-cyber-crime.html?hp

Really, if Clementi did not die, this would've been escalated to college judicial board for invasion of privacy. At the most, Ravi would've been expelled from college and no one would know or care. Unfortunately, it turned for the worse.

Ravi was an a*hole, but there are probably a lot worse things happening on college campuses. The 10 years is too severe and I hope this gets cleared. Yeah, if he gets to India, he'll be able to get a job somewhere. But this is not what his family ever expected. Heart goes out to them.

by chameli Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:47 pm

hi CB,

definitely ravi got a bigger punishment than he deserved .

.there are several petitions online in his defence asking for clemency ..

ha ha with clementi being the victim ..rather ironic

by CB Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:13 pm

Chameli,
I'm part of the group that doesn't believe in online petitions. I did one recently for a local school board, but that's different. At this level, the opinion of the people have no push. Online petitions only work if there's money at stake.

by Sponsored content