Dharun Ravi Indicted in Tyler Clementi Suicide

[jackoroe]

Artistic flair? Or rather an attempt to discredit an opposing argument without any proof?

You are against the proper legal punishment handed down in accordance to the law? That's your own prerogative. A 30 day sentence is a slap on a wrist, and it is likely he won't even serve that. How is my sentence laughable? A 30 day sentence isn't sending a strong message. In fact the sentence violates legal procedure. The charges demanded a certain minimum.

Wrecking somebody's life? Who cares about Ravi's life? He wrecked someone else's life. Do you care about that? I guess not.

No, there are no mandatory minimums on any of the charges he was found guilty of. The sentence does not violate legal procedure, or even the sentencing guidelines. Judges in NJ have quite a bit of discretion in handing down a sentence. You're wrong.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, his parents are also angry. But they WERE against him getting the maximum sentence. And again - it is clear Tyler was troubled. As Savage says (please read the article I linked, it's not his, but it quotes him), blaming Ravi for everything only means we won't learn from what happened, because he was only the final straw of an obviously bigger problem.

 

[jackoroe]

I said the punishment does not fit the conviction. This is why the prosecutors are appealing the decision, regardless of what Jackoroe has said (without proof I must add).

Tell you what. Here's what you claimed as being the case.

In fact the sentence violates legal procedure. The charges demanded a certain minimum

I called you on it, now prove it.

 

[bankside]

This sentence bothers me because there is no way to ascertain Mr. Clementi's motivations or state of mind when he chose to jump off of the GW bridge. He is dead and cannot be questioned. Justice demands that an accused be able to face his accuser in open court. The suppositions of the GLBT community do not come without a grain of salt...you are not impartial.

Maybe Mr. Ravi is just a homophobic, heterosexual prick, or at least the archetype. It sure is quick and easy and, oh, so satisfying to think that, but there is no way we can know that.

Maybe Mr. Clementi had other issues that pushed him over the brink. Perhaps he had problems that led to suicide that were completely unrelated to his betrayal. We will never know.

But let me ask everyone -- let's say that Tyler Clementi DIDN'T commit suicide. Let's say that Tyler Clementi changed his mind at the last minute & chose NOT to jump off the bridge, and went back to Rutgers.

There is a principle in law, the name of which I forget, which is that you can't use your victim's weakness as a defence. If you mug an old lady and push her over and her pelvis cracks and she dies after two agonizing months in hospital, you can't claim that a sturdier victim would have been okay, or that "On average a victim would not have their hips broken by my gentle shove when I was stealing the purse."

Tyler's pre-existing mental state, if that was even a factor, would be no defence whatsoever to whatever charges could directly relate to the evidence at hand. If Tyler had linked his action even more directly to his roommates abusive actions, the roommate could likely have been convicted on even more serious charges.

realistically, though, if Tyler hadn't killed himself and this wasn't a national story, (rightly or wrongly) it probably never would have elevated beyond dorm hall drama (and maybe Ravi getting expelled)

Unfortunate but true.

 

[jackoroe]

'
Odd. You demand proof, yet haven't backed up what you have said.

Your claim is absolute bullshit. Now prove me wrong. Cite for us all, what legal basis you have for claiming the sentence is in violation of legal procedure and what this mythical minimum sentence would be. I'll even make it easy for you. Here's the court rules to help you make your argument that the sentence was wrong as a matter of legal procedure.

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Here are the sentencing guidelines, also known as NJSA 2C:43 & 44.

NJ Criminal Statutes – 2C:43-1. Degrees of crimes in New Jersey – NJ Criminal Law

I'm feeling real generous, so scope out 2C:44-1f2.

(2) In cases of convictions for crimes of the first or second degree where the court is clearly convinced that the mitigating factors substantially outweigh the aggravating factors and where the interest of justice demands, the court may sentence the defendant to a term appropriate to a crime of one degree lower than that of the crime for which he was convicted.* If the court does impose sentence pursuant to this paragraph, or if the court imposes a noncustodial or probationary sentence upon conviction for a crime of the first or second degree, such sentence shall not become final for 10 days in order to permit the appeal of such sentence by the prosecution.

Now, Perry Mason, figure out and explain why a sentence of 30 days is in compliance with the statutory authority in the law. We'll all be waiting anxiously.

 

[pat grimshaw]

fair enough

 

[jackoroe]

Agreed, that's fair enough. I have no issue with them sentencing him to the maximum or minimum. That's why we have judges. And they shouldn't be swayed by public opinion, just by what the law says.

 

[Ninja108]

Ten years would have been too much. But I still feel that 30 days is a joke. One to three years would not have been harsh at all.

 

[JB3]

Ten years would have been too much. But I still feel that 30 days is a joke. One to three years would not have been harsh at all.

Listen to the sentencing or read the transcript. When you do, you'll understand why the judge sentenced him as he did.

Regardless, what ALL of you are missing is that, sentence or not, Ravi's life is ruined. It might not be a sentence in jail, but it certainly is a whole different (and I would argue, harsher) sentence.

 

[JB3]

I'm not really concerned by Ravi's life being ruined... he should have thought about that prior to invading Tyler's privacy in the way he did and committed various crimes (including hindering prosecution). I think the Judge was a bit incoherent in his reasoning... though I will concede he was under no requirement to implement a minimum sentence (that was my mistake). The prosecutors are appealing the sentence are they not? Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan said the sentence was much too short. They obviously believe in their case and thinks it deserves a tougher sentence.

Prosecutors to appeal 30-day sentence in Rutgers web-spying case

His reasoning was that Ravi was not convicted of the most serious charges and that, while his actions did result in harm, what he was convicted of did not merit the full sentence.

 

[farmguy]

And hopefully the nasty little cunt Miss Molly Wei will spend a good part of her life seeking redemption.



I am at lost to understand why you would use such prejudicial insults when describing a woman. These kind of words sound very familiar to the those who throw homophobic slurs at gay folks. Is this a joke?

 

[Joshua_me]

Agreed, that's fair enough. I have no issue with them sentencing him to the maximum or minimum. That's why we have judges. And they shouldn't be swayed by public opinion, just by what the law says.

Yes, jack, you're quite right. That's why we have judges, (who we all KNOW can *never* be influenced by outside forces)

Of course, had it been your son that flung himself off of that bridge I'm sure you'd be of the same mindset.

Standing firm, eyes blindfolded with the scales of "justice" held out in front of you.

 

[jackoroe]

Yes, jack, you're quite right. That's why we have judges, (who we all KNOW can *never* be influenced by outside forces)

Of course, had it been your son that flung himself off of that bridge I'm sure you'd be of the same mindset.

Standing firm, eyes blindfolded with the scales of "justice" held out in front of you.

Our judges don't stand for election, so they aren't as susceptible to public opinion as those who need to be re-elected. Of course we wouldn't expect anyone who had a personal stake in the matter to act in a detached way. Tyler's family did conduct themselves with quiet dignity. They expressed their view that Ravi shouldn't be severely punished and didn't call for his head on a pike. They trusted the judicial process and behaved just as you suggested I wouldn't. I don't know how they did it, but they did. I pray they find peace.

 

[White Eagle]

30 days is not enough. 5-10 years and the judge says it is not right to deport him.
I think he needs to be deported.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...I think he needs to be deported.

I wish it were that easy.

 

[Rolyo85]

What did he do, specifically? I am not being a douche, I just want to clarify for myself how you actually perceive his actions.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's nice to see the judge being merciful and having regard for Ravi's future.

OTOH, the sentence is ridiculously light. I'd leave it essentially as is, though, with a couple of changes:

1. two more 30-day periods in jail, at times of which Ravi would not be warned, the only limitation being that they wouldn't interfere with his ability to sit for exams.

2. up to four visits a year by INS agents to inspect his dwelling, plus the possibility of taking Ravi for questioning.

3. suspended fine of another $10,000, dependent on good behavior -- Ravi behaves himself for the three years of probation, it disappears.


My point would be to teach him something of the uncertainty and fear he inflicted.

 

[Rolyo85]

off the top of my head, witness/evidence tampering and illegally recording someone without their permission (and a "bias intimidation motivation" to add to it)

I was asking Giancarlo specifically, as he seems to believe that Ravi was this monstrous abuser who lived with the sole purpose of destroying an innocent gay boy's life, which is anything but the case. Sadly, he has now informed me that he is ignoring me, so I will never get an answer. Kids ^_^

As for the tampering, I know what the law says but COME THE FUCK ON! Imagine yourself in this situation. I don't know how old you are, but I was of college age until very recently. What do you do when you realize something you did was not just more stupid than you thought, but could have legal repercussions? Do you calmly say to yourself "I should just let the penal system take its course and hope for the best"? Hell no! Your first response would be "fuck, I should hide this, and hope the storm passes me by!" It is the most natural response one can expect of a college kid who realizes he's fucked it up big time.

Which is to say - yes, he did tamper with evidence and witnesses, but saying it with those words makes it seem like a calculated plan, instead of the panicked flailing it obviously was. And a good judge would see that distinction as well.

In the end, whether he is legally an adult or not, Dharun Ravi is still a kid. The law says he can be punished as any other adult criminal, but that doesn't mean that the punishment should be as severe as if he was aware of the repercussions of his actions. He was not. And justice might be blind, but it isn't stupid.

Personally, I like Kuli's sentence.

 

[Rolyo85]

Do you have proof he was aware? Do you have proof he destroyed Tyler's life?

There are no facts to go with here. The kid is dead, and nobody here is in the other kid's head. Your claims are just as unbased in fact as mine. You're just more angry about them.

 

[hotatlboi]

he could have actually been facing decades behind bars

The maximum was 10 years, which is not decades.