Dharun Ravi Indicted in Tyler Clementi Suicide

[Rolyo85]

Broadcasting what on the internet?

"Lol, check out my roommate getting it on with another dude!" is a proof of what exactly? That he was aware his actions could drive Tyler over the edge? Was he aware of Tyler being so close to the edge?

Nobody here says Dharun Ravi wasn't a monstrously insensitive asshole obsessed with his own image of coolness. But from that to "deliberately destroying somebody's life" there is a chasm of difference, and this whole process has been about determining exactly that - intentions.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's nice. So by broadcasting what his roommate was doing on the internet he didn't cause harm?

HUGE fallacy here. We were discussing his intentions, NOT whether he caused harm or not. And he was also not judged for causing harm btw, but that's beside the point.

Prosecutor thinks otherwise and he's the one with all the evidence and access to the evidence. You're just making character assumptions without any proof. Ravi did destroy his life... and that was demonstrated by his actions.. and it's interesting to note how he has showed a complete lack of remorse.

False. We have two actions:

1. Dharun Ravi spied on his roommate making out with a dude.

2. His roommate committed suicide.


The connection between the two is not hard, but it is also not a given, and there was enough in this story - Tylers actions prior to him committing suicide - to make it dubious.

So who's making assumptions here, really?

 

[Rolyo85]

It's just not. Nothing about this case has been simple. But whatever. You are not capable of even considering the fact that Ravi might not be the cause of Tyler's suicide, so I guess you know better than all the rest of us. More power to you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Uh huh. There was talk he could have faced up to 60 years... but I guess that was just speculation.

if the sentences were served consecutively instead of concurrently, it could have been done... but it seems like it's never sentenced that way except for truly heinous crimes (eg: serial killers)

Yes. If I recall my research from earlier correctly, the moment the judge decided to apply the "next lesser sentence" option, he ended any possibility of consecutive sentences.

And that's a good thing -- consecutive sentences are too easy to impose. They should never be possible for multiple charges for a single action.

 

[chance1]

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.

short
sweet
accurate

the rest is ...................

the counter argument is patently absurd and has no basis in "truth"

 

[jackoroe]

The maximum was 10 years, which is not decades.

There were a total of 15 charges Ravi was found guilty of. There are two methods of imposing sentence. Concurrent, which means you do all the time for all the crimes at once. That means the maximum would be ten years. The second is called consecutive. You do time for one crime. When your done with that, you do time for the next crime. So, he could theoretically could be in jail for many decades. Since the judge was permitted to sentence him for a third degree instead of the second degree he was convicted of, there is no assumption of incarceration. The prosecutor does have a statutory window of opportunity to appeal, but they rarely increase a sentence.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's just not? That's just another assumption. You are just trying to make excuses... why? Is it because of Ravi's background? Where did I say I know better than all the rest of us? Many people here agree with me. Don't tell me what I am capable of thinking or considering. You just simply presented me with nothing.

I will tell you what you are capable of thinking and considering, because that's what you're showing here. I don't have to present you with anything, the assumption that Dharun Ravi is another human being who deserves the benefit of the doubt should be a default setting, not something I should be convincing you of.

And I'm not trying to make excuses. Everyone who wrote anything on the subject of this case pointed out that the biggest problem in it is that it is based almost exclusively in what Ravi might have been thinking at the time. The biggest charge was bias intimidation, and considering the nature of the crime, it was very hard to be proven with certainty.

There was NOTHING simple about this case. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[hotatlboi]

I do think the sentence is a bit light, but in cases like this if you subscribe to the view that the Justice system should be more about rehabilitation than punishment, I think it's clear that Ravi will probably never say a bad thing about another gay person in his life. I do not think that the evidence showed he was particularly homophobic, just that he was out to harass and possibly embarrass Clementi which was of course terrible, but not unlike many other pranks that occur in college. I don't think his life should be destroyed just because Clementi offed himself (which was not the issue the court was considering).

 

[hotatlboi]

Well when people get sentenced more for stealing or smoking weed... I question the validity of this punishment. What about the rehabilitation for those who got caught in the 3 strikes rule (like shop lifting three times and getting sentenced to 20 years).

Well personally I think the penalty for smoking weed should be nothing, so I can't argue with that.

As far as the three strikes rule, I think the logic there is that, they've had several chances and haven't availed themselves of the opportunity to turn their lives around so it's better for the community if they are just not out in public. But I think a lot of the problem there is that most prisons are not really focused on rehabilitation and a lot of the time because of that prisoners who come out of them are not really that changed and haven't been given the direction to improve themselves.

 

[bankside]

I'm totally in favour of three strikes laws actually. I wish we had that in Canada. If you haven't figured out that crime is wrong after the first two trials, the first two attempts at rehabilitation, what's the point?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm totally in favour of three strikes laws actually. I wish we had that in Canada. If you haven't figured out that crime is wrong after the first two trials, the first two attempts at rehabilitation, what's the point?

FWIW, the guy who got the first "three strikes" law passed has, after watching the way it goes, decided it was a bad idea.

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm totally in favour of three strikes laws actually. I wish we had that in Canada. If you haven't figured out that crime is wrong after the first two trials, the first two attempts at rehabilitation, what's the point?

If the system of incarceration was actually focused on being a rehabilitation program I would agree, that's often not the case though.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the system of incarceration was actually focused on being a rehabilitation program I would agree, that's often not the case though.

Yeah. Only those with money and/or connections get into the rehab programs. A guy here in Oregon is trying to change that, but he can only reach a half dozen inmates at once.

 

[backpacker]

Tyler's family didn't want Ravi to go to jail. The victim's family gets to make a statement to the court as to how the crime impacts on them in NJ. The judge apparently gave great weight to their wishes.

There are no winners here. The court's decision is what it is.

This statement isn't accurate. While Tyler's family initially agreed to no jail time for Dharun, it was in large part to spare themselves and M.B. the pain of a trial. At sentencing they spoke about all the pain the trial caused and felt like Tyler was victimized again. They never asked the judge to be lenient or harsh. They had a press conference planned for after the sentencing, which was cancelled after hearing the sentencing. My take is that they weren't at all happy with the lenient sentence.

 

[backpacker]

if the sentences were served consecutively instead of concurrently, it could have been done... but it seems like it's never sentenced that way except for truly heinous crimes (eg: serial killers)

This is wrong. 10 years was the maximum is served consecutively. He was facing over 60 years if the sentence was concurrent.

 

[backpacker]

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.

This is wrong. Dharun was convicted of all 15 charges he was charged with.

While judges are given discretion, there is a presumption of prison time of 5 to 10 years for a second degree conviction. As attorneys who practice in New Jersey have said, that means 99.9% of the time those convicted of a second degree crime get prison time. Judges are suppose to use discretion when it would be a clear injustice to follow the presumption. Typically we are talking about things like someone who is terminally ill with a few months to live. It certainly should apply to some with multiple second degree convictions and who was convicted of a total of 15 felonies. It certainly shouldn't apply to someone who destroyed evidence, fabricated false documents and tampered with witnesses. While it was clear that the judge didn't agree with the bias law or the conviction, I don't know how the cover up alone wouldn't warrant serious prison time. In addition to providing judges some discretion in sentencing, the law also provides for an appeal process when the prosecutors believe the judge is wrong. I certainly hope the appeal process works as 30 days is a joke.

 

[backpacker]

There were a total of 15 charges Ravi was found guilty of. There are two methods of imposing sentence. Concurrent, which means you do all the time for all the crimes at once. That means the maximum would be ten years. The second is called consecutive. You do time for one crime. When your done with that, you do time for the next crime. So, he could theoretically could be in jail for many decades. Since the judge was permitted to sentence him for a third degree instead of the second degree he was convicted of, there is no assumption of incarceration. The prosecutor does have a statutory window of opportunity to appeal, but they rarely increase a sentence.

One error in the above. The judge decided, prior to the start of the trial, to treat one of the second degree charges as a third degree charge. Dharun was convicted of two other second degree charges that did carry a presumption of prison time (5 to 10 years).

 

[backpacker]

This is wrong. 10 years was the maximum is served consecutively. He was facing over 60 years if the sentence was concurrent.

Did I mess that up or what. I guess I'm getting tired. It's 10 years if served concurrently, over 60 years if served consecutively.

 

[evanrick]

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.

tyler and ravi were both fucked up.

i watched the interview with ravi and the verdicts and ravi's WHOLE defense is based upon

"i didnt do anything wrong because its normal to bully gay people, because society does it, i blame society, so id rather take my chances with a trial"

so if your siding with ravi you are basically accepting that you are a 2nd class citizen.

the length of his jailtime would have been longer if society was ready to accept hate crime as actual hate. its a extra factor beyond normal motivation but this judge didnt seem to see it that way.

 

[Rolyo85]

I'm more than a little tired of repeating that I'm not siding with Ravi. I'm just not frothing at the mouth about ruining his life more than it's already been ruined. Jail time serves absolutely NO purpose in this case.