Dharun Ravi Found Guilty in Rutgers Trial

[Infohawk]

yes he would. that would be so very funny also.

He wouldn't have. If you read the New Yorker article Ravi is very concerned with being cool. If some frat bro was banging a hot chick in his room he'd want to give him space and be buddies with him.

And if you think it's funny you're basically admitting to being immature if not unethical. Why should anyone listen to have to say in that case?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

He isn't going to get 10 years. The article says a possible 5-10. He'll likely get 3-5 at most, and serve 2-3. He also may get concurrent sentences and be out in less time than that.

Be wary of news articles which mention statutory maximum penalties before sentencing. The defendants almost never get anywhere near that.

Hopefully its just a few years and then we deport his ass back to India. We dont need to be wasting our tax dollars on criminal immigrants.

 

[Darwin333]

I tend to think "hate crimes" are kinda bullshit.. but this one kind of makes sense with what they were trying to do by putting those laws on the books.

These kids purposefully tried to humiliate a homosexual in a pretty horrible reprehensible way and that act was directly responsible for that person's suicide.

First of all, the act that was directly responsible for the persons suicide is him committing suicide. I find it hard to believe that the guy intended to push him to commit suicide. Yes, he tried to use his homosexuality to humiliate him but in no way can I see how that is a "hate crime".

If the purpose of hate crimes is to make punishments more severe and there fore to discourage the activity in the future, than this fits. Bullshit law or not.

What activity would that be? Just spying on a gay person is a hate crime? Pulling a horrible joke on a gay person is a hate crime but the same exact thing done to a non-protected class isn't? Or if a protected class commits suicide partly because of actions someone take is that a hate crime? What if those actions are technically legal, is it still a hate crime?

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, he tried to use his homosexuality to humiliate him but in no way can I see how that is a "hate crime".

When you only do something because of the person's identity, it seems fair to consider it a hate crime. Again, would this guy have made such a big deal about it if it was some frat guy banging a girl? No, he would have been like, "yeah cool bro." Read the New Yorker article if you don't believe that's what Ravi was like.

What activity would that be? Just spying on a gay person is a hate crime?

No spying on someone and humiliating them BECAUSE they are gay is.

Or if a protected class commits suicide partly because of actions someone take is that a hate crime? What if those actions are technically legal, is it still a hate crime?

As with a lot of people in this thread, you're mixing things up. Yes, a lot of people might hold Ravi morally responsible for the suicide. I do and have explained why. But legally he's not being charged with murder, manslaughter or anything like that. There's the invasion of privacy charge and then the aggravating aspect that he only did it because his roommate was gay.

 

[5150Joker]

Was just about to post this but you beat me to it.

I am appalled at the outcome of this trial.

What Ravi did was reprehensible in terms of humiliating his roommate. However, it in no way constitutes a 'hate crime'. This guy was made an example of; just like Rajaratnam was made an example of 'insider trading'.

I hate to think of it this way but I can't help but feel that since Ravi was a brown guy, the jury, as well as public opinion, was almost completely unsympathetic towards him.

What he did was utterly stupid and uncouth. Yet, ten years in (ass-pounding) prison? Holy fucking shit! That is just so extreme. It harkens back to a time when a black would kiss a white girl and get lynched for it not too long ago in this 'great' country.

Too bad his life is destroyed and more importantly, the peace of mind of his family. I really feel for his parents and the embarrassment they must be undergoing.

If he was white I guarantee you the jury would have been far more lenient. The fact that he was a brown immigrant undoubtedly played into the minds of this jury in convicting him so harshly. Don't expect a fair trial in the US unless you're loaded or white. Well not until Mexicans become the majority, then it'll become a bit easier for brown people

 

[senseamp]

And immigration judges are looking for violent felons to deport, not prankster kids.

I'm sure that people get deported for like embezzlement or malpractice or other white collar crimes, but you will likely not see a prosecutor writing a supporting letter in such cases.

Consistency is overrated anyways.

 

[Infohawk]

The fact that he was a brown immigrant undoubtedly played into the minds of this jury in convicting him so harshly.

You don't have any evidence for this. And you're either convicted or not. The jury does not hand down sentences. You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

[micrometers]

Consistency is overrated anyways.

malpractice and embezzlement are not "pranks"

 

[0roo0roo]

Eh slacked on following this case...
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/21/a-hateless-hate-crime
Thought they would get their heads screwed on right before it ended, guess not.

 

[Infohawk]

Eh slacked on following this case...
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/21/a-hateless-hate-crime
Thought they would get their heads screwed on right before it ended, guess not.

Would Ravi have taped his roommate and made a big deal about this if his roommate wasn't gay? I don't think so. It makes sense that this is a hate crime.

 

[0roo0roo]

Would Ravi have taped his roommate and made a big deal about this if his roommate wasn't gay? I don't think so. It makes sense that this is a hate crime.

Sorry no, if you have a creepy depressed introvert roommate who brings back older lovers into your shared dorm room then anyone would be a bit weirded out, let alone at his young age.

trying to pretend this is a hate crime when all the facts don't agree with you shows how f***ed up it is, you need it to be something its not...and thats why justice has become perverted in this case.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry no, if you have a creepy depressed introvert roommate who brings back older lovers into your shared dorm room then anyone would be a bit weirded out, let alone at his young age.

trying to pretend this is a hate crime when all the facts don't agree with you shows how f***ed up it is, you need it to be something its not...and thats why justice has become perverted in this case.

Who cares if you'd be weirded out? The issue is whether he would have taped a straight roommate. Read the New Yorker article about Ravi. It's clear he would not have taped a frat dude who brought an older milf back to bang.

 

[cybrsage]

While I think there should be no hate crimes, just regular crimes, the guy did this BECAUSE the dude was gay. He did it to harm him due to being gay. This perfectly fits into the category of hate crimes, so he is guilty of a hate crime.

Like I said, they should simply double all penalties for crimes and be done with it, but since they do have hate crimes, it is obvious this guy is guilty.

 

[rchiu]

First of all, the act that was directly responsible for the persons suicide is him committing suicide. I find it hard to believe that the guy intended to push him to commit suicide. Yes, he tried to use his homosexuality to humiliate him but in no way can I see how that is a "hate crime".



What activity would that be? Just spying on a gay person is a hate crime? Pulling a horrible joke on a gay person is a hate crime but the same exact thing done to a non-protected class isn't? Or if a protected class commits suicide partly because of actions someone take is that a hate crime? What if those actions are technically legal, is it still a hate crime?

There are many actions that are technically legal but led to death/seriously injury/lost of property...etc, and the consequence many not be as severe as actions that was intended to do harm, but still you would be guilty for lesser crime. For example, voluntary manslaughter vs. involuntary manslaughter. You can be doing what's technically legal but resulted in death, you could face involuntary manslaughter charge.

It's not that hard, look at the case as you normally would and decide on guilt. If the case was initiated because of bias, be it race, gender, sexual orientation or any other bias, it becomes hate crime and whatever the guilt/punishment is handed out, it becomes more severe. Like this case, the action resulted in death, probably involuntary, and the action was initiated because of the victim's sexual orientation, it is a hate crime by every definition.