Remember, I'm a homophobic h8-er! (Dharun Ravi sentencing)

[Stevinator]

Perhaps, but he still taped someone having sex without their knowledge, and then distributed it. that circumstance alone should land him on the sexual predators list.

[krischan]

He only is one if he did it to satisfy his sexual desires. You could put him onto the "biggest scumbags" list, however.

It was a violation of somebody else's privacy, no more, no less. The suicide is an indicator that it's about the most serious kind of violation of that kind, so I would expect something around the maximum possible punishment. If that's 5-10 years of jail, as jmervyn said, then it has to be that much. It also feels right for things which can destroy the lives of others, not just through suicide.

[jmervyn]

I can't really answer for the entire agenda behind hate crime legislation, but there is some sound thought to it. The problem is that it's so hard to prove. It's a bit like affirmative action. Affirmative action is discrimination by definition, but is done for the greater good (I'm not going to argue if this is the case or not).

Oh, Cerberus, you're going to have fun around here! Are you familiar with the American political belief of "Libertarianism"?

We know that discrimination has an extremely negative effect on society as a whole and I suppose the idea is to counter that by punishing crime motivated by hatred harder.

However, discrimination erodes over time unless protected or nurtured by the society, often for and through politics. American racism, trumpeted the world over in order to distract from the far deeper racism found in other countries, was eroding quickly back in the 1900's in no small part thanks to Capitalism. There were numerous black congressmen, healthy black-owned companies, vibrant black scientific and political thought, and there were even heroic black cowboys. It was thanks to President Wilson's leadership that the racism recognized today even exists.

It's about what outcome you can expect something to have. Even if outing him might be problematic in that community and Ravi did it with that in mind, a suicide is pretty far beyond the consequences you can reasonably expect imo.

I'll agree that Ravi's motives were purely malevolent in nature, and were not geared towards a particular end. I don't think that's any sort of valid excuse or rationale; mindless hatred is no better than reasoned hatred.

He only is one if he did it to satisfy his sexual desires.

False. As with the four-letter blocked term for sexual assault, it's never purely about the lascivious or pleasuring aspects, and always about the anger, violence, or particularly domination causing pleasure. Ravi enjoyed hurting and bullying people, and Wei obviously agreed with his behavior sufficiently to enjoy his frequent company (which is why I refer to her in such a misogynistic manner). They're both patently from the school of "It's hip to hate squares", though Ravi may only be The Fonz in his own mind.

Regarding the case, Ravi conjured up some crocodile tears and finally gave an apology. Also the Judge "explained" his sentencing, "I can’t find it within me to remand this gentlemen to a state prison no matter how I hold it unconscionable his conduct was," Berman said today in his New Brunswick courtroom. "I don’t believe that fits this case. I believe he has to be punished. He will be."

Before I finish wiping the blood that just shot out of my eyes, I'd also highlight this exchange from the second piece -
Before Berman made his comments, he asked Middlesex County First Assistant Prosecutor Julia McClure what prison term she expected him to give Ravi.

"I thought the sentencing statutes mandated a 5-year sentence," McClure told Berman in an exchange that turned tense before the two apologized to each other.

So this worthless little pr!ck KNOWS he threw a softball sentence at Ravi, and is trying to support his worthless arse by claiming he didn't find any hate involved in Ravi's behavior. So he ignores settled law and precedent.

Why isn't it easier to impeach judges? Apparently Ravi's lawyers were the best money can buy, but that's not supposed to impact mandatory sentencing statutes.

[krischan]

False.

Just to clarify: I was talking about the term "sexual predator". If he likes bullying others, it doesn't mean that he does it to feel sexual pleasure. It's not necessary to put the "pervert" sticker on him. If a cat is catching a pair of mice at the time they have mouse sex, is it a sexual predator as well?

We more or less have the same lack of any sympathies for that guy, however.

[jmervyn]

Just to clarify: I was talking about the term "sexual predator". If he likes bullying others, it doesn't mean that he does it to feel sexual pleasure. It's not necessary to put the "pervert" sticker on him. If a cat is catching a pair of mice at the time they have mouse sex, is it a sexual predator as well?

Not per se, but that analogy clouds the issue with the inter-species aspect. If it was a dog which attacked other dogs specifically during coitus, perhaps the label works after all.

Agreed that Ravi is just a thoroughgoing dirt-bag who would have used <any> excuse or cause to bully, as apparently the record shows. THAT is one of the main reasons I'm so disgusted with the Judge's "get out of jail nearly-free" sentence:

Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. News organs and officials usually kept their names secret -- in many places the law so required for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage.

[Goryani]

That wasn't my take-away, but I'd probably have to re-read the article to make sure. She was still "hosting" Ravi for the shindig, even if she wasn't the one doing the publicizing.

According to the New Yorker article...

Alissa Agarwal, a student living in Davidson C, walked across campus with Ravi, and others, after supper that evening. She told police that although she had been “zoning him out,” she heard him “bragging” about his plan to broadcast Clementi’s date. The group went to Agarwal’s room. Prosecutors allege that, at 7:44 P.M., Ravi used Agarwal’s computer to check the iChat connection with his own computer.
...
At around eight-thirty, Ravi left Davidson C for Ultimate Frisbee practice.
...
Ravi came back to the dorm, and waited in Agarwal’s room. Just after eleven, he texted Clementi to ask if he was still using the room. At eleven-forty-eight, Clementi replied, “we’re done.”

I haven't heard authorities mention Agarwal at all.

No, no, precisely the opposite. I find the claim that one crime is worse than another of precisely the same circumstances because the one was done when 'hating' to be... well, evil. It isn't the same as an accidental crime, such as manslaughter; when I use the term "malice aforethought" it means that someone intends to do a criminal act because they've planned on malevolence. "Hate crime" in the U.S. is the claim that one sort of malevolent intent is somehow worse than another sort despite the end result being the same.

I mostly agree with this. A *** porn distributor (how many *'s?) committing the same crime against the same victim receives less punishment. A cannibal with an appetite for brain pate has a lower maximum sentence than a KKK member (for the sake of argument, ignore death penalty).

At the same time, bullying is a very real tragedy with very real consequences. Bullying is, in general, not illegal. Some aspects of bullying are illegal but many are legal. Some victims of bullying are more protected than others (gays, racial minorities, etc). Those groups need protection, but so do people that aren't in those groups. What about them?

Yeah, I don't really like so-called "bias" crime any more than I like "hate" crime. If you're targeting someone for crime, you're not their pal. Trying to infer thoughtcrime based on protected classes is a huge step in the wrong direction.

I don't particularly like it's use here. Lawmakers are telling victims of similar crimes, like Erin Andrews, they less of a victim because they aren't ***. The perp in the Erin Andrews case faced a maximum of 5 years (different crime: interstate stalking).

Perhaps, but he still taped someone having sex without their knowledge, and then distributed it. that circumstance alone should land him on the sexual predators list.

There was no tape to distribute.

Also, according to NJ law, placement on the sex offender registry from invasion of privacy only occurs if the victim is underage.

So this worthless little pr!ck KNOWS he threw a softball sentence at Ravi, and is trying to support his worthless arse by claiming he didn't find any hate involved in Ravi's behavior. So he ignores settled law and precedent.

Settled law and precedent involve violent cases such as murder. There has been no other case pairing bias intimidation with a "softball" conviction such as 3rd degree invasion of privacy (maximum sentence 18 months).

[BobCox2]

So I'm guessing if we secretly taped Jmervyn having sex and broadcast it on the Internets in a Identifying and disparaging way he might kill us rather than himself?

Suicide is a kid's mistake.

Darwins law. Not a Hate Crime.

Spoiler

Off -Topic - We need better Parents not better Teachers IMHO.

[krischan]

If I had the choice between nothing but killing myself and killing the culprit to set something straight (for some imaginary reason), I would know damn well what I would have to do, just like jmervyn.

Things have to be done in the right manner, of course. Revenge is a dish which is best served cold.

[jmervyn]

I haven't heard authorities mention Agarwal at all.

True, though in honesty maybe I confused Wei with Agarwal. Perhaps I shouldn't ask why Rutgers women freely allow scum in their dorm rooms? I know even with the "cheap and easy" types I went to school with, you didn't get in their rooms easily. Best not; we'd probably get all tangential with the abortion/contraception thread...

Those groups need protection, but so do people that aren't in those groups. What about them?

In honesty? They still get the short end of the stick. Look at the incident that started it all - the Columbine shootings. The perps were a couple of dweebs who had been brutally harassed (as had I) and struck back, yet they have gone down in history as unilaterally malevolent where in actuality they were striking BACK (disproportionately, to be sure) at their tormentors.

It goes along with something that makes me want to attack people myself, Lefties in particular: the false claims about self-respect and self-image somehow being the root of bullying. Let me tell you, the people who bullied me constantly from late Elementary grades had no self-image issues, just as serial killers rarely do. They harassed me because they COULD, and the worst that happens to them is a scolding from a teacher and forcing them to make a false apology. Ravi doesn't just deserve jail time, he deserves to get pounded up the arse every alternating hour by a lifer brute named Maddog.

The perp in the Erin Andrews case faced a maximum of 5 years (different crime: interstate stalking).

Still a probable 5-10, though, wasn't it? Yet he only got 2.5, because he cried and is now seeking the "path of redemption"? Incidentally, why wasn't Ms. Andrews considered a protected class (Hot Blonde PYT) if we're such a Lefty-level society?


Again, not to beat the horses as I'm accused of, but I was discussing the lack of proportionality with my boy only this morning (he was ticked off at Bloomberg's plan to outlaw Big Gulp drinks).

Settled law and precedent involve violent cases such as murder. There has been no other case pairing bias intimidation with a "softball" conviction such as 3rd degree invasion of privacy (maximum sentence 18 months).

Hmmm - if I cared enough I might look into that, but I suppose it's why mandatory sentencing rules are properly referred to as "guidelines".

Incidentally, I don't see it mentioned that Ravi is not a citizen; does someone have backup for that? I'm thinking maybe it's his dad that's not a citizen, and is over here on L-1 or H-1B status.

[jmervyn]

So I'm guessing if we secretly taped Jmervyn having sex and broadcast it on the Internets in a Identifying and disparaging way he might kill us rather than himself?

Let's just say I'm not a kid.

Don't worry, Bob, you don't make it to the top of my list; I've got a number of in-laws and ex-supervisors who are way ahead of you.