Maybe because he doesn't want to decide it, so he made a silly decision which is revised and undone by a higher instance?
D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!
As I understand it currently, both sides will appeal. Also, Ravi's sentence has been technically reduced to 20 days. Not bad for malevolently instigating another's death, if I do say so myself. His parents must be proud.Originally Posted by krischan
Hmm. I'm a little torn on this one. Clearly, they're terrible people. The prank is more than a little over the line. I mean we all did dumb stuff on the dorms, but taping someone having sex (*** or not) has got to be illegal in some way. You can't blame them for the suicide, but certainly there should be a punishment for the prank. Jail time for a prank seems harsh, but I'm failing to think of anything more just. I mean would community service seem fair? Seems light. Heavy Fines? the parents would end up paying. Put them on the sex offender list? Hmm, maybe, that does mess you up for life.
If there is a civil case for the suicide, and I'm sure there would be, it's going to be dumb because college kids probably don't have much of anything anyway.
Jmerv, what would be typical for the crimes they were convicted of?
Also, I want to know who called Jmerv a "homophone". That's funny.
I'll grant that the actual crimes are punishable. The suicide itself is being made out (by the usual media clowns) as an anti-g*y hate crime, however, which is patently untrue. Do people really buy into this crap?
Forget the *** part and the suicide part. If your college roommate was annoying you by having sex in your room, and you taped it, and posted it on youtube or whatever, then they pressed charges, what would that penalty be?
I just found out about this news, and I don't think neither Ravi nor Wei are deserving of any jail time at all; it's not their fault Clementi committed suicide and they should be not held accountable for his actions, only for their own transgressions. There is a clear bias here towards the accused, and since you're mentioning it, the 15 criminal charges that they're slamming onto the guy are preposterous. They have basically made this case a crusade regarding "alleged" homosexuality oppression, and it comes down to the fact that Clementi was a mentally unstable individual, and his roommate a douche, not a criminal.
This particular case is ultimately irrelevant; having Ravi and/or Wei locked behind bars won't make the world a better place and will only reinforce the increasingly retarded notion (specially from a legal standpoint) that being offended is a feeling that should be granted retribution.
I don't understand why you're so upset about this case, when in United States there are thousands crimes that go unpunished and abuse that goes ignored. I find ironic that you make their "malice aforethought" the pivotal point of your case against the outcome, but then you wish these two the worst of fates. I assume you're religious, so I can only suggest you to search for comfort in whatever sort of spiritual leader you have at your disposal, instead of trying to rally comments to the cause of rancor. You're clearly biased regarding this situation.
to whom are you referring? Jmerv? Me?
you don't have to quote the whole thing, you change it to look like this:
It was a "reply with quote" to the first comment (Jmerv's), but for some reason the quote is gone.
And, yes, it pretty much comes down to your post before mine. Remove the "media shock" variables from the equation and it'd be just a silly prank nobody would have given a single crap about.
Did Ravi take the stand? No. I've seen B-roll footage of him in the courtroom, balling his eyes out. It was B-roll, so I didn't know what was being said, by whom, but this was before sentencing. I'm not certain how one is expected to show remorse without talking (defendants never talk) but Ravi comes as close as can be expected.
Then there is the deportation issue. Ravi isn't a US citizen and could be deported for being convicted of a crime.
Three hundred hours (12.5 days) of community service, part of the plea bargain, isn't far removed from 30 days in jail. She might not face charges but she still has to serve punishment, little as it is. Compare the deal prosecuters offered Wei with the deal offered Ravi. Ravi was offered a plea deal of 600 hours of community service with no jail time and no initiation of deportation. He declined to take the plea deal.
It's also important to note that Wei's "willing accomplice" was limited to not stopping Ravi use Wei's computer to see what Ravi's computer had been set up to do. Wei's computer was used for the ~12 seconds of spying on the 19th but WASN'T used for the publicized exhibition on the 21st. Wei didn't market and publicize events witnessed on the 19th though she did allow her computer to be involved. Wei didn't publicize and market details of the exhibition on the 21st nor allowed her computer to be utilized. Everyone who was notified of the intimate moments were notified by Ravi, not Wei.
Probation, fine and community service are the sentencing guidelines for the crimes initially filed against Wei. That's essentially what she got.
In the same paragraph you refer to, Judge Berman also said it wasn't likely Ravi would commit the crime again. That would have just a wee bit of influence on sentencing. It's probably the largest factor, by far. I know it would be if I were the judge.
With that said, I disagree that Ravi wasn't likely to commit the same or similar crime in the future. Ravi was a habitual voyeur. He repeatedly used technology to discover details of an intimate nature about others. He wrote a program that turned someone's webcam on, took a pic, turned off the webcam, and stored/distributed the pics for Ravi to view later.
On the other hand, Ravi's voyeurism wasn't limited to *** bashing. Ravi treated lots of people with equal disdain. It this the third canard? Ravi was much more disdainful of Clementi being "poor" than for being ***. It seems there is no doubt Ravi wanted some source of friction and gossip. *** fit. Poor fit. Nerdy fit. If Clementi was neither of these, Ravi would likely be looking for something else. Ravi seems an asshat, but being an asshat isn't illegal. If so, quite a few members of this forum would be in jail.
Not sure if this is related to the stuff Saro hinted at or the commentary you read...
Ravi was never charged with a crime in connection with Clementi's death. There are really no laws linking Ravi's behavior to Clementi's death. Is there a strong correlation? Of that I have no doubt. It it a crime? Not yet. You can't be found guilty of a crime which doesn't exist.
This is absolutely true. Some of the most racist, most *** bashing behavior I've seen come from die hard lefty supporters - union members.
Ravi did. Wei did not (according to the New Yorker article). She abstained from the attempted premeditation of the 21st, after realizing an invasion of privacy was occurring. Again, the persons witnessing intimate acts were notified by Ravi, not Wei.
Valid sentencing doesn't assume maximum punishment for each guilty verdict. Media are doing a good job of not telling the whole truth regarding sentencing. Maximum punishment for the 3rd degree charges is 5 years. Maximum punishment for the 2nd degree charges is 10 years. This does not mean the sentencing guidleines for the charges is 5 to 10 years.
Bias intimidation is confusing in this instance. There are several subcounts for each count. Ravi was found innnocent of the majority of subcounts. On a couple of counts, the jury found Ravi innocent of intentionally intimidating Clementi but found Ravi guilty of actions that Clementi might feel to be intimidating. Manslaughter analogue to murder. Only on the night of the 21st was Ravi found guilty of invading Clementi's privacy for the purpose of intimidating Clementi due to sexuality.
With respect to drug possession: I agree with you that mandatory minimums should be abolished.
This instance would be a huge penalty but this instance isn't what Ravi was found guilty of. There was no tape. There was no youtube.
Think of it like this. Ravi had a telescope aimed at Clementi's bedroom windows. Ravi "pulled the curtains back" by allowing anyone with a telescope to see into Clementi's room. Anyone viewing the telescope could see the intimate events.
Ravi borrowed Wei's telescope. Ravi set up the telescope. Ravi told others he had a telescope and what could be seen through the telescope. Ravi allowed others to look through the telescope he set up.
Before the second night, Ravi advertised all the previous info but also advertised how anyone else with a telescope could view the peepshow. That time, Clementi "pulled the blinds closed" and no one actually saw anything.
I must find this to be humorous.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks