Tyler Clementi's freshman year roommate, Dharun Ravi, has been convicted of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with physical evidence (related to deleted tweets), witness tampering, and hindering prosecution or apprehension (lying to police). He faces up to 10 years in prison and possible deportation. While he has spent most of his life in the U.S. -- his family moved here in 1997, the same year I began my freshman year at Rutgers College -- he holds a green card and is not a U.S. citizen.
Clementi's death quickly became a symbol of fatal bullying and the tragic results of homophobia. But Ravi is a scapegoat. He is not responsible for Clementi's death. The webcam viewings (one accomplished and very brief, the other aborted by Clementi) were wrong and immature. But Ravi should not be sent to prison for using extremely poor judgment. Ravi, a teenager like Clementi, likely thought of the viewings as nothing more than a prank in a world where more and more of our lives, thoughts, and images are played out online.
Shortly after they began their freshman year at Rutgers, Ravi and a friend briefly viewed Clementi and another man in his dorm room through the camera on Ravi's computer. Afterwards Ravi tweeted, "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."
Ravi allegedly tried to spy on Clementi again, two days later, but Clementi, who had figured out what was going on, unplugged Ravi's computer and aborted the second viewing, which Ravi had reportedly announced on Twitter. After seeking advice on message boards and from a friend, Clementi decided to report Ravi to his Resident Advisor. Clementi appeared to be weighing his options; at first, he seemed dismissive, and then, understandably, angry, according to his online chats and message board postings. There was nothing despondent, hopeless, or desperate in his online conversations about Ravi's actions, or in his outward behavior shortly before his suicide, according to The New Yorker's exhaustive report on the case, "The Story of a Suicide."
On September 22, 2010, the next day, Clementi reportedly spoke to his mother on the phone and attended a three hour orchestra rehearsal where he and another violinist discussed the piece they were practicing. That evening, Clementi bought a burger at the student center, traveled to New York, and killed himself.
Fifteen minutes after Clementi announced on Facebook his plans to commit suicide, Ravi sent him a text message. Ravi claims he didn't know of Clementi's Facebook post until the next day. Ravi wrote:
I've known you were gay and I have no problem with it. In fact one of my closest friends is gay and he and I have a very open relationship. I just suspected you were shy about it which is why I never broached the topic. I don't want your freshman year to be ruined because of a petty misunderstanding, it's adding to my guilt. You have a right to move if you wish but I don't want you to feel pressured to without fully understanding the situation.
Soon after Clementi's death, two fellow alumni and I wrote a letter-to-the-editor in the Rutgers Daily Targum. We had all met our freshman year at Rutgers College, in 1997. We wrote:
Most people aren't born with a rock-solid sense of integrity, but rather meander towards one through a series of pitfalls and epiphanies. Freshman year of college is kind of like a repeat of middle school, and people often do incredibly stupid and insensitive things just to gain social points. College represents many people's first exposure to outward homosexuality (and even sexuality in general).
In the piece we called for compassion and forgiveness -- not prison and vilification -- for Ravi. Maybe it helps to make sense of Clementi's death by creating a narrative, a cause (bullying, homophobia, spying) and effect (suicide.) Maybe it helps to make sense of Clementi's death by fabricating a villian. But incarcerating and/or deporting Ravi only compounds this tragedy.
I read the piece in The New Yorker about Clementi and Ravi on my train ride home from work in New York. My stop is New Brunswick, which is blocks from the Rutgers campus. As I stepped off the train, I continued reading, passing college students and big red R's for Rutgers on my way. I wished for a different ending. I wished that there was no reason for me to know Tyler Clementi or Dharun Ravi's names.
Michelangelo Signorile: Tyler Clementi and the Dharun Ravi Trial: Why the Verdict Is Just
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS WE NEED 12000 MORE SIGNATURES
They should be asking certain questions; instead they are on a completely different page! :-)
http://www.notguiltynj.com/what-is-mandatory-minimum-sentencing/
This is the EXACT same juror along with his colleague, calmly and unhurriedly explaining on a proper TV interview (not being suddenly accosted outside his home by a confrontational, hot-shot street reporter eager for a "scoop") WHY and HOW the jury arrived at their verdict, and how they approached deliberations with an open mind, without premeditation, and determined to examine all evidence before giving a decision.
Jurors Satisfied with the Verdict
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MLGwD1DB0
Was justice achieved in the Ravi guilty verdicts?
That is, perhaps, the most insidious aspect of the viral prosecution: it is almost impossible to tell.
Think of the demands placed on the jury in Ravi’s case. Jurors were instructed to disregard whatever they may have read or heard about the circumstances leading to the case. Jurors were informed that Clementi had committed suicide, but instructed to disregard that fact in deliberating Ravi’s guilt. Jurors were instructed not to draw any negative inference from the fact that the defendant did not testify. Jurors were further instructed, pursuant to a tortuous and eccentric provision of New Jersey law, that how Ravi’s actions were perceived by Clementi was relevant to establishing Ravi’s guilty state of mind.
Post-conviction interviews of the jurors showed that they were bothered by the suicide, that they were troubled by the defendant’s failure to testify and that the bias crime charge was confusing.
At some point, aren’t we asking too much of our juries in viral prosecutions?
Let us hope that his deserved punishment is balanced with compassion, and that, as Shakespeare put it, “the quality of mercy is not strained.”
The quality of justice most certainly was.
Irrelevant. The law and the jury was tasked with examining the indictment, the counts, the evidence, the judge's instructions, and first-hand impressions from in court testimony - this they did to the best of their abilities and returned with a verdict.
That is about all there is to it at this point.
Rhetorical questions and moral, ethical hair-splitting will get you nowhere at this point. We are WELL past that stage, since it is now pre-sentencing, and the judge is obligated to sentence per mandatory minimum.
If Mr Ravi's supporters continue in this vain, they can expect to carry on their online ethicizing and attempt to cast aspersions on the jurors and the judicial process all they wish, but it will have to be when Mr Ravi is in minimum security.
That is how the law operates. There are EFFECTIVE ways to work within the law to get an outcome. And there are INEFFECTIVE ways, like Mr Ravi, his team, and his supporters are displaying with this latest media blitz that is likely to backfire with Judge Berman during sentencing.
Mr Ravi, his team, and their supporters are making, as they have in the past made, ALL the wrong moves, both judicially and morally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsSLCNfEwk
Yet, in this interview, he believes there's strong evidence for the charges they voted for.
And one wonders why so many people get locked up in jail, only to be found not guilty 20 years down the road. Only shows you verdicts are not "always correct" and that's the bottom line!
End of Discussion.
The true END OF DISCUSSION will come on the May 21st sentencing. You are free to keep talking after that nonetheless.
When supporters of the verdict and the jury upload videos to present their side and the true picture of what actually happened during deliberations, it is fiction and incomplete!
LOL! How amusing.
So now one juror is coming out and saying he does not believe Dharun to be homophobic and also he does not believe Dharun set up his camera to spy on Clementi... ALL THIS AFTER HE FOUND DHARUN RAVI GUILTY..... WHAT ???
Here is the EXACT same juror giving a measured, considered response to questions regarding how the jury deliberated calmly, with an open mind, and without premeditation.
This interview is without the confrontational, sensational attitude that ABC 7 has been demonstrating towards this trial from the beginning.
http://www.queerty.com/watch-juror-in-dharun-ravi-trial-talks-to-good-day-new-york-20120319/
I am going to upload THIS video on to Youtube and provide that link to everyone as well.
That's right, ambush him and get the real raw truth.
Way to go ABC News! :)
Several other HuffPosters, myself included, contested that view, and argued instead that Mr Ravi should have accepted the pleas offered by Prosecution, especially the generous second one.
Mr Ravi's youthful and misguided supporters thought then, and continue to think now, that volume and vehemence somehow substitute for calm, logical legal analysis.
They appear to have taken the cue in their attitude from their equally, if not more adolescent and immature poster-boy, Mr Ravi, who has shown a pattern of poor decision making, not least in turning down a very generous plea, self-righteously insisting on innocence, and electing to go to jury trial.
Mr Ravi's supporters, should they in fact possess the time, leisure, and finances, are free, along with Defense Counsel, to assist Mr Ravi in his appeal should there be one, and press their prodigious legal understanding in the service of Mr Ravi's cause.
It is unlikely however, that immature online fulminations on their part are going to help them overturn the jury's verdict or mobilize significant online sentiment against the ruling.
For someone who doesn't live here, you have shown up when the trial began, and have been berating the Ravi family non stop. Belligerent, gloating and acting like your opinion is the only one that matters. Condescending and berating anyone questioning the Jury or Prosecution.
What is your agenda? Have you been paid? Because this US legal matter is none of your business.
I didn't realize that certain people were unable to have an opinion. Why is that?
Does anyone remember the Rodney King verdict? Even then President Bush came out and disapproved of that verdict. And don't get me started on O.J.
Here are the charges on Count 8 (the most important count) on which Mr Ravi was found guilty.
COUNT 8
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html”
>>>>>
Defense is free to mount its appeal, and has six weeks to do it before sentencing on May 21st.
No amount of online tantrums and fits are going to change that.
End of story. Deal with it.
What IS known however is that shrill, belligerent comments from his self-righteous supporters who are in a minority (taken any which way) do NOT help Mr Ravi's cause at all.
I am being forced to say something to Mr Ravi's supporters which, as an Indian myself, I wish I did not have to; however their entirely misplaced and counterproductive confrontational, aggressive, outraged tone compels me to say it.
Please therefore take this blunt, cautionary warning the right way: The only thing stupider than the powerless Indian-American community feeling the victim after an abetted suicide of an Italian-American kid in NEW JERSEY (of all places) by one of their own, is to feel similarly aggrieved over a similar suicide of a Jewish kid in New York City, a Hispanic kid in Miami, or a Black kid in Detroit.
Do you have any idea how badly the odds are stacked against you on this?
Do YOU get it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nO-TWQHNE
Ravi has been found guilty by a jury of his peers, and he should get the same sentence as all the other criminals found guilty of these crimes across the nation. A man invaded the privacy of my niece at a university and is still in prison right now. I think it is just that he is in prison for his crime. I think Ravi should get the same sentence as the man who harmed my niece.
Equal justice before the law. Is Ravi really going to be let off because he is pretty, and from a rich and powerful family? That would be a great injustice to the victim of his particular crime, and an injustice to all the others who have had to face the music when they committed this crime.
One law for all of us. Find out what the average sentence has been for those who have committed these crimes, and give that to Ravi. The same as everyone else.
1. There was no video recording, no broadcasting on the internet for the whole world to see.
2. There was no act of sex recorded or viewed, Ravi and Wei saw Clementi kissing M.B. for few seconds and turned it off.
3. The second planned viewing was aborted, either by Clementi turning off the cam or Ravi himself didn't want to go through with it, its not clear which way it went.
Clementi's three page suicide note is under wraps. With his apparent suicide being the elephant in the room, how are jurors supposed to NOT consider it. It clearly weighed in for such a harsh sentence, yet Ravi's defense was not even allowed to touch that subject. However the prosecution has masterfully woven that narrative into the trial without the defense being able to defend against it. This has mistrial written all over it.
INVASION of privacy - YES, to an extent, this is not Clementi's own room that Ravi 'invaded', it was his room too.
BIAS INTIMIDATION - are you kidding me?? this is a media driven witch hunt against an easy target with not much political voice. After the two incidents he still writes about it dismissively to his friend and doesn't think much of it other than Ravi is a total jerk. If he was intimidated at this point he would have called the police.
Juror and judge reacted to media pressure not the rule of law. Sad day for American justice.
So, attempt to have a mistrial declared (as Altman unsuccessfully tried) or appeal. Who is stopping anyone?
Everyone did their job - just because the verdict did not go your way, why cast aspersions on the judge or the jury, instead of seeking legal remedy available under law?
Do Mr Ravi's supporters misguidedly believe their indignation somehow entitles them to immediate judicial relief?
The law is clear on the matter. People cannot twist, turn, or manipulate the legal process to suit their whims, predilections, and fancies.
Here are the counts in the indictment: scribd.com/doc/53462572/Ravi-Indictment
There were 15 counts, including invasion of privacy, tampering, hindering, and bias intimidation.
The jury were given instructions, and they acted according to it to the best of their abilities.
Nothing more is expected of a jury. To quote Justice Scalia, "the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free.""
At this point, it is up to the defense to appeal if they think the jury erred or was compromised, based on plain or harmful error. The onus is on them, NOT on the prosecution or the judge.
The defense foolishly chose to go to a jury trial ignoring sage advice from the Judge and turned down a very good plea the prosecution offered.
Why throw a fit AFTER the jury has delivered its verdict, when you know that juries can go either way?
I am sure the defense will appeal and I hope this verdict is overturned. There should have never been a criminal charge in this case to begin with. Watching someone kissing for 5 seconds somehow makes you a hardened criminal with 10 years in the slammer with drug dealers and murderers? There is the implication that Ravi has caused this young man to commit suicide, but the fact is he wasn't even charged with it. If Clementi hadn't committed suicide would this case have gotten this far with all this media coverage? Even if it did, the verdict would have looked very different in such a case simply because Clementi would have been still been around. That just means the jury hasn't discounted his death in their ruling. Simply put, Ravi stands accused of murder without being charged for it, and that is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Without a lawyer there and those hardened ninja-cop(s) interrogating him like that, obviously he's going to buckle and say yes he did (violate Clementi's privacy) without giving it much thought.
So it just apparent that these Jurors just didn't really try hard enough to deliberate on certain charges. They just wanted to hurry up and get to the meat and potato "bias intimidation" charge because they knew it was going to take a long time with that.
What other crap do you have?
It is a critical, unanimous, and landmark US Supreme Court precedence from almost twenty years back for which then Chief Justice Rehnquist himself wrote the majority opinion stating that even the defendant's prior speech (not even written evidence like the texts and tweets we have in the Ravi trial) can be used to establish motive.
Good luck getting even a discretionary review at Federal Appeals for an overturn, much less the US Supreme Court.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/02/before-we-crucify-those-two-teenagers-who-streamed-tyler-clementis-having-sex-over-the-internet
"Chris Christie, the anti-gay governor of New Jersey, was quoted as saying that he can't imagine how the two students accused of secretly filming Clementi can sleep at night. I'm wondering how Christie sleeps at night—and Barack Obama. When the president says he opposes gay marriage because when it comes to marriage, "God is in the mix," that sends a harmful message to gay children and their parents and their classmates."
He is right. Chris Christie is a routine hypocrite. So his comment, even in the face of his vetoing gay marriage in NJ is not surprising.
But the national atmosphere contributes a lot more to the shame or whatever it was Tyler was processing.
I agree with Dan that this verdict is a Cover up for the national culture of shaming gays.
This is not about Dan Savage, Gov Chris Christie, Barack Obama or any other red herring that some misguided and legally confused interlocuter seeks to clumsily implead into the argument.
Classic instance of diffusing focus away from the criminal matter at hand from those who have run out of legally premised reasoning.
We are supposed to be talking about the 15 counts Mr Dharun Ravi has been found guilty of beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of peers. End of story.
Apt description for all your long winded posts.
I don't think any of these articles "focus away" from this specific case. This case should be front and center for debate.
"The matter at hand" is a miscarriage of Justice. Legal experts chiming in question the Constitutionality of the NJ Statute.
And these Op-Eds help with the review of how this particular Prosecution and Case addresses the larger issue of the culture of homophobia in this Country, especially in light of the Political games that go on. And the point is Ravi has been made a scapegoat. This verdict is not going to fix anything, if anything it has set back equal rights.
Below is the precise quote from Kashad Leverett, the 20 year old Juror you refer to:
(Begin quote) ""It was 15 charges, so it was very hard to weigh each charge out — everyone (had to) weigh in whether he was guilty or not and then everyone had to support their reason," Leverett said.
He said there were questions in the jury room about the bias intimidation counts.
"We could not prove that he did it purposely to intimidate Tyler," Leverett said. "We couldn’t prove that he did it knowingly that Tyler was going to get intimidated because of his sexual orientation.
"But we came to the conclusion where, with the evidence that was provided by the state and the defense," he said, "That it showed that (Clementi) did ... have a reasonable belief that Dharun wanted to intimidate him because of his sexual orientation." (End quote)
>>>>
Show me the precise count(s) in the indictment and the verdict that points even remotely to juror error from what Juror Mr Kashad Leverett has said.
Below is the link to the full counts and their respective verdicts. (Hint: Look at Counts 2, 4, and 8.)
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html
The link you forwarded about that Juror are from Friday.
The quote I posted was from the Juror's radio interview on Saturday.
And I have looked at the verdicts. They convicted him after determining what "Tyler reasonably believed". The Thought Police. So the imminent appeal.
My posts are based on legal FACT and established legal precedence.
Yes, "what Tyler reasonably believed" is predicated on hate crime bias statutes with enhanced sentencing provisions that were upheld in 1993 US Supreme Court Wisconsin v Mitchell. You have clear precedent.
Good luck even getting discretionary review, much less having it overturned it in Federal Appeals Court or US Supreme Court.
Below is the full quote from Mr Kashad Leverett, the 20 year old juror you refer to:
(Begin quote) " It was 15 charges, so it was very hard to weigh each charge out — everyone (had to) weigh in whether he was guilty or not and then everyone had to support their reason," Leverett said.
He said there were questions in the jury room about the bias intimidation counts.
"We could not prove that he did it purposely to intimidate Tyler," Leverett said. "We couldn’t prove that he did it knowingly that Tyler was going to get intimidated because of his sexual orientation.
"But we came to the conclusion where, with the evidence that was provided by the state and the defense," he said, "That it showed that (Clementi) did ... have a reasonable belief that Dharun wanted to intimidate him because of his sexual orientation." (End quote)
Below is the breakdown of the counts and verdicts:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html
Counts 2, 4, and 8 address bias intimidation in the 2nd and 3rd degrees on the underlying charges of invasion of privacy that the jury found Mr Ravi guilty of, though not on all individual sub-counts.
Please tell us how, if at all, "atrocious" jury error can be imputed in light of Mr Leverett's quote I reproduced above?
The Prosecution overreached with the bias intimidation charge. It basically asked the Jury to function like the Thought Police, determine what Tyler "reasonably believed".
"You can’t know what someone’s thinking," said Juror Ferreira, a resident of South River. "You have to get inside their head."
The Prosecution instructing the Jury that Ravi was not being charged with Tyler jumping was itself prejudicial, especially when they were asking the Jury to determine what Tyler thought.
Besides an Alternate Juror now saying he thought the Jury got the verdict wrong, the young juror (20 yr old college kid) was asked if he thought that Ravi targeted Tyler because he was gay. He said "No, it was a stupid thing he did. He probably never thought it would come to this." And he just convicted him of bias intimidation!!!
ATROCIOUS miscarriage of Justice by the Jury on the Bias Intimidation charge. Hope the Judge exercises discretion during sentencing. And that the Gay Community insists that this poorly worded Statute be repealed. The ACLU should also be protesting it, except they seem to be intimidated by the potential mob reaction online and in the media.
The Prosecution is entitled to bring before the defendant any and all charges it believes the latter is guilty of, and that it believes it can get a jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt; in this case, the Prosecution did exactly that on all 15 counts.
The Alternate Juror is just that - an alternate. His personal views are irrelevant.
By your logic, if the Judge instructs the jury that Mr Ravi is not being charged with Mr Clementi's suicide it is prejudicial; if he DOESN'T instruct the jury to the effect, it is also prejudicial. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The Prosecution offered Mr Ravi not one, but TWO pleas; the second was VERY generous and entailed 600 hours of community service.
Mr Ravi turned down both pleas, unwisely choosing to go to trial by jury. The Judge must now award at least minimum sentences even if they run concurrently.
The ACLU is not in the habit of keeping silent owing to fear and intimidation. It is likely the ACLU has a better grasp of the law that you, and finds no defect or deficiency in the judgment, hence the silence.
There are procedures for appeal at both the state and federal levels. Let the Defense pursue them, should it choose. Who is stopping them?
The Prosecution managed to get in the fact that Tyler jumped with that Instruction. They were asking the Jury to rule on what Tyler thought.
Are you seriously telling me the Jury did not factor that Tyler jumped?
The Prosecution's instruction also meant that the Defense could not bring up all relevant Tyler's ecommunications into evidence. They had to defend against what Tyler thought, without the benefit of all the evidence pointing to what Tyler thought. A NO WIN SITUATION FOR THE DEFENSE.
He and his parents turned down the plea deal because he would have had to admit he hated gays. And on a matter of principle, they felt that he was not motivated by such bias. Admirable for them to stand by principles even thought the outcome was worse with a trial.
Deportation was still on the table with the Plea deal. The State has NO standing to plead with the INS on Ravi's behalf. That Plea was a cynical ploy.
And yes, the LGBT Community is loud, the potential for a massive reaction exists. The ACLU is fearful of taking this on. Except, this case of Prosecutorial overreach does more to set back the issue of equality.
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148920856/in-rutgers-verdict-even-judge-found-muddled-law
" One of the grounds, I think, is going to be the statute itself and the constitutionality of the statute, which required the jury to get into the minds, both of Dharun Ravi and of Tyler Clementi. They also will probably question whether or not the prosecution established bias in the way that hate crime statutes were first envisioned to capture."