Rutgers student gets 30-day jail sentence in hate crime case

pandora

know1 wrote:

I want to ask the question again: If it was a college student spying on his heterosexual roommate and partner, would 30 days seem like not enough, just right, or too much?

For me it matters not, this is intimacy between two people, viewed without consent,
and shared without consent not to mention basic human compassion.

This spying, phones taking random pictures to make fun of others,
youtube, twitter, facebook these need some common sense golden rules.
People are able to victimize others for their own jollies without
a thought as to how that feels for their mark.

And the result in this case was loss of life. :evil:

30 days minimizes this and was an insult to the caring people in society,
those who respect the right to privacy and expect common decency towards others.

It seems justice is not feeling the victims.

pandora

Jason P wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

he took the images he secretly taped and repeatedly showed them to others.

That isn't what happened. That's what the media told us at the onset.

Per evidence from the trial, he didn't tape it. He didn't show it to others. It was just him and the girl looking in at a live feed for about five seconds and then he tweeted about it.

I have read he encouraged others to watch and made common knowledge of the events.

He set in motion a horrible ordeal for this young man that cost him his life
for the embarrassment and betrayal he made.

Who Princess

know1 wrote:

I want to ask the question again: If it was a college student spying on his heterosexual roommate and partner, would 30 days seem like not enough, just right, or too much?

I would add that if he had spied on a heterosexual roommate and partner and one of them subsequently committed suicide, I think the case would cause just as much outrage.

Whether the sentence is fair or not, I can't really say. As others have pointed out, it's not illegal to be an asshole.

know1

Who Princess wrote:

know1 wrote:

I want to ask the question again: If it was a college student spying on his heterosexual roommate and partner, would 30 days seem like not enough, just right, or too much?

I would add that if he had spied on a heterosexual roommate and partner and one of them subsequently committed suicide, I think the case would cause just as much outrage.

Whether the sentence is fair or not, I can't really say. As others have pointed out, it's not illegal to be an asshole.

Are you saying that a sentence for a criminal act should be harsher depending on the actions taken by the victim after the criminal act?

unsung

catefrances wrote:

and then maybe one day he can run for the republican presidential nomination.

I heard his cellmate is John Edwards.

BinauralJam

i think the guilt this guy lives with for the rest of his life is punishment enough, imo.

pandora

know1 wrote:

Are you saying that a sentence for a criminal act should be harsher depending on the actions taken by the victim after the criminal act?

in my opinion yes ... in the process of a criminal act if said victim then is injured
or dies as a direct result of that original crime it should be considered for a harsher punishment.

Say a bank robber who frightens a person to the degree that they run out of the bank
into the parking lot and is then struck by a car and killed.
Their death a direct result of the original crime and should be considered
when sentencing the bank robber. It was his direct actions that caused the death
of an innocent person.

pandora

BinauralJam wrote:

i think the guilt this guy lives with for the rest of his life is punishment enough, imo.

What if he is unfeeling who only cares about his own well being?
this actually has been pointed out by his subsequent actions by others involved.

What about the countless other people who are or will do the same
thoughtless things to hurt others?

Shouldn't society require more than personal guilt?
Shouldn't we require a punishment fit for the crime to deter others?

Or will we continue to think of the perpetrators and not the victims
out of the convenience that they no longer walk the earth.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

They should have given the little fucking creep 5 Years....

know1

pandora wrote:

know1 wrote:

Are you saying that a sentence for a criminal act should be harsher depending on the actions taken by the victim after the criminal act?

in my opinion yes ... in the process of a criminal act if said victim then is injured
or dies as a direct result of that original crime it should be considered for a harsher punishment.

Say a bank robber who frightens a person to the degree that they run out of the bank
into the parking lot and is then struck by a car and killed.
Their death a direct result of the original crime and should be considered
when sentencing the bank robber. It was his direct actions that caused the death
of an innocent person.

I would agree in the example you stated as that seems to be happening in the course of the criminal act itself. I have a little more difficulty directly correlating a crime of spying to a suicide a few days later (and yes - I realized it was likely a big factor).

I guess what I wonder is how long after the act is it appropriate to take the victim's subsequent actions into account when determining the penalty to be imposed? What if he had chosen to not take his own life until a year later.

Also, I struggle with the idea that - if he hadn't killed himself - the sentence would potentially be lighter for the SAME criminal activity.

If

pandora

know1 wrote:

pandora wrote:

know1 wrote:

Are you saying that a sentence for a criminal act should be harsher depending on the actions taken by the victim after the criminal act?

in my opinion yes ... in the process of a criminal act if said victim then is injured
or dies as a direct result of that original crime it should be considered for a harsher punishment.

Say a bank robber who frightens a person to the degree that they run out of the bank
into the parking lot and is then struck by a car and killed.
Their death a direct result of the original crime and should be considered
when sentencing the bank robber. It was his direct actions that caused the death
of an innocent person.

I would agree in the example you stated as that seems to be happening in the course of the criminal act itself. I have a little more difficulty directly correlating a crime of spying to a suicide a few days later (and yes - I realized it was likely a big factor).

I guess what I wonder is how long after the act is it appropriate to take the victim's subsequent actions into account when determining the penalty to be imposed? What if he had chosen to not take his own life until a year later.

Also, I struggle with the idea that - if he hadn't killed himself - the sentence would potentially be lighter for the SAME criminal activity.

If

He took his life as a direct result of what Dharun Ravi did to him that can not be argued.
Time here irrelevant because it was what? days later
and a direct result of the backlash from what
Dharun Ravi did that caused him to take his life.

If he had't taken his life I would still not be ok with 30 days.
Because of the nature of the crime
and torment the victim was forced to endure.

But 30 days for the loss of this boys life, the anguish his family are living,
is a slap in the face ... absolutely no justice.

I would like to see him deported most especially since he has never completed
the requirements to stay in our country.

"Ravi, who was born in India, could face deportation over his conviction
because he never completed requirements to obtain US citizenship
despite spending most of his life in America."

pack your bags and take your mother with you!

BinauralJam

pandora wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

i think the guilt this guy lives with for the rest of his life is punishment enough, imo.

What if he is unfeeling who only cares about his own well being?
this actually has been pointed out by his subsequent actions by others involved.

What about the countless other people who are or will do the same
thoughtless things to hurt others?

Shouldn't society require more than personal guilt?
Shouldn't we require a punishment fit for the crime to deter others?

Or will we continue to think of the perpetrators and not the victims
out of the convenience that they no longer walk the earth.

What do you have in mind? i mean i look at it like this, either he's feels guilty as all hell or he doesnt, nothing is going to change that, so what's appropriate punishment?

pandora

BinauralJam wrote:

pandora wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

i think the guilt this guy lives with for the rest of his life is punishment enough, imo.

What if he is unfeeling who only cares about his own well being?
this actually has been pointed out by his subsequent actions by others involved.

What about the countless other people who are or will do the same
thoughtless things to hurt others?

Shouldn't society require more than personal guilt?
Shouldn't we require a punishment fit for the crime to deter others?

Or will we continue to think of the perpetrators and not the victims
out of the convenience that they no longer walk the earth.

What do you have in mind? i mean i look at it like this, either he's feels guilty as all hell or he doesnt, nothing is going to change that, so what's appropriate punishment?

As someone else mentioned 5 years, that seems appropriate to me also.
Whether the sentence would be without parole options before that, perhaps not.
In this case he could be eligible for deportation also.

Cyber bullying should be taken seriously in all cases but especially those resulting in a death.
And yes it was a hate crime against gay people and he should have been more seriously
punished for that also.

This punishment was so incredibly weak it speaks volumes about victims rights.

Jason P

pandora wrote:

He took his life as a direct result of what Dharun Ravi did to him that can not be argued.

It doesn't have to be argued because the suicide is irrelevant in this court case. I'm not saying it is irrelevant itself, but it was not part of this case (even though the outrage from the suicide spurred prosecutor to try him for a hate crime).

pandora

Jason P wrote:

pandora wrote:

He took his life as a direct result of what Dharun Ravi did to him that can not be argued.

It doesn't have to be argued because the suicide is irrelevant in this court case. I'm not saying it is irrelevant itself, but it was not part of this case (even though the outrage from the suicide spurred prosecutor to try him for a hate crime).

yes I do know this

what I did mean was that the poster or anyone can't argue as to the specifics of what happened
and why, in my opinion. That the actions of one a direct reaction of another.
Not arguing in a court of law ... arguing.

Jason P

pandora wrote:

Jason P wrote:

pandora wrote:

He took his life as a direct result of what Dharun Ravi did to him that can not be argued.

It doesn't have to be argued because the suicide is irrelevant in this court case. I'm not saying it is irrelevant itself, but it was not part of this case (even though the outrage from the suicide spurred prosecutor to try him for a hate crime).

yes I do know this

what I did mean was that the poster or anyone can't argue as to the specifics of what happened
and why, in my opinion. That the actions of one a direct reaction of another.
Not arguing in a court of law ... arguing.

We don't know if he was a really happy person and this caused him to jump or if he was a really unhappy person and this caused him to jump. Or if he was somewhere in between.

When I was in Seattle, there was a bridge-jumper holding up traffic while the cops tried to talk her down. Some asshole in his car, fed up with being stuck in traffic, told her to just get it over with and jump ... and she did. Luckily, she some how survived a 100 foot fall into the water below. If she died, would the insensitive a-hole that told her to jump deserve to spend five years in jail?

pandora

Jason P wrote:

We don't know if he was a really happy person and this caused him to jump or if he was a really unhappy person and this caused him to jump. Or if he was somewhere in between.

When I was in Seattle, there was a bridge-jumper holding up traffic while the cops tried to talk her down. Some asshole in his car, fed up with being stuck in traffic, told her to just get it over with and jump ... and she did. Luckily, she some how survived a 100 foot fall into the water below. If she died, would the insensitive a-hole that told her to jump deserve to spend five years in jail?

That ass told her to jump did not cause her to jump.

It is clear there are cause and effect, there are action reaction...
We all know what happened here. We know a crime was committed and a life was taken because
of that crime. Pretty simple.

Jason P

pandora wrote:

It is clear there are cause and effect, there are action reaction...
We all know what happened here. We know a crime was committed and a life was taken because
of that crime. Pretty simple.

If it is that clear and simple, why didn't the prosecutors go after murder charges?

Idris

20/20 interview with Ravi.

It shows a different side to the events/case. (from what we initially got from the media)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdi2sANQjg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

know1

pandora wrote:

It is clear there are cause and effect, there are action reaction...
We all know what happened here. We know a crime was committed and a life was taken because
of that crime. Pretty simple.

But that might not have been the SOLE reason that he committed suicide, though. We really do not know.

While it's pretty obvious the criminal act likely had lots to do with it, there could have been other factors.