Tyler Clementi Suicide Case

[JLipps4u]

You can be an asshole by drinking too much beer and then going behind the wheel of a car - but it's still a crime and if you kill someone as a result then it's a bigger one.

I cannot believe how you guys are belittling the offence that Ravi committed and now seem to think Tyler was at fault too. Was he to blame because he thought he was gay and invited someone around? If so then those who think that should not even be members of this site and join the local church.

How sad.

 

[another1]

the sad fact is that as offensive as find ravi's actions, the state of new jersey has no law on their book that makes his actions an offense as defined by statutes with clear results.
i also continue to think the society as a whole is responsible for the continued existances of bullying in any form.

what's the phrase, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must!
bullying go back to the old greek city states.

we must take strength from the pride we celebrate this month and use it to say, 'this shit stops now!'. i see hints of bullying in my own actions and work to move pass them.

 

[joninliverton]

the sad fact is that as offensive as find ravi's actions, the state of new jersey has no law on their book that makes his actions an offense as defined by statutes with clear results.
i also continue to think the society as a whole is responsible for the continued existances of bullying in any form.

what's the phrase, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must!
bullying go back to the old greek city states.

we must take strength from the pride we celebrate this month and use it to say, 'this shit stops now!'. i see hints of bullying in my own actions and work to move pass them.

Good post dude... Vote the bastards out...

 

[tampa24]

Mr. Ravi is expected to be released from county jail on Tuesday. The Federal government announced today that Ravi will not be deported. Both sides have appealed the case.

Rah.

Is this the test case and the precedent we want to set? Is this the message we want to send to bullies all over the country? That if you bully someone to the point of suicide you may get 20 days in jail and probation?

I realize that this was not one of most extreme examples of cyberbullying out there. And that Tyler had choices of his own. Unfortunately because of the publicity, this will be now considered case law. N.J. needs to toughen its laws in regards to cyberbullying so the state can charge people for this level of harassment with more commensurate punishments. That way prosecutors won't have to use hate crime and bias charges. And then judges won't hand out sentences more in line with a car thief who went joyriding.

It wasn't the prosecution's fault that they had only the really heavy guns to being to bear on Ravi. Ten years in prison with rapists and murderers does seem pretty steep. But 20 days is a slap on the wrist and a total joke. I'm still glad the prosecution did take this to court and win with the jury.

Time will tell how the prosecution's appeal goes. The fact that the defense is still appealing anything at all here is almost unfathomable. Ravi is a convicted felon. Pure and simple.

Absolutely Tampa. NJ should be ashamed of itself and the precedent it has set itself from this case. And yes, as this was the first one, then future cases - unless prosecuted by an excellent lawyer, will follow suit because of case law.
I'm not down with the Tyler had choices of his own quote - simply because how can you behave and make rational decisions if you are a victim of bullying. Ravi's punishment is the biggest and saddest joke of the year.

I understand Jon. I guess I'm just trying to make the point that I understand those who are saying that Ravi never put a gun to Tyler. He never deliberately tried to kill him. Yet from the tone of my posts I think everyone can see that I blame Ravi for all of the cyberbullying that led to this tragic loss of life. And it's his total lack of any genuine remorse for Tyler and Tyler's family that I have had such a hard time letting go of in this case.

Watching Ravi in the televised trial I saw a very immature person who was only concerned for how Tyler's suicide and the subsequent trial was affecting his life and his future. He didn't appear to ever give a rat's behind about Tyler, Tyler's family or M.B.

As the glare of publicity over the suicide and the trial itself dragged on, I believe he developed a sense of martyrdom that he is the real victim here. Just like when he first left the dorm after the crisis counselors visited him and told him that his roommate committed suicide. He went back to stay at his parents' house and texted a friend that he was hanging out there temporarily. He said he was waiting for all of this (the suicide and investigation) to "blow over"...presumably so he could get back to the dorms, return to classes and pretend the whole thing never happened.

I read something very interesting on Wikipedia today. I remembered that both the defense and the prosecution had appealed the very very lenient sentence on Dharun Ravi. Wikipedia says the appeals aren't expected to make it trial until at least mid 2014. So we may hear more in the coming months on this.

Here is the Wikipedia link in its entirety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi

Excerpt from Wiki:

"Sentencing hearing

Sentence

On May 21, 2012, Judge Glenn Berman sentenced Ravi to 30 days in jail, 3 years probation, 300 hours of community service, a $10,000 fine, and counseling on cyberbullying and alternate lifestyles.[6] Lead prosecutor Julia McClure had sought a five-year prison term and on May 23, 2012 filed a motion appealing the sentence.[97]

On May 30, 2012, Ravi waived his right to remain free during the appeals process and began his jail term at the Middlesex County Adult Corrections Center in North Brunswick, New Jersey on May 31, 2012.[7][98]

Ravi was released from jail on June 19, 2012 after serving 20 days of his 30 day term, with 5 days of credit for good behavior and 5 days of work credits.[99]

Ravi is a permanent resident of the United States who immigrated at age 6. Clementi's family, M.B., and the judge all recommended Ravi not be deported. In June 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced that the convictions were not serious enough to seek deportation.[100][101]

Apology issue

Judge Berman said that Ravi's "'letter of apology' to the pre-sentence people" was "unimpressive" and "didn't even mention the seven cover-up charges". He said it was "ironic" that Ravi's letter "doesn't mention M.B. as if he doesn't exist", yet M.B. had in his letter offered to write a letter to help Ravi avoid deportation.[102] Ravi declined the opportunity to speak at the sentencing hearing[103] and was reprimanded by Judge Berman for not having publicly apologized: “I heard this jury say guilty 288 times — 24 questions, 12 jurors, that’s the multiplication. And I haven’t heard you apologize once.”[104]

On May 29, 2012, Ravi released the following statement:


I accept responsibility for and regret my thoughtless, insensitive, immature, stupid and childish choices that I made on September 19, 2010 and September 21, 2010. My behavior and actions, which at no time were motivated by hate, bigotry, prejudice or desire to hurt, humiliate or embarrass anyone, were nonetheless the wrong choices and decisions. I apologize to everyone affected by those choices.[105]

Clementi's parents responded:


“As to the so-called ‘apology,’ it was, of course, no apology at all, but a public relations piece produced by Mr. Ravi’s advisers only after Judge Berman scolded Mr. Ravi in open court for his failure to have expressed a word of remorse or apology...A sincere apology is personal. Many people convicted of crimes address the victims and their families in court. Mr. Ravi was given that opportunity but chose to say nothing. His press release did not mention Tyler or our family, and it included no words of sincere remorse, compassion or responsibility for the pain he caused.[103]

Appeals

Both the prosecutors[106] and Ravi[107] have filed separate appeals. It is expected to be at least mid-2014 before any appeal will be heard.[108]"

 

[tampa24]

I did find some timely info regarding this case. It looks like Dharun Ravi has a decent chance of getting his conviction overturned. The New Jersey Supreme Court has found that the Bias Intimidation statute with which Ravi was originally convicted...is unconstitutionally vague.

**********************************************************************************************​

From the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/n...w-ruled-unconstitutional.html?ref=topics&_r=0


Part of New Jersey’s Bias-Intimidation Law Is Ruled Unconstitutional


By KATE ZERNIKE MARCH 17, 2015

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the state’s unusual bias-intimidation law was unconstitutional, dealing a potential reversal to one of the most well-known hate crime prosecutions in recent history.

The state’s statute on bias intimidation was the only one of its kind in the nation in saying that defendants can be convicted of bias intimidation if their victims “reasonably believed” they were harassed or intimidated because of their race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

The court, the state’s highest, unanimously ruled that the 2001 statute was “unconstitutionally vague,” because it does not give defendants fair notice of when they are crossing the line to commit a crime.

The court upheld other parts of the statute that make it a crime to intimidate someone “knowing” that it would cause offense. But it struck down the provision that bases a conviction on the victim’s state of mind, ruling that it criminalizes a “defendant’s failure to apprehend the reaction that his words would have on another.”

“Whether a victim reasonably believes he was targeted for a bias crime will necessarily be informed by the victim’s individual experiences and distinctive cultural, historical and familial heritage — all of which may be unknown or unknowable to the defendant,” Justice Barry Albin wrote in the opinion.

The language on bias intimidation was the cornerstone of the prosecution of Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who was convicted in 2012 of using a webcam to spy on his roommate having sex with another man. His roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge a few days after discovering posts about the webcam on Twitter, and his suicide became a rallying point against the bullying of gay teenagers.

Defense lawyers said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s decision could affect the appeals in that case, because the judge allowed evidence of Mr. Clementi’s state of mind.

The jury found that Mr. Ravi had knowingly harassed Mr. Clementi because he was gay. But it also convicted him based on Mr. Clementi’s “reasonable belief” that he was being harassed because he was gay.

Jurors said after the conviction that some of the most convincing evidence of Mr. Ravi’s guilt came from Mr. Clementi’s own complaints and online posts after he learned that he had been spied on.

The bias-intimidation statute itself was debated during and after the trial.

In his instructions to the jury, the judge criticized the Legislature for the “muddled” language of the statute. And he declined to add the penalties for bias intimidation when he sentenced Mr. Ravi. (Bias intimidation generally elevates a crime, and punishment, by one degree, typically adding months of incarceration.)

The judge sentenced Mr. Ravi to 30 days in a county jail, and he was released on good behavior after 20 days. The state appealed, arguing that the bias-intimidation conviction merited at least a prison sentence.

But Mr. Ravi’s lawyers argued the bias statute was flawed.

“To criminalize a defendant for a victim’s mistaken belief about the defendant’s motive would turn the bias-intimidation statute into a mockery of itself,” they wrote in their appeal.

“The Supreme Court agreed with me,” Mr. Ravi’s lead lawyer, Steven D. Altman, said Tuesday. “Now it’s a question of to what extent that affects the rest of the jury verdicts. You’re sitting there hearing testimony about a victim’s state of mind. It’s sympathetic. Isn’t it going to taint and affect how you view the rest of the proofs?”

Lawrence S. Lustberg, who argued the case for the state’s Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the statute was arbitrary because it could mean that even if two defendants committed the same crime, one could be found guilty and the other not depending on what the victim thought.

“The whole idea is that when you commit an act, you’re supposed to know, ‘Am I committing a crime or not?’ ” he said on Tuesday. “If
criminal liability depends on another person’s idiosyncratic point of view, the defendant can’t possibly be on notice.”

The case involved employees in the public works department in the town of Gloucester, in South Jersey, who were in a garage with a 16-by-8-foot steel storage Cage Kafig in 2007. A white employee locked a black worker, Steven Brodie Jr., inside the Cage Kafig. Mr. Brodie said he heard the defendant, David Pomianek Jr., say, “Oh, you see, you throw a banana in the Cage Kafig and he goes right in,” to which the other white employees laughed. The men unlocked the door after a few minutes, and asked Mr. Brodie if he was O.K., saying they were “just joking around.”

Mr. Brodie said the episode left him feeling humiliated, and that the comment had been “racial.”

The jurors found that Mr. Pomianek had not known that his conduct would cause offense to Mr. Brodie. But they convicted him because they found that Mr. Brodie reasonably believed that he was purposely intimidated because of his race.

The court remanded the case for a new trial.

 

[joninliverton]

Thanks for the update Tampa. I still say that what Ravi did was mean and wrong and, under the current uk law he would be charged under homophic law.

 

[tampa24]

You're welcome Jon.

If Ravi's roommate had been straight, would he have done the same thing by broadcasting him having sex with a girlfriend or one night stand for bunches of people on campus to watch in real time? I doubt it. Both the roommate and the girl's family might have tried to kick his ass.

But because Tyler was gay and a member of a minority that was looked down upon and often held up for ridicule, I think Ravi felt more emboldened to do so. Maybe he thought that Clemente would be so closeted, embarrassed and maybe even ashamed, that he wouldn't have the nerve go to authorities on campus to complain. But to Tyler's credit he did go to authorities on campus to complain and ask for a new roommate.

I think that even if they do decide that what Ravi did to Tyler Clemente was not illegal under New Jersey law...it should have been.

 

[Ambivalent]

Hey, Tamps (and Jon) ~

Here is my thinking about this case:

I am not a big fan of special "hate-crime" penalties, which are accentuated because a civil tort or a criminal offence happened to have been committed against someone because he or she is gay, or Black, or a woman, or whatever the case may be. I AM, however, a BIG FAN of people paying dire penalties for malicious criminal acts, which they have committed, against. . . anyone.

Tamps, from a purely legal perspective, I would side (in a limited way) with Mr. Justice Barry Albin, from the New Jersey Supreme Court. I do not think (from the perspective of the common-law, either in the British Commonwealth, or in the U.S.A.) a defendant can justly be held to account, for a victim's BELIEFS about the defendant - which may be false, or erroneous.

But, in The State of New Jersey vs. Dharun Ravi ~ a very different case from the one about which Mr. Justice Albin ruled, though I think there, while he may have been right on the law, he was wrong on the FACTS. . . . there is PLENTY of evidence to show that Dharun Ravi had a malicious and criminal intent, which he later tried to cover over with a cascade of lies, and obstruction of justice. While the section of New Jersey's 'bias intimidation' statute which pertains to the victim's state of mind has been struck down (rightfully, I think) the portions which pertain to both the objective ACT, and the aggressor's state of mind, still stand, and the prosecution should be sticking to these facts, and legal findings of the lower courts, on appeal.

It astounds me that neither the prosecution nor Tyler Clementi's family, in the original trial, sought deportation. Perhaps that was a merciful, temperate, and/or prudent decision, but. . . Dharun Ravi is a liar, a bully, and an execrable human being, and - if I were a resident of New Jersey, I should want to see the back of him as soon as possible. Based solely on his proven words, works, and deeds.

I believe there was (and is) AMPLE evidence to convict Dharun Ravi, above and beyond and WITHOUT, the provisions of the anti-bias law, which have been struck down as unconstitutional.

"A" XOXOXOXO

 

[Ambivalent]

P.S.

Lest we let this go too quickly, gentlemen - I will reiterate and AMPLIFY that Mr. Justice Barry Albin - while he might be quite a capable lawyer, and might have interpreted the U.S. Constitution quite correctly in The State of New Jersey vs. Pomianek. . . is a moral imbecile.

In this case, Mr. Justice Albin ruled that it was unconstitutional to punish Mr. Pomianek based on his victim, Mr. Steven Brodie Jr.'s fear that the attack to which the latter was subjected was racially motivated - despite the fact that Mr. Brodie (who is, incidentally, an African-American) was locked in a Cage Kafig, and told, "Oh, you see, you throw a banana in the Cage Kafig, and he goes right in!" http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202720833076/NJ-Justices-Hold-Bias-Crime-Law-Unconstitutional

JESUS CHRIST - who the hell CARES about Mr. Brodie's state of mind???? A couple of co-workers LOCKED HIM IN A Cage Kafig, and made racial jokes about him - which clearly evinced their prejudice toward him. There was MORE than enough evidence to lock up Mr. Pomianek, and his buddy. But, because Mr. P. and his buddy eventually let Mr. Brodie GO. . . . ~ Mr. Justice Albin and his colleagues adjudged it a HARMLESS PRANK.

And who appointed Mr. Justice Albin??? A gay Democratic governor, Jim McGreevy. (I generally hate conspiracy theories, too, but Albin went to Rutgers, too. . . could he feel a secret sympathy, for Mr. Ravi, just for the alma mater???)

I mean, come ON guys, if this is what passes for the judiciary in a LIBERAL STATE - what about f***ing ALABAMA? While what happened to Mr. Brodie may well have been a "hate-crime", I think it was a crime, pure and simple ~ and the guys who did it to Mr. Brodie should cool their heels in the PEN, for awhile. (I wonder, if two Black co-workers on Paris Hilton's reality series threw HER in an iron Cage Kafig, and tossed her a piece of a kumquat - replete with dirty references and jokes - how long THEY'D be evading the long arm of American justice? Even if they let her go??? No matter what she thought about it???)

Good grief. If even judges appointed by DEMOCRATS in the YANKEE NORTH think and act, this way - somewhere in the depths of hell, some snaggle-toothed old Grand Dragon is clinking glasses with Beelzebub, smoothing out the creases in his snow-white sheets, sipping his flame-laced mint julep right down, and smiling.


"A"

 

[tampa24]

Tamps, from a purely legal perspective, I would side (in a limited way) with Mr. Justice Barry Albin, from the New Jersey Supreme Court. I do not think (from the perspective of the common-law, either in the British Commonwealth, or in the U.S.A.) a defendant can justly be held to account, for a victim's BELIEFS about the defendant - which may be false, or erroneous.

But, in The State of New Jersey vs. Dharun Ravi ~ a very different case from the one about which Mr. Justice Albin ruled, though I think there, while he may have been right on the law, he was wrong on the FACTS. . . . there is PLENTY of evidence to show that Dharun Ravi had a malicious and criminal intent, which he later tried to cover over with a cascade of lies, and obstruction of justice. While the section of New Jersey's 'bias intimidation' statute which pertains to the victim's state of mind has been struck down (rightfully, I think) the portions which pertain to both the objective ACT, and the aggressor's state of mind, still stand, and the prosecution should be sticking to these facts, and legal findings of the lower courts, on appeal.

It astounds me that neither the prosecution nor Tyler Clementi's family, in the original trial, sought deportation. Perhaps that was a merciful, temperate, and/or prudent decision, but. . . Dharun Ravi is a liar, a bully, and an execrable human being, and - if I were a resident of New Jersey, I should want to see the back of him as soon as possible. Based solely on his proven words, works, and deeds.

I believe there was (and is) AMPLE evidence to convict Dharun Ravi, above and beyond and WITHOUT, the provisions of the anti-bias law, which have been struck down as unconstitutional.

"A" XOXOXOXO

On all of this I agree with you Ambi. It does seem unfair to convict someone solely on the basis of what a perpetrator thinks a potential victim might might be thinking or feeling at the time. On the other hand Ravi's actions were very cruel and heartless. And yes, criminal. Fortunately reading a victim's mind is not the only tool here needed to prove criminal intent. Even with or without the bias intimidation statute as it was originally written it doesn't take a college graduate, a renowned legal scholar or an Ivy League mental health scholar expert to figure out that Tyler's state of mind would have been quite distraught over this.

Ravi made not just the one successful attempt to simulcast Tyler having sex with another man online to the campus community. He attempted to do it a second time. Ravi knew there were criminal acts committed on his part. That's why he engaged in lies and obstruction of justice once everything started hitting the fan. He unsuccessfully tried to delete the texts on his phone and as well as his posts on social media. He also engaged in witness tampering by again unsuccessfully trying to get other key people to lie to authorities about the events.

I don't know why this case affected me as deeply as it did. But I still find the whole thing fascinating. As for the deportation issue, I was initially very much in favor of it also. If you are given a chance to come to another country and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native-born citizens, there is an implicit as well as a legally explicit expectation and responsibility to behave yourself and be an exemplary citizen. If you misbehave and get into criminal trouble you can be sent back home. As time has moved on I have a tiny bit more sympathy for Ravi's situation. Only to the extent that at 18-19 he thought he was one of the smartest guys in the room. That led to an arrogance and the belief that he didn't have sh** for brains like many other typical 18 year olds. In hindsight he knows at best that he was a total idiot. Then you get into other adjectives and labels like a liar, a bully, etc. If he had been deported I would not have been upset at all. Let somebody else more worthy of the opportunity get to come here and contribute to our country and society.

 

[tampa24]

I thought Judge Glenn Berman was very lenient on Ravi. Even to the point of saying he would recommend to the Feds that Ravi not be deported. Ravi did get a very lenient sentence under the circumstances. At least I think so. The judge's best defense of his sentence was probably stated here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/judge-defends-sentence-imposed-on-dharun-ravi.html?_r=0

Here's the quote:

"No matter how “unconscionable” Mr. Ravi’s conduct, Judge Glenn Berman said in a court hearing, “I can’t find it in me to remand him to state prison that houses people convicted of offenses such as murder, armed robbery and rape.”

 

[Ambivalent]

On all of this I agree with you Ambi. It does seem unfair to convict someone solely on the basis of what a perpetrator thinks a potential victim might might be thinking or feeling at the time. On the other hand Ravi's actions were very cruel and heartless. And yes, criminal. Fortunately reading a victim's mind is not the only tool here needed to prove criminal intent. Even with or without the bias intimidation statute as it was originally written it doesn't take a college graduate, a renowned legal scholar or an Ivy League mental health scholar expert to figure out that Tyler's state of mind would have been quite distraught over this.

Ravi made not just the one successful attempt to simulcast Tyler having sex with another man online to the campus community. He attempted to do it a second time. Ravi knew there were criminal acts committed on his part. That's why he engaged in lies and obstruction of justice once everything started hitting the fan. He unsuccessfully tried to delete the texts on his phone and as well as his posts on social media. He also engaged in witness tampering by again unsuccessfully trying to get other key people to lie to authorities about the events.

I don't know why this case affected me as deeply as it did. But I still find the whole thing fascinating. As for the deportation issue, I was initially very much in favor of it also. If you are given a chance to come to another country and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native-born citizens, there is an implicit as well as a legally explicit expectation and responsibility to behave yourself and be an exemplary citizen. If you misbehave and get into criminal trouble you can be sent back home. As time has moved on I have a tiny bit more sympathy for Ravi's situation. Only to the extent that at 18-19 he thought he was one of the smartest guys in the room. That led to an arrogance and the belief that he didn't have sh** for brains like many other typical 18 year olds. In hindsight he knows at best that he was a total idiot. Then you get into other adjectives and labels like a liar, a bully, etc. If he had been deported I would not have been upset at all. Let somebody else more worthy of the opportunity get to come here and contribute to our country and society.

*****************************************

Tampa, I do agree with you, 100 per cent, on this. From a scholarly/legal perspective, portions of the New Jersey statute which were employed to convict Ravi were likely unconstitutional - and I think it is only intellectually honest to admit this.

I'll tell you why I think so. Once, I was on a Transit bus, where there were a couple of horny teenage straight kids, furiously making out. Everyone on the bus was embarrassed, including me, and everyone was trying to look away. But, for whatever reason, the boy (in this instance) singled me out and said, "HEY! FATSO! Stop staring at my girlfriend's TITS." (I think you all know me well enough to know that I have NEVER, in my whole LIFE, stared at a woman's breasts.) But this guy went up to the bus-driver, complained about me, and said, "That fat old pervert is ogling my girlfriend - kick him off the bus, right now!"

Obviously, nothing ensued. But, under the LEGAL TEST specified by the New Jersey legislation, I could have been subject to fines or penalties based upon the state of mind of those (incredibly stoned) kids - something about which I had no knowledge, and over which I had no CONTROL. As a matter of law, this is simply unfair. To turn it all around, such provisions could subject gay men to penalties simply for smiling at another man in a subway, or something, despite having no lewd or inappropriate intent whatsoever - based solely upon what was going through the mind of someone who FELT aggrieved. (Possibly paranoid - possibly DELUSIONAL.)

That is why I think the bench must be cautious, in allowing the over-extension of laws which are not in accord with the precepts of the common-law tradition, to which we all belong.

HOWEVER - and I cannot state this strongly enough: I think there is ample evidence in the case of Tyler Clementi, that Dharun Ravi had an evil and malicious criminal intent. Which he ACTED upon, in the cruelest fashion. And then tried to paper over, with lies and false and half-hearted apologies, so as to avoid deportation.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: I think Dharun Ravi was, and IS, guilty. And that his wickedness was the proximate cause of Tyler Clementi's death. AND that he ought to have his citizenship privileges revoked. AND that he ought to be deported, never to see the shores of the U.S.A., ever again.

And I think there are plenty of sanctions in previous law, and plenty of evidence on the facts of the case, for the prosecution to have convicted Dharun Ravi of the crime which he surely committed. I think he is a monster - and not just a monster, but the worst kind of monster. A kind of monster like Adolf Eichmann, about whom Hannah Arendt famously wrote, that his evil was "banal". A guy who hides under the cloak of normality, and civilized politeness, every other Tuesday - but who secretly bears deep anger and hatred, exercised and executed in an environment where it seems possible to get away with it.

I hope and pray that Dharun Ravi's conviction will not be overturned, upon the inevitable appeal. Though his conviction may not have been deserved on the grounds the prosecution originally argued it - his conviction was deserved, on much simpler, plainer, grounds, in previously existing law.

It well may be that a talented lawyer - and apparently Ravi's parents have cascades of cash to shed, in this matter - will be able to rescind this conviction. But, a good and intelligent and focused prosecutor should be able to prevent this from happening.

In any event, I believe - because my faith is of a rather dark and medieval ilk - that Ravi will burn in hell, eternally. AS HE OUGHT.

"A" :-(((((

 

[Ambivalent]

P.S. Tampa - why did this case affect us all, so deeply?

For myself, I know precisely, why. I was a shy, bookish, gay kid who went to university and lived in a dormitory, at the age of 16. My roommate was a horny straight guy, who didn't like me AT ALL - he said, "Wow, when I read your name on the door, I never IMAGINED you'd be SO UNCOOL".

And my university roommate posted giant posters of naked women all over the room, constantly talked about how much he hated fags, and, late at night, after he was done jerking off (which was not in the LEAST sexy, because he was so ugly): he'd cry to me about how much he needed 'pussy'. And then (sometimes on the verge of tears) he'd ask me, "A - how do I get a girlfriend???" I invariably replied, "Ummm, dude, I dunno. I'm pretty shy; you're asking the wrong guy."

And I couldn't WAIT for him to go home on the weekend, so I could haul out my little cache of Tom Cruise pictures, from Risky Business (yeah - I know - it's pretty embarrassing now, because he turned out to be such a JACKASS, but, when I was 16 I had a huge crush on T.C.): and jack off a little, myself - just hoping he wouldn't get back to the dorm, early.

Tamps - why does this Tyler Clementi story affect us, so deeply? It's easy. It affects us so deeply, because so many of us have BEEN THERE. When you first go to university or college or technical school or whatever. . . you're young, you're green, you're far from home, and probably quite scared, in a totally new environment. You're scared about whether you're going to succeed or not, in school. You're scared because your family and friends are far away, and you are thrown in with a bunch of strangers. And, if you're a little gay boy, like I was, or Tyler was - you're scared because you're forced to share intimate living-space with a stranger who might be nice, but might be aggressively and obnoxiously gay-baiting, and you don't want to reveal all your personal life to him. . . much less get called out and MOCKED for feeling the way you feel.

Tampa, I totally get why Tyler felt the way he did - because, in the fall of 1982 - I WAS TYLER. Living with an obnoxious straight guy in the dorm, and scared SHITLESS that he was gonna find out my secret, and make my life miserable. (Happily, my roommate moved out at half-term - his grades weren't so good - and so then I could jack off to my heart's content.)

But - those first days of independence are REALLY SCARY. It is the time when (I think) as gay men who are fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to GO to school (lots of guys, gay and straight, never GET that opportunity, and that's sad): we are at our moment of maximum fear and vulnerability. No family, no friends (until we find some), and no real supports. Believing in our intellectual or vocational passions, and hoping for the BEST in the future, but not knowing how it's all going to work out. And FEARING that we will get called out, hurt, or abused, by people who don't understand us.

I was there, and I felt all that. And that's why Tyler Clementi's story always makes me cry. HOW I WISH there could have been SOMEONE THERE to hug him, and reassure him, and TAKE HIS SIDE, when he needed it the most.

Tampa, Tyler's story hurts so much because, but for the grace of God - there went you, and I.

"A" :-((((

 

[tampa24]

P.S. Tampa - why did this case affect us all, so deeply?

Tamps - why does this Tyler Clementi story affect us, so deeply? It's easy. It affects us so deeply, because so many of us have BEEN THERE. When you first go to university or college or technical school or whatever. . . you're young, you're green, you're far from home, and probably quite scared, in a totally new environment. You're scared about whether you're going to succeed or not, in school. You're scared because your family and friends are far away, and you are thrown in with a bunch of strangers. And, if you're a little gay boy, like I was, or Tyler was - you're scared because you're forced to share intimate living-space with a stranger who might be nice, but might be aggressively and obnoxiously gay-baiting, and you don't want to reveal all your personal life to him. . . much less get called out and MOCKED for feeling the way you feel.

Tampa, I totally get why Tyler felt the way he did - because, in the fall of 1982 - I WAS TYLER. Living with an obnoxious straight guy in the dorm, and scared SHITLESS that he was gonna find out my secret, and make my life miserable. (Happily, my roommate moved out at half-term - his grades weren't so good - and so then I could jack off to my heart's content.)

But - those first days of independence are REALLY SCARY. It is the time when (I think) as gay men who are fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to GO to school (lots of guys, gay and straight, never GET that opportunity, and that's sad): we are at our moment of maximum fear and vulnerability. No family, no friends (until we find some), and no real supports. Believing in our intellectual or vocational passions, and hoping for the BEST in the future, but not knowing how it's all going to work out. And FEARING that we will get called out, hurt, or abused, by people who don't understand us.

I was there, and I felt all that. And that's why Tyler Clementi's story always makes me cry. HOW I WISH there could have been SOMEONE THERE to hug him, and reassure him, and TAKE HIS SIDE, when he needed it the most.

Tampa, Tyler's story hurts so much because, but for the grace of God - there went you, and I.

"A" :-((((

First off Ambi I am very impressed that you started your Freshmen year of college at 16 years old. As the college kids of today would say, I have mad resect for you in accomplishing that feat. haha

As to your question above, you have pretty much answered it for me with your own story. In 1982 I was a Freshmen living in the dorms and living on my own (more or less) for the first time in my life. I was extremely closeted even as I tried to fit in and make friends with as many people as possible. All people at that point, regardless of sexual orientation, are at a very vulnerable point as they first arrive on campus with none of their usual support systems to help guide them through these transitions. I lived on campus for about 3 years total.

As vulnerable was I was, I know that if I had been outed within the first months of my new college life and I knew my whole family at home would find out, I would have felt like my whole life was over. I really think that suicide is an option I would've seriously considered. And I don't say that lightly.

Over time there were a few people on my hall who I knew suspected I might be gay, some who I think knew, and the majority others who had no clue or couldn't have cared less. Fortunately I was straight acting enough that I could pass for straight. And even among the small number of those who suspected or kind of knew, they never said or did anything to out me to the world. By my senior year I did start coming out. But importantly while I was still living on campus, I was no longer living in a traditional dorm setting with humongous hallways and so on. They were more like on-campus efficiency apartments that you shared with a roommate.

But like you Ambi (and many others) I could easily have been Tyler.

 

[tampa24]

*****************************************

Tampa, I do agree with you, 100 per cent, on this. From a scholarly/legal perspective, portions of the New Jersey statute which were employed to convict Ravi were likely unconstitutional - and I think it is only intellectually honest to admit this.

That is why I think the bench must be cautious, in allowing the over-extension of laws which are not in accord with the precepts of the common-law tradition, to which we all belong.

HOWEVER - and I cannot state this strongly enough: I think there is ample evidence in the case of Tyler Clementi, that Dharun Ravi had an evil and malicious criminal intent. Which he ACTED upon, in the cruelest fashion. And then tried to paper over, with lies and false and half-hearted apologies, so as to avoid deportation.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: I think Dharun Ravi was, and IS, guilty. And that his wickedness was the proximate cause of Tyler Clementi's death. AND that he ought to have his citizenship privileges revoked. AND that he ought to be deported, never to see the shores of the U.S.A., ever again.

And I think there are plenty of sanctions in previous law, and plenty of evidence on the facts of the case, for the prosecution to have convicted Dharun Ravi of the crime which he surely committed.

I hope and pray that Dharun Ravi's conviction will not be overturned, upon the inevitable appeal. Though his conviction may not have been deserved on the grounds the prosecution originally argued it - his conviction was deserved, on much simpler, plainer, grounds, in previously existing law.

It well may be that a talented lawyer - and apparently Ravi's parents have cascades of cash to shed, in this matter - will be able to rescind this conviction. But, a good and intelligent and focused prosecutor should be able to prevent this from happening.

I agree with you on so much of this Ambi.

I only hope that Ravi does see the error of his ways at least in hindsight. I would rather see him take steps to make some amends for his past behavior. I'd rather not have to imagine him rotting in hell forever. I don't equate him with mass murderers but I fully agree that he was/is (?) a liar, a bully and even a gay basher who found a much more passive aggressive way to bash and bully his victim.

I happened to watch most of the trial in real time as it was broadcast. I heard in some news reports that former gay New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy had written the judge expressing his preference for some leniency towards Ravi. One thing I found most unsettling about the Judge Glenn Berman's comments during the sentencing phase of the trial was something he said almost offhandedly at the end. We know that jurors are told not to listen to any news reports giving coverage to the trial they are working on. We know they're told not to discuss the trial or the case with anyone before going into deliberations at the end. But what of the judges themselves who decide sentencing after the jurors determine guilt or innocence?

This is not a verbatim exact quote, mind you. I'm going from memory of a trial that ended 3 years ago. But what he said after he imposed a very lenient sentence on Ravi, including his recommendation that Ravi not be deported...was this. "For those of you who think my sentence is too lenient, you should see my inbox."

I was really flabbergasted by that. I thought that judges decided sentencing based on the severity of the crimes, the legal precedents for past offenses of the same laws, while allowing just a hint of personal interpretation of the verdict and laws to guide them. I didn't know that they could or were allowed to do their jobs by sticking a finger in the air to find out which way the wind was blowing. For a judge to even hint that his sentencing of a defendant was influenced by letters or phone calls to his office, letters in his email inbox, or even old-school over the transom, I found very unsettling. Judge Berman has since retired.