Should Rutgers Alleged Bully Be Deported?

Parent Cafe
241

<p>

</p>

<p>I think there’s a gray area where it is not clear whether a state law falls under a category of “aggravated felony” or not – that is, in a situation where state law defines a crime to be a felony, but there may or may not be an analogous offense under federal law. </p>

<p>So that’s an area where the state authorities can help, a lot – as can the term of a plea deal and statements placed on the record at the time of the plea. In other words, an aggravated felony has certain characteristics; it must fit within the description of one of the 21 categories enumerated in INA sec. 101(a)(43). </p>

<p>None of the offenses that Ravi was charged with fits exactly within the enumerated offenses under the statute. There is absolutely NOTHING in the federal law that would even arguably make the bias/intimidation law fit within that definition, given that there was no violence or direct injury involved. So you are left with a single possible argument for “aggravated felony”:</p>

<p>" an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury, subornation of perjury, bribery of a witness for which a term of imprisonment of one (1) year has been imposed"</p>

<p>[See [What</a> is an “aggravated felony?”](<a href=“http://www.vkblaw.com/law/aggravated.htm]What”>http://www.vkblaw.com/law/aggravated.htm) for list of aggravated felonies.]</p>

<p>The bias/intimidation charge does’t fit, but the witness interference & evidence destruction charges could be deemed “relating to obstruction of justice”. (See 18 USC 1512, witness tampering - [18</a> USC § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant | LII / Legal Information Institute](<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512]18”>18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute) – )</p>

<p>So the one thing that Ravi absolutely needed to avoid was any possibility of being sentenced to a year in prison or more based on the charges related to his communication with witnesses or deletion of text & email evidence.</p>

<p>It appears that the plea bargain would have entailed all of those charges being dropped, leaving only the bias/intimidation charge, which seems to have no analog in federal law an in any case does not fall under any category of the federal “aggravated felony” list. </p>

<p>He could have still been subject to removal proceedings, but without the “aggravated” designation, any decision would have been discretionary – including the decision of authorities as to whether to initiate such proceedings in the first place. That’s where the support of state officials could have been a big help, in a number of different ways.</p>

<p>

There is a difference between an offense carrying a risk of deportation, and the “aggravated felony” category where there is no discretion. </p>

<p>It seems to me that the argument that a very good plea bargain is “no bargain at all” because it carries the possibility of deportation (as opposed to mandatory deportation) is an argument that permanent residents should have some sort of exemption from the ordinary legal process that applies to citizens. That is, that the prosecutors in New Jersey are somehow under an obligation to offer better deals to legal immigrants than to natural citizens, because of the collateral consequences of a conviction. </p>

<p>To me that makes no sense. It is arguing that a person should be afforded leniency because of being a non-citizen. Why should state authorities be more lenient in that circumstance?</p>

<p>It seems that the prosecutors in this case were very willing to work with the defense to do their best to avoid immigration consequences – but that the defendant was unwilling to accept responsibility for his acts. </p>

<p>Personally, I don’t think its the responsibility of state officials to worry about federal immigration consequences; their job is to enforce the state laws equally. They should have offered Ravi the very same deal they would have offered to a citizen. It seems they may have done more, though its hard to say.</p>

242

<p>Here is what Rhavi tweeted</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I wonder how many people would say “I saw my female roommate making out with a dude” and then feel the need to talk about it happening again in the future. Of ocourse he is being homophobic. The message is finally being sent that this is not OK. ALL human beings deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect. How sad that so many are so adamant at denying the obvious.</p>

243

<p>Slightly off topic, but the US Supreme Court issued 2 significant rulings this week that establish the right to effective assistance of counsel at the plea bargaining stage - Missouri v. Frye & Lafler v. Cooper. Probably not applicable to the Ravi case… except that it underlines why it quite stupid for the father to have made the statements to the media about the reasons for rejecting the plea offer reported here: [Di</a> Ionno: In wake of conviction, Ravi family stands behind rejecting ‘hate crime’ plea deals | NJ.com](<a href=“http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2012/03/di_ionno_in_wake_of_conviction.html]Di”>Di Ionno: In wake of conviction, Ravi family stands behind rejecting 'hate crime' plea deals - nj.com)</p>

<p>The father’s statement pretty much shuts the door on any possible post-trial Lafler-based claim that the defendant relied on mistaken advise by counsel.</p>

244

<p>lima01, I agree with you that, indeed, Ravi is homophobic. I also think he’s a bully who came to college armed with a safety net of friends and the stupidity of youth. What amazes me is how the parents don’t understand why their son is convicted of this crime. I wonder if they’re hung on the term “hate”. How devastating it must be to these proud parents to think that their son is guilty of a “hate crime” when that’s not how they raised him.</p>

<p>This is one of those times when we at CC warn about the challenges of college that are far beyond academics.</p>

245

<p>Having watched the 20/20 episode last night where Ravi got to tell his side of the story, his conviction is a travesty. The only thing he is guilty of is being a foolish teenager who made some stupid, stupid mistakes. The politicians wanted to make an example of him. Sure they offered him a plea but then he would have to confess that he had malicious intent and hatred toward gays. I applaud him for standing his ground. He admits that would rather serve jail time than to agree to something that he doesn’t believe is true.</p>

<p>I question why Tyler’s suicide note was not admissible in court. Perhaps it would exonerate him from being the evil/mean spirited person that the prosecutor was trying to portray? Clearly Tyler was dealing with depression and other family issues that were present even before he left for college. We will never know why he committed suicide (maybe he expressed it in the letter?). But don’t make Ravi the scapegoat. He was no bully; just a fool.</p>

<p>The media jumped on the bandwagon and wrote stories that were patent lies. Poor Ravi he didn’t stand a chance when celebrities and politicians joined in these accusations.</p>

246

<p>The crime does have the “frat boy”, stupid college kid, mean prankster sign blazoned on it. That he picked a person with other issues, that was on the edge anyways is a risk that all such actions carry and those who do these things don’t care or think about. I don’t believe what he would have had to confess was why he did not sign. He felt he had a good chance of beating the charges, and he did. The prosecution would not have offered that deal if they did not thing there was a good chance that he get away with it entirely. It was a calculated risk, that did not go the way he thought it would. There is also the witness tampering that is a very serious component of his case. </p>

<p>I think that he should be deported and put on the “do not allow entry” list. We’ve spent enough of our tax dollars on this young man. Hopefully, he learns from this experience.</p>

247

<p>

</p>

<p>I honestly don’t know what I think about this case overall, but it seems that this statement is true of a lot of crimes that teenagers commit. Underage drinking and driving under the influence are two that come to mind. Should we just not prosecute teenagers?</p>

248

<p>

That’s a lie. He could have pleaded “no contest” which is essentially a statement that you are accepting the consequences of a guilty plea without admitting guilt; and the the statute does not have the word “hatred” in it, nor does it require that the person have “hatred” or bias toward all members of a class. You can read the law here: [New</a> Jersey Statute Directory - NJSA 2C:16-1. Bias intimidation.](<a href=“http://nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1576]New”>New Jersey Statute Directory - NJSA 2C:16-1. Bias intimidation.) </p>

<p>The above statement attribute to Ravi is just one more example of rationalization & refusal to accept responsibility for what he did – which was to invade his roommates privacy and ridicule him because of something associated with his gayness. </p>

<p>It’s not much different than the Trevon Martin case, where a young black man was seen as suspicious because he was black – we can even hear the 911 tape documenting that – but the shooter’s father & lawyer are making statements that he is not a a racist - he has black friends, he comes from an interracial extended family, etc.</p>

<p>A person can act in a biased way towards some individuals, based on their status, without necessarily being overtly biased toward that class as a whole. If, for example, a male employer says he likes and enjoys the company of women – and his social life clearly demonstrates that – but he refuses to hire or promote women to management positions because he believes that men are more suited to positions of leadership – then that individual would be showing a clear “bias” – but certainly not a hatred. His bias wouldn’t make him a misogynist – just a male with a bias that is fairly common in work place environment – and the reason that we have anti-discrimination laws is precisely because those biases are pervasive enough to cause serious harm. </p>

<p>I didn’t watch the 20/20 segment but unless that young man took responsibility for his actions and admitted that he was wrong, it sounds to me like excuse-making and rationalization, and all the more reason why the NJ law is appropriate. Eventually the message will get through: it is not ok to harass, tease, or humiliate others because of their race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. </p>

<p>Ravi was offered the opportunity to acknowledge that he got that message – and avoid any possibility of jail time – before the case went to trial. Apparently even after having been convicted, he has yet to understand the message.</p>

249

<p>calmom, I dont think any of us can say exactly what the terms of the plea agreement would have been, what he would have been required to say etc. Yes, NJ does have nolo contende pleas, but we dont know what was demanced.</p>

250

<p>

</p>

<p>It would be hearsay.</p>

<p>The only time I would expect a suicide note to be admissible would be in a homicide case, where it could be relevant to cause of death.</p>

251

<p>The jury heard all the arguments and evidence and though differently than his being just another foolish teenager. This sort of opinion , I might have had while he was innocent, that is not yet found guilty by our legal system. He is now guilty.</p>

252

<p>

Well, he definitely would NOT have been required to say anything that was not an element of the crime, and there is no requirement of “hatred” in the bias intimidation statute. At most he would have had to admit that he was aware that secretly videotaping his roommate in a sexual encounter and would tend to cause the roommate to feel intimidated. </p>

<p>I found something else interesting at [Rutgers</a> Suicide Shock: Tyler Clementi?s Video Sex Torment - The Daily Beast](<a href=“Rutgers Suicide Shock: Tyler Clementi’s Video Sex Torment”>Rutgers Suicide Shock: Tyler Clementi’s Video Sex Torment) – it turns out that the very first rule in the student housing conduct manual is prohibition on the use of recording devices:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So this is also a case of a student doing something he knew from the outset was expressly forbidden by his college and likely to result in expulsion. I don’t think he would have been doing that if his roommate had not been gay.</p>

253

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see its relevance when it comes to the questions of “Did Ravi videotape?” and “Did Ravi attempt to coerce a witness?” He was not charged with causing Tyler’s death in any way.</p>

254

<p>I get that Ravi was not charged in Tyler’s death. They had no grounds. Instead they went after secondary charges in order to prosecute. There should have been disciplinary action handled by Rutgers, not a case prosecuted by the state.</p>

<p>As far as the suicide note, if Clementi explicitly said that Ravi’s actions caused him to kill himself, I am sure they would have used it as evidence. Instead, the contents of the note were never divulged. I am not surprised that the jury found Ravi guilty of all the charges. How could they separate Clementi’s suicide and the events leading up to it? Especially where Ravi was involved.</p>

<p>When this story first broke, I also believed that Ravi was an evil kid who deserved harsh punishment. But after reading a little more about it, it is clear that it was a feeding frenzy by the media. The timing of events did Ravi no favors. The day of Clementi’s suicide was also the launch of the “It Gets Better” campaign. There was a mob mentality where the public wanted to make Ravi the face of bullying.</p>

255

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not surprised they found Ravi guilty either – given the wording of the law and the jury instructions they were given . However, he was not found guilty of ALL the charges; the jury was clearly attempting to read the law and the charges very carefully and only found him guilty of those supported by the evidence they were given. </p>

<p>And, yes, it must have been very difficult for them to separate Clementi’s suicide and Ravi’s involvement, given that Clementi spent so much of his last hours obsessively checking Ravi’s twitter to see whether he had written anything else (38 times after Ravi’s second twitter). Even if Ravi’s actions were not the direct cause, it is easy to see how the jury may have felt those actions were a contributing factor if not the breaking point for an already emotionally troubled young man.</p>

256

<p>

</p>

<p>I am sure there was disciplinary action by the school, but this involved the death of one of their students who died off campus - how could the police NOT be involved in the initial investigation of that death? And it was as a result of that investigation that the state determined there was enough evidence to prosecute. Crimes such as the ones Ravi was charged with can and often are dealt with both through the school and the courts; the fact that you are a college student subject to disciplinary proceedings by your school does not shield you from criminal prosecution (and this is specifically stated in the Rutgers code of conduct).</p>

257

<p>

No it wouldn’t. In that setting, such a note would be clearly inadmissible, on federal Constitutional grounds. Miller v. Stovall, 608 F.3d 913 (2010).</p>

258

<p>In all of the recent coverage, there has been no mention of Ravi being deported. Is this even on the table?</p>

259

<p>^^^^
Because the sentence is less than a year, a legal opinion (not mine, I’ve read it on msnbc.com) is that he is not likely to be deported, but it is still a possibility.</p>

260

<p>I think its very important to separate the suicide from what Ravi did. Yes Ravi’s actions constitute an invasion of privacy, he seems homophobic. But he did not kill anyone. His bullying did not cause the boy to commit suicide. There are other factors too, like the fact that the boy’s mother did not approve of him being gay.</p>

<p>While Ravi certainly did something horrible, he was not being evil, he was being a stupid, foolish, idiotic college kid</p>