<p>
</p>
<p>Why do people keep repeating this? There has been no sentence as of yet. Isn’t probation a definite possibility?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Why is so hard to understand that probation would make no difference to the real penalty? This young man will be deported to a foreign country (for him) and will never be allowed to set foot on US soil. </p>
<p>The only question is about his date of deportation and how long he will be in jail for the crime itself or in ICE detainer status. </p>
<p>Or the case being overturned entirely, which has zero to slim chances.</p>
<p>I get the deportation issue. But there has been no “sentence.”</p>
<p>And who knows what will happen on appeal. There may well be a deciding judge who views the situation in the same light as many of the intelligent people on CC.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>xiggi is right. It doesn’t make sense to debate what the long-term outcome will be; that’s virtually certain: deportation and barred from the US for life.</p>
<p>As to whether or not the conviction is appropriate, etc., back to the debate…</p>
<p>For argument’s sake, say that that the sentence is probation, and that the conviction is overturned entirely on appeal.</p>
<p>If the defendant has already been deported, will he be able to regain his resident status?</p>
<p>Since he did plead guilty, I would assume that he could not be deported until the appeals are exhausted. If the case is overturned, he would be innocent and be able to resume his life.</p>
<p>I dont think the problem was that Ravi received ineffective legal advice or didnt listen to it. I think the problem is that all the prosecution could offer is that they would help him avoid deportation, its not under their control. As to why he wasnt naturalized, we dont know if he came here intitially when his parents were on a series of J-1s, H-1 visas. Its a difficult situation. All I can hope is that all parents and school admin people here remind their charges that what starts as a prank for a citizen may result in community service for the citizen but a disaster for them.</p>
<p>xiggi and others, I have not read the entire thread, but just re: your post above, the defendant didn’t didn’t PLEAD guilty, he was FOUND guilty.</p>
<p>Yes, that was a typo of mine. The “not” stayed in the iPad. Of course, he could not appeal after a guilty plea. He plead not guilty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an excellent point, kayf, and one I was overlooking in my post about naturalization. For all I know, the family could have spent so many years in nonimmigrant status and AOS that they may not yet have been permanent residents long enough (5 years) to be eligible for naturalization.</p>
<p>
I thought the result of getting a guilty verdict meant there would some mandatory jail time, especially for the hate crime charge. </p>
<p>Sometimes the defendant takes a plea to avoid a felony charge, to avoid jail time, or in this case, to avoid deportation. But was that the only reason why DR did not take the plea? Wasn’t it to avoid all three of those?</p>
<p>And, just in case you’re looking at my screen name and thinking I already wrote something here, there are two posters here with similar names:
limabean01 (who is a college kid) and me. limabeans (a parent).</p>
<p>“Its a difficult situation. All I can hope is that all parents and school admin people here remind their charges that what starts as a prank for a citizen may result in community service for the citizen but a disaster for them.”</p>
<p>It may be revealed that his parents are now undocumented immigrants.</p>
<p>Do I feel bad about non-citizens who bully people to their death and tamper with witnesses getting deported from the US? Um, no. Lots of people want to come here, but we can and should get rid of criminals who commit felonies.</p>
<p>It is still not clear to me that the family was overly concerned about the possible deportation; the article by Di Ionno on the NJ.com site (" In wake of conviction, Ravi family stands behind rejecting ‘hate crime’ plea deals") includes some statements by both the parents and defense counsel that suggest they rejected the plea deals out of principle and their belief in their son’s innocence and that they may not have considered the legal outcome if Ravi were found guilty. They clearly did not believe this could happen. </p>
<p>That article is listed as a blog so not sure whether ok to post or not but can be found from links below the article I previously posted:</p>
<p>[Experts:</a> Ravi faces ‘very serious’ risk of deportation to India following conviction in webcam trial | NJ.com](<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/following_convictions_ravi_fac.html]Experts:”>Experts: Ravi faces 'very serious' risk of deportation to India following conviction in webcam trial - nj.com)</p>
<p>Given the family’s feelings the defense counsel may not have had any other options but to pursue the “immature kid” defense as strongly as he did (esp given the current climate that has existed in NJ re cyberbullying since this incident occured)</p>
<p>
Scansmom, thanks for that link. I found a quote about Ravi’s plea. This implies, although doesn’t state, that Ravi’s plea would include having a felony charge on his record.</p>
<p>My guess is that he still probably can avoid deportation. In fact, the ‘risk’ of of deportation, plus the ‘risk’ of jail time, is maybe what the jury wanted. They did, after all, want to send a message that Ravi’s behavior was wrong.
</p>
<p>I would think it cuts the other way. His parents have been here many years, apparently, and never applied for citizenship. (Did they overstay their visas?) As far as I am aware, they still haven’t applied. Wouldn’t this indicate a lack of strong ties by either parents or child to this country?</p>
<p>Where are you getting this illegal immigrant stuff from?</p>
<p>It is clearly reported that the family has been in the U.S. since Ravi was a small child and the family are permanent residents. A younger son was born in the U.S.</p>
<p>Not applying for U.S. citizenship does not mean a lack of loyalty or ties to this country. There are many reasons that people hold on to their original citizenship, including family, property, etc.</p>
<p>[Guilty</a> verdict in Ravi webcam spying trial breaks new legal ground, and will likely face scrutiny | NJ.com](<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/guitly_verdict_in_ravi_webcam.html]Guilty”>Guilty verdict in Ravi webcam spying trial breaks new legal ground, and will likely face scrutiny - nj.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our S was six when we came to the US in 1994. All three of us became citizens last year. No visas were ever overstayed. 
5 years of F-1(student), 3 years of J-1(post-doc), 4 years of H-1( working and going through the Green Card process), 5 years of being permanent residents. We applied for citizenship the moment we became eligible. S was 23 at the time of his ceremony. We have no idea why the Ravis are not citizens, everybody has different paths.</p>
<p>Re post #118 (quoting from lawyer quoted in news article):
</p>
<p>That’s an incorrect statement, both as to what the New Jersey statute requires and of the state of the law. There are many laws where the state of mind of the victim comes into play – for example, rape. (Consent is a defense to rape, and consent is the state of mind of the victim and not the defendant, although the defendant’s reasonable belief under the circumstances might come into play.)</p>
<p>Here is the relevant subsection of the NJ bias/intimidation statute:
[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 offense is committed] "under circumstances that caused any victim of the underlying offense to be intimidated and the victim, considering the manner in which the offense was committed, reasonably believed either that (a) the offense was committed with a purpose to intimidate the victim or any person or entity in whose welfare the victim is interested because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, or (b) the victim or the victim’s property was selected to be the target of the offense because of the victim’s race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. "</p>
<p>The mental state of the victim isn’t the crux of the offense – rather, it is reflective of the harm caused to the victim, and degree of harm is relevant in many criminal statutes. For example, if a person gets in a fistfight and punches someone, and that person falls to the ground, hits his head, and dies – the fighter can be charged with manslaughter even though it is obvious that he probably didn’t intend to kill the other person. </p>
<p>So the crux of the offense are the “circumstances” and “manner in which the offense was committed” – not the victim’s state of mind. I can see why a jury would conclude that setting up a web cam to spy on the roommate and posting derogatory comments on twitter would be such “circumstances”.</p>