<p>Parabella,</p>
<p>Just curious, and plese dont answer if you find this offensive, but did you ever discuss with your kids that prior to their being naturalized, the penalties for what might be regarded as youthful indiscriminations could be horrendous for them, but not their citizen classmates?</p>
<p>kayf,</p>
<p>I don’t find your question offensive in the least, and yes, we talked to our S(he is an only child) about a difference between permanent residents and citizens in this regard. Thankfully we managed to raise a rather nice, law-abiding kid. My hart breaks for parents of both young men. I will wait to find out what the actual sentence will be, but being deported would be the hardest part of it in my eyes, for a young man raised here and knowing that he will never be able to come back.</p>
<p>Re #120
</p>
<p>I am not a lawyer. But what New Jersey defense lawyer Lawrence Lustberg said (as quoted in post #118) seems to be accurate in this case (I am not sure about the part of it being unprecedented). Based on the [description</a> of the deliberation](<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/jurors_weigh_in_on_decision_to.html]description”>Jurors weigh in on the 'difficult' decision to convict Ravi in webcam spying trial - nj.com) by one of the jurors, the guilty verdict on the bias charge rested solely on the jury’s perception of whether Mr. Clementi might have thought being intimidated:
</p>
<p>I agree my heart breaks for all also. It is so sad that in the few short troubled weeks these two young men lived togethor, neither managed to communicate to any adult, a parent, a conselor, their feelings and got help in resolving the issues.</p>
<p>Look at Amanda Knox. </p>
<p>If Ravi cannot behave appropriately, then yes, send him back to his country of citizenship.</p>
<p>
No, it would have been based on the intructions given to the jury under the statute, which would have relied on proof of both the element that the victim harbored a reasonable belief that he was being intimidated, and the “the manner in which the offense was committed”. (That’s why I took the trouble of quoting the whole statute).</p>
<p>In California, the crime of robbery is defined as “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” In situations where there is no weapon involved, it is very common for the victims to be asked whether the defendant’s actions made them fearful. Sometime it is not so clear, so the subjective state of the victim comes into play – for example, if a homeless person approaches a well-dressed person on the street and asks for money… it could simply be begging – but the “beggar” may well be charged with robbery if their demeanor is sufficiently intimidating. That’s a situation where the jury would end up looking both at the defendant’s objective behavior and at the subjective response of the victim.</p>
<p>A post-trial interview with the juror is only going to pick up bits and pieces – but the jury would have been given detailed instructions on the law and the NJ law requires both pieces: actual conduct by the defendant, and a response by the victim. You might think the victims’ response to be irrelevant – but if that were the case, then people could end up being charged with crimes for conduct that everyone clearly understood to be meant in play or in jest. So, “I was only joking” becomes a potential defense, but only if the conduct is something that would reasonably be understood as a joke. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that the law necessarily will withstand appeal – it’s possible that an appellate court could find the wording of the statute overbroad or vague - but I don’t think the fact that it involve a subjective, but “reasonable”, state of mind of the victim would be the grounds for overturning that particular law. Because the whole point of the laws are to protect people from actions that are intended or likely to be interpreted as intimidating – since the harm being addressed is intimidation, it makes some sense to look at whether the victim actually felt intimidated.</p>
<p>What does Amanda Knox have to do with anything? It’s not a matter of being “nice”. Ravi didn’t come to the US just to attend college–he had been living here legally since he was a small child. He lived virtually his whole life as an American, and, absent this incident, would have become a naturalized citizen in due course. Exiling Ravi to a country where he is a stranger is cruel and unusual punishment for his transgressions. As I’ve mentioned before, if Clementi had not had the mental instability that drove him to suicide, we would never have heard about these events, much less see them play out in a courtroom. Absent the suicide, Ravi’s misdeeds would have been handled internally by Rutgers and by now would have been a distant memory. So in the end, Ravi will be deported because he had the bad luck to have a roommate with a mental illness. I don’t see how anyone can find this to be a fair result.</p>
<p>
There are people who are totally innocent any wrongdoing who are in similar situations through no fault of their own, simply because of their immigration status. It can be harsh – but I do think that non-citizen needs to be acutely aware that they are a guest in the country where they are living, subject to good behavior. </p>
<p>I’m sorry that this young man opted to go to trial on a set of charges carrying a high potential prison sentence… but I can’t imagine any circumstance in which using a webcam to spy on a roommate’s sexual encounter could be considered remotely appropriate. Even if nothing else had happened, that’s a gross invasion of privacy.</p>
<p>
What about the thousands of youngster brought to the US as children, whose parent overstayed their visas or otherwise lack “legal” status – who not only face deportation to foreign countries where they may have no contacts and not even speak the language, but who find themselves precluded from receiving financial aid to attend college in the country where they were raised? Some of those kids don’t even become aware of their parents’ immigration status until it is time for them to apply to college and they discover to their dismay that the required documentation is lacking. </p>
<p>I mean, I’ll worry about Ravi after Congress passes the Dream Act and it is signed into law.</p>
<br>
<br>
<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>Again, it does not work like that. His only chance to avoid deportation is an overturned conviction. The plea needed to be for a very mild misdemeanor charge. </p>
<p>The reality is that Congress never intended for the immigration or hate crime laws to punish offenders such as Ravi. The error was for Congress to abdicate the creation of the fine print to one of the vilest and cruelest agencies ever created by mankind. The result was this legal monstrosity named aggravated felony that is ignored by courts and attorneys until it is too late.</p>
<p>Permanent residents such as Ravi should have the same judicial rights as citizens. His legal options were severally limited by his immigration status. Reasonable offenders should have grabbed a deal with probation and service. Unfortunately, Ravi could not and was forced to seek a non guilty judgment.</p>
<p>Our government officials, starting with the dysfunctional New Jersey prosecutors, should be ashamed of the way they handled this case. Publicity seeking animals is what comes to mind!</p>
<p>calmom,</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure this is what the first lawmakers and jurists had in mind when they crafted the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment”. Moreover, most other ostensibly democratic societies…even those in the West have provisions to deport non-citizens who didn’t conform to petty immigration regulations…much less those convicted of felonious offenses. </p>
<p>In nearly every country I know of…being convicted of a felonious offense is more than clear-cut enough for a non-citizen in a given country to be expelled. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While there are folks who feel Constitutional rights/protections should apply to everyone within the US…including non-citizens and convicted felons*…the prevailing popular sentiment in support of this among US citizens is practically non-existent…especially in what has been a decade filled with sometimes virulent sentiments against immigrants/foreign groups. </p>
<p>Moreover, I’d be interested to see a list of countries which do grant privileges of citizenship to non-citizens without having to become citizens themselves…even those who have resided in another nation for decades.</p>
<ul>
<li>In some states, convicted felons…even US citizens lose certain citizenship rights…such as the right to vote in elections.</li>
</ul>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Perhaps, but OUR country should be better in terms of rights and liberties. We believe in justice for all and equality. Or at least we pretend to do.</p>
<p>It is obvious that our government, through the making of its public servants, has entirely lost the notion it should serve the … People. We are led and controlled by lazy, inept, arrogant, and clueless officials, politicians, and public servants.</p>
<p>We are a rudderless nation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In short, are you saying that nations…even ours shouldn’t have any distinctions in what privileges/protections/treatments to citizens and non-citizens? Nations should have little/no oversight over deciding matters such as how to regulate comings/goings of non-citizens across their borders, differentiation between citizens/non-citizens, immigration, etc?</p>
<p>That’s a position that I’ve only seen in a few extreme radical lefty-types or super-radical extreme libertarians. Heck, its so radical most radical lefty-types and super-radical extreme libertarians I’ve met tended to perceive them as half-baked crackpots.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The People get the government that they vote for.</p>
<p>This young man was offered a plea bargain that would have included a commitment of state officials to work to avoid his deportation. As a criminal defense attorney, I regularly had to deal with the potential immigration consequences for non-citizens charged with crimes, some that I would consider far less harmful than the crime that Ravi was accused of, and certainly involving less intentional or volitional conduct. I’d note that many Americans cannot even cross the border to visit Canada because of decades-old convictions for drunk driving.</p>
<p>I haven’t followed this case closely but I can’t really fathom in what sense anyone could view the videos & twitter post as being merely some sort of harmless prank. At the very least it was insensitive and mean-spirited. </p>
<p>I realize that the plea bargain was not a guarantee that immigration status would be preserved, but the state officials are not empowered to make such guarantees. Apparently this young man chose to turn down the moderate risk that he would be deported based on a conviction of a single state offense, in favor of a taking his chances against the greater risk that he would be convicted of multiple offenses with virtually no basis to fight deportation. At least in the former he would have been afforded the ability to fully present his case to immigration authorities. </p>
<p>This is simply the way the world works. The fact that the young man happens to be a college student from a relatively affluent family should not win him favorable treatment over an inner-city hispanic youth who runs afoul of the laws for conduct that can just as easily be labeled a youthful indiscretion. </p>
<p>I think that the young man who committed suicide had the right to expect that he would be treated with respect by whoever he was assigned to room with, including respect for his privacy. </p>
<p>I don’t think its some sort of extreme or heinous crime, but you don’t have to be convicted of an extreme or heinous crime to be considered deportable under US laws. I do think that the offense did cross a certain line – one of basic human courtesy and decency. I also would not consider it to be “cruel and unusual” punishment for a native of India to be sent to his home country. I know many people who live in India and seem quite happy to be there. It’s a country of many contrasts, but a person with financial means can enjoy a lifestyle that would be quite impressive by American standards, and there certainly are many employment opportunities with American firms which do business there.</p>
<p>The post above really resonates with me on many levels. Thanks for spending the time to express your views so eloquently, Calmom! ^^^</p>
<p>“As a criminal defense attorney, I regularly had to deal with the potential immigration consequences for non-citizens charged with crimes, some that I would consider far less harmful than the crime that Ravi was accused of, and certainly involving less intentional or volitional conduct. I’d note that many Americans cannot even cross the border to visit Canada because of decades-old convictions for drunk driving.”</p>
<p>Are you trying to say that drunk driving is less intentional? Becuase I think it is intentional and does involve a choice by the driver? I think a person should have a more reasonable expectation that someone can get killed as a result of drunk drivers. It happens, infortunately, regularly.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Since you claim some experience in such matters, you should know that such promise it as hollow and meaningless as they come. All the actions the prosecutors could and probably should have done were preempted by their asinine rush to prosecute. They could have postponed indictment to allow Ravi to become a citizen or prepare charges that would have avoided the ICE’s ability to start deportation under IIRIRA.</p>
<p>A promise to help fight deportation after a plea that amounts to a felony is as devious as they are themselves. Or they could have been clueless about deportation rules. Either way the attempt was to mislead Ravi. They have no voice nor jurisdiction in immigration matters. The prosecutors were merely lying as they most always do to secure an easy guilty plea. Again, had they be willing to avoid deportation they could have used lesser charges. </p>
<p>Post conviction measures are non existent in such cases. Lastly, the plea bargain that included a felony charge was NOT a moderate risk for deportation. It was a guaranteed deportation. The offer to work with ICE clearly intimated that the plea constituted a deportable offense.</p>
<p>Cobrat, read my posts within the context of this thread:</p>
<p>Permanent residents such as Ravi should have the same judicial rights as citizens. His legal options were severally limited by his immigration status. Reasonable offenders should have grabbed a deal with probation and service. Unfortunately, Ravi could not and was forced to seek a non guilty judgment.</p>
<p>The equal treatment should have covered the right to accept a plea bargain in the same way a citizen might have. In this case, the punishment and negotiations were entirely different.</p>