Doing something

What Dharun Ravi did back in September 2010 was wrong. But what Middlesex County prosecutors did in response was worse.

There is not much dispute over the facts. Mr. Ravi set up a webcam to spy on his roommate's encounter with another man. Mr. Ravi sent out tweets inviting people to watch the video. Three days later his roommate, Tyler Clementi, leapt to his death from the George Washington Bridge.

One life was lost and a family was in mourning.

But, someone had to pay for it. And that someone, Middlesex County prosecutors decided, was Mr. Ravi, who was convicted last week on 15 counts (loosely) related to Mr. Clementi's death.

Mr. Ravi was charged with a multitude of counts ranging from invasion of privacy to lying to investigators to tampering with evidence to something New Jersey refers to as bias intimidation.

2C:16-1.  Bias Intimidation.
a.Bias Intimidation.  A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1)with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or
(2)knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or
(3)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, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, 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, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.
b.Permissive inference concerning selection of targeted person or property.  Proof that the target of the underlying offense was selected by the defendant, or by another acting in concert with the defendant, because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity shall give rise to a permissive inference by the trier of fact that the defendant acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.
c.Grading.  Bias intimidation is a crime of the fourth degree if the underlying offense referred to in subsection a. is a disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense.  Otherwise, bias intimidation is a crime one degree higher than the most serious underlying crime referred to in subsection a., except that where the underlying crime is a crime of the first degree, bias intimidation is a first-degree crime and the defendant upon conviction thereof may, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-6, be sentenced to an ordinary term of imprisonment between 15 years and 30 years, with a presumptive term of 20 years.
d.Gender exemption in sexual offense prosecutions.  It shall not be a violation of subsection a. if the underlying criminal offense is a violation of chapter 14 of Title 
(1)with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or
(2)knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity; or
(3)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, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, 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, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.
b.Permissive inference concerning selection of targeted person or property.  Proof that the target of the underlying offense was selected by the defendant, or by another acting in concert with the defendant, because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity shall give rise to a permissive inference by the trier of fact that the defendant acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.
c.Grading.  Bias intimidation is a crime of the fourth degree if the underlying offense referred to in subsection a. is a disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense.  Otherwise, bias intimidation is a crime one degree higher than the most serious underlying crime referred to in subsection a., except that where the underlying crime is a crime of the first degree, bias intimidation is a first-degree crime and the defendant upon conviction thereof may, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-6, be sentenced to an ordinary term of imprisonment between 15 years and 30 years, with a presumptive term of 20 years.
d.Gender exemption in sexual offense prosecutions.  It shall not be a violation of subsection a. if the underlying criminal offense is a violation of chapter 14 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes and the circumstance specified in paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of subsection a. of this section is based solely upon the gender of the victim.
e.Merger.  Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provision of law, a conviction for bias intimidation shall not merge with a conviction of any of the underlying offenses referred to in subsection a. of this section, nor shall any conviction for such underlying offense merge with a conviction for bias intimidation.  The court shall impose separate sentences upon a conviction for bias intimidation and a conviction of any underlying offense.
f.Additional Penalties.  In addition to any fine imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-3 or any term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-6, a court may order a person convicted of bias intimidation to one or more of the following:
(1)complete a class or program on sensitivity to diverse communities, or other similar training in the area of civil rights;
(2)complete a counseling program intended to reduce the tendency toward violent and antisocial behavior; and
(3)make payments or other compensation to a community-based program or local agency that provides services to victims of bias intimidation. 
g.As used in this section "gender identity or expression" means having or being perceived as having a gender related identity or expression whether or not stereotypically associated with a person's assigned sex at birth.
h.It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for a crime under this section that the defendant was mistaken as to the race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity of the victim.
e.Merger.  Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provision of law, a conviction for bias intimidation shall not merge with a conviction of any of the underlying offenses referred to in subsection a. of this section, nor shall any conviction for such underlying offense merge with a conviction for bias intimidation.  The court shall impose separate sentences upon a conviction for bias intimidation and a conviction of any underlying offense.
f.Additional Penalties.  In addition to any fine imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-3 or any term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-6, a court may order a person convicted of bias intimidation to one or more of the following:
(1)complete a class or program on sensitivity to diverse communities, or other similar training in the area of civil rights; 
(2)complete a counseling program intended to reduce the tendency toward violent and antisocial behavior; and 
(3)make payments or other compensation to a community-based program or local agency that provides services to victims of bias intimidation.  
g.As used in this section "gender identity or expression" means having or being perceived as having a gender related identity or expression whether or not stereotypically associated with a person's assigned sex at birth.
h.It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for a crime under this section that the defendant was mistaken as to the race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity of the victim. 

The thrust of the law is to criminalize behavior that serves to intimidate someone on the basis of race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, disability and whatever new groups the state legislature comes up with in order to curry favor with the voters.

But is that what Mr. Ravi intended to do? Did Mr. Clementi feel intimidated? And did Mr. Ravi's actions cause Mr. Clementi to commit suicide?

We can never know the answers to the final two questions.

But Middlesex County prosecutor Bruce Kaplan apparently has some special form of mental telepathy that allows him to communicate with the dead. And, by use of his Oujia board, Mr. Kaplan was able to determine that Mr. Ravi had intimidated Mr. Clementi to the point that Mr. Clementi had no option but to take his own life. Then came the piling on of charges that assume a crime had even been committed in the first place.

Here's what the New York Times had to say on the topic of reading minds:

Without Mr. Clementi to speak for himself, that last question was perhaps the most difficult to determine, and jurors struggled with it. 

“That was the hardest because you really can’t get into someone’s head,” said one, Bruno Ferreira, as he left the court. The jury deliberated longest — for well more than an hour, he said — on the bias intimidation charge. 

Mr. Ferreira said he ultimately voted guilty on the bias intimidation charge because Mr. Ravi had sent multiple Twitter messages about Mr. Clementi. 

“They were being done twice, not just one day,” he said. 

Another juror, Kashad Leverett, himself a student and a Twitter user, said he could relate to Mr. Ravi’s constant stream of Twitter and text messages.

And there you have the elephant sitting in the middle of the room being ignored. "...[Y]ou can't really get into someone's head." How true, Mr. Ferreira, how very true.

But, notwithstanding the fact that we can never know what either Mr. Ravi or Mr. Clementi were thinking, a jury decided that Mr. Ravi intended to intimidate Mr. Clementi because he was gay and that Mr. Clementi was intimated by Mr. Ravi's actions.

Does whether or not Mr. Ravi intended to intimidate Mr. Clementi make you feel any different about what happened? Should it?

It is debatable whether any crime took place that night. But that never stopped the state from stepping in when "something has to be done." After his conviction last week on all 15 counts, Mr. Ravi is looking at up to 5-10 years in prison on each count. That's a stiff penalty for a young man who was never charged with causing Mr. Clementi's death.

The death of any young person is a tragedy. No parent should ever have to bury their child. But we must also resist the urge of "doing something" because society is upset. Nothing is going to bring back Tyler Clementi. Nothing is going to ease his parents' pain and loss. Convicting Mr. Ravi of a hate crime isn't going to change what happened. Putting Mr. Ravi behind bars serves no purpose other than making society feel better at the expense of destroying another young person.

Well, that and providing a political boost for local officials.