creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
15 Oct 2014
Voter Fraud, Abortion Safety and Other Phony Emergencies: Two Texas Laws Illustrate a Politically Poisonous Legislative Habit

Last week a federal judge in Texas overturned that state's voter ID law, while a federal appeals court … Read More.

8 Oct 2014
No Local Option on Gay Marriage: Federalism Is No Longer a Viable Approach to Same-Sex Unions, If It Ever Was

Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, later … Read More.

1 Oct 2014
The Brightest Spot in Holder's Record: How the Attorney General Tried To Make Criminal Justice Less Senselessly Punitive

Attorney General Eric Holder, who last week said he plans to step down as soon as Congress approves his replacement,… Read More.

A Hateless Hate Crime

Comment

After Dharun Ravi was convicted of "bias intimidation" crimes that carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, many people wondered why he had rejected a plea deal that would have kept him out of jail. Ravi's lawyer explained that the 20-year-old defendant's parents "didn't believe their son acted with hate, or bias, and they didn't want him labeled like that for life." But it turns out you can be convicted of a hate crime without hating anyone, which only compounds the injustice of laws that punish people for their bigotry.

The jury acquitted Ravi of trying to intimidate his roommate at Rutgers University, Tyler Clementi, on Sept. 19, 2010, when Ravi briefly used a webcam in his dorm room to watch Clementi kiss another man. But the jury nevertheless concluded that Clementi, who killed himself three days later for reasons that remain unclear, felt intimidated and "reasonably believed" he was targeted because he was gay. Under New Jersey law, that was enough.

To convict Ravi of this unintentional, hateless hate crime, the jury had to infer Clementi's state of mind and conclude that the circumstances justified it. Those elements have reasonable doubt built into them in cases like this, where the victim cannot testify and no one else knows what he was thinking. "We'll never know exactly what he was feeling," one juror conceded. "I can only assume." Our system of justice demands more than that.

We do know, based on Clementi's instant messages and posts, that he initially dismissed what he called Ravi's "five sec peep," but upon reflection was angry, especially since Ravi had tweeted about it. Two days later, Ravi told his Twitter followers the same man was visiting Clementi again and dared them to watch.

The second viewing never happened, apparently because Clementi unplugged Ravi's computer. He also applied online for a room change, complained to a resident adviser and repeatedly checked Ravi's Twitter feed.

Still, the fact that Clementi had sex again in the same room suggests he was not exactly intimidated.

The jury concluded that the aborted second viewing was a deliberate attempt to intimidate Clementi "because of (his) sexual orientation." Yet the prosecution's own witnesses testified they had never heard Ravi, who was not shy about expressing his opinions, disparage gay people or Clementi.

The most incriminating statement introduced by prosecutors was Ravi's joke that his webcam would "keep the gays away," which might have reflected nothing more than his discomfort with the sexual activity in his room, a feeling compounded by the fact that Clementi's visitor was an older man who was not a student and who struck Ravi as "really shady" (so much so, Ravi claimed, that he set up the first viewing because he worried the man might steal his electronic equipment).

A naive 18-year-old's uneasiness in such a situation is not the same as anti-gay hatred. Ravi did not "out" Clementi (who was not hiding his sexual orientation), did not record any images or post them online, never expressed hostility against Clementi and, far from trying to intimidate him, sought to conceal his peeping and apologized when he was found out (saying, "I've known you were gay, and I have no problem with it").

Ravi sent that message around the same time Clementi jumped off the George Washington Bridge. Although Ravi was never officially accused of complicity in Clementi's death, it is hard to believe he would have been prosecuted, let alone convicted, if people did not hold him responsible for precipitating his roommate's suicide — another judgment that hinges on Clementi's imagined state of mind rather than Ravi's intent.

Reprehensible as Ravi's behavior was, he does not deserve to be treated like a violent felon, a point prosecutors implicitly conceded when they offered him that plea deal. So in addition to the various questionable crimes for which Ravi is to be punished, there is one more: insisting on his right to a trial.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @jacobsullum. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Jacob Sullum, yours is one of the most accurate, well-balanced and hate-free pieces that I have read on this sad situation.
I believe in equal rights for gays--including the right to marry--but the New Jersey law does not support equal rights. It specifies preferential treatment for gays. It's crazy to send someone to prison based on the wild guesses of jurors who speculate what another person might have been thinking.
Yes, Dharum Ravi should have been punished for what he did. And in fact, he was punished, appropriately, when Rutgers quickly expelled him from the school. Further punishment is vicious and unjust.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Flo
Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:02 AM
I don't agree that this young man should serve time, it gives the message it's ok to blame others for suicide. House arrest is much more fitting a punishment. On the upside, this ruling sends a message to other naive 18 yr olds to use their electronic equipment as it was intended and not to invade the privacy of others.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Steve
Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:18 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jacob Sullum
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 22 Oct 2014
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 21 Oct 2014
Thomas Sowell
Thomas SowellUpdated 21 Oct 2014

25 Dec 2013 Vaping Gives Politicians the Vapors

5 Feb 2014 Recovering from a Punitive Panic

24 Sep 2014 Six Ways Obama Contradicts Himself in Waging War on ISIS