The sentence handed down to Dharun Ravi a few weeks ago was “too lenient,” the majority — 51% –of New Jersey residents believe, according to a new poll. Surprisingly, the view was shared almost exactly equally among all ideologies, including Democrats and Republicans (52%), Independents and Moderates (50%), Liberals (52%), and Conservatives (53%), all averaging 51%.
The poll, which did not mention the name Tyler Clementi, asked 1191 New Jersey adults:
Next I have some questions on a few other issues in New Jersey and nationwide. First, as you may know, Dharun Ravi is a former Rutgers student who was convicted of bias intimidation and invasion of privacy after spying on his gay roommate who later killed himself. How much have you heard about this story?
Then,
Ravi was recently sentenced to 30 days in jail, three years probation, and community service. In your opinion, was the sentence given to Ravi too tough, not tough enough, or did Ravi get the sentence he deserves?
The poll’s result “suggests with all the discussion about bullying, people are taking this much more seriously than they did before — and that maybe the judge should’ve too,” Rutgers-Eagleton poll director David Redlawsk told NJ.com, which adds:
The case — which triggered an impassioned national debate about bias laws, gay rights and sexual privacy in the internet era — was followed by an astonishing 97 percent of respondents.
“To have only three percent say they’d heard nothing about the case is very unusual,” said Redlawsk, a political science professor at Rutgers. “The story really captured their attention.”
The more people knew about the case, the more likely they were to say Ravi should have received a tougher sentence.
…
Amidst the overall consensus, however, there were small pockets of deviation:
• Men and women felt the same about the case, overall, with one exception: 10 percent of men called the sentence too tough, while only 3 percent of women did.
• Hispanics showed the highest dissatisfaction with the sentence, with 62 percent deeming it not tough enough.
• Born-again Christians were also more likely overall (59 percent) to criticize the verdict as too lenient.
Russell said that matches earlier research showing that among those who object to homosexuality on religious grounds, “the more religious you are, the least tolerant you are of intolerance.”
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 26 comments }
Part 1
I believe that your survey may have made clear the obvious fact – the jury pool was completely contaminated by prejudicial, pretrial publicity in this case. It seems to me, the less educated the people are and the more easily swayed by mainstream media misinformation, the more likely they are to have said his sentence was too lenient.
You should poll people who read the New Yorker and see how they respond to your survey. Before I read the New Yorker article in March, I would have voted the same as the majority of your survey pool. But once I read the article and realized that there was more to this story than carried in the mainstream media, I became concerned. And when I noted that Mr. Ravi's rights were being violated by the prosecution's highly questionable decision to withhold the suicide note and its predecessor notes, I became even more alarmed. Finally, when the judge noted that the law itself was badly drawn, yet he permitted its questionable application in the court of law, I was just plain horrified.
The Republican judge in this case actually used the term "alternate lifestyles' in his sentencing statement — revealing at the very least that he does not respect gay citizens in how they wish to be addressed. The New Yorker article was opinion, and did not constitute the legally-admissible facts of the case. It is absurd, that you whine that people have formed opinions based on "mainstream media" and that they should instead read the New Yorker. The New Yorker IS part of mainstream media. Mr. Ravi's rights were not "violated" when the judge decided not to admit certain evidence. Go study the rules of evidence.
I expect that the higher courts will determine that the decision to keep the suicide note(s) from the jury constituted reverseable error. Yes, the New Yorker is mainstream media, but it at least attempted to provide two sides of the story. Do you disagree with its contents?
Part 2
Ravi was convicted by a poisoned jury. The case should have been moved to South Jersey from the get-go – as far away from Rutgers as possible. Second, the prosecution should have been required to release all information relevant to the case. More importantly, the name of a chief witness, "MB" should have been released to the public and his background should have been explored by the defense. I find it amazing that next door in Pennsylvania, children who accused Coach Sandusky of rape must have their names on the public record, yet in New Jersey, a 30 year old man who entered a Freshman College dormitory for sex receives an absurd privilege to make his name secret – as though being gay is a crime. But basic tenants of the law require public trials – and keeping this witness secret undercut Mr. Ravi's rights. The law was totured to turn him into a sex victim.
Part 3
More importantly, MB is not a gay man and I find it gross and vile that the State of New Jersey has been permitted to portray him as such. Gay men do not lie about their age to troll the internet looking for 18 year olds who look 14, and then hookup with them in Freshman Dormitories. That description embodies the most homophobic and horrific urban myths about gay men – no wonder the born again Christians in your survey polled as they did – they actually believe this trope. MB is and was a predator and his behavior is just as likely to have led to the death of Tyler Clementi as any deed done by Ravi. MB knew that he had no expectation of privacy in a dormitory room and he went there with full knowledge that he would be seen and other students would be cognizant of his purpose – he also did not even care to learn the last name of his victim. Clementi may have been legal but his emotional instability and personal problems made him unable to discern responsible or normal behavior at that point – and I believe MB was fully aware of this fact.
You could not be more obnoxious if you tried. Ravi by his own admission granted Tyler a few hours of privacy in their room. Similar privacy agreements are reached *all the time* between college roommates, and very often occur reciprocally. Having granted Tyler a few hours of privacy in the room, Ravi had no right to violate — against state statutes — either Tyler's privacy or that of his visitor. Ravi was convicted for his illegal invasion of Tyler's and MB's privacy. And you have mounted a criminal prosecution of MB, who committed no crime.
No, you are wrong. These two young men had a written agreement that did not provide for personal use of the room for this purpose. A written agreement, under the ancient Statute of Frauds, always trumps an oral agreement. Also, I don't believe that Ravi ever granted Clementi blanket use of the room – in the first place, he might not have been legally situated to do so. Ravi always had the right to reenter the room at will. A college custom does not trump a legally binding contract between parties. MB is a monster, NOT a gay man. Stop claiming that he is gay – it hurts other gay men.
You are too stupid to understand how stupid you are. Yes, Ratty could have knocked on the door and requested entry at any time. No, he did not have a right to an illegal invasion of privacy via a computer. Go jump in a lake.
Part 4
Then let's discuss the other reasons that Tyler Clementi might have killed himself – like his mother. The New Yorker article quoted Clementi's own texts as saying that she had totally rejected him when he came out. As if that wasn't enough, this woman is quoted in the New Yorker as stating that her son mistook disappointment for rejection. She was disappointed because she believed he wouldn't be able to get married and have children – the mindset of a homophobe.
Ravi did do something wrong. First, he sent insensitive, jocular texts about his roommate's sexuality. Of course, Tyler Clementi did the same about Ravi's ethnicity, telling a friend that Ravi's father (a computer engineer) probably worked at a Dunkin Donuts since he is Indian. That's one reason why the Indian community is incensed, BTW, as are other people who are aware of the comment. If Ravi is a homophobe, then what was Clementi?
Go away. You are not talking about the legally admissible facts of the case. You have no understanding of legal process.
What makes you think that you have an understanding of the legally admissible facts of the case? You don't sound very knowledgable to me. You sound like someone with a preconceived notions of the facts. Plus, this is an anonymous internet forum, not a court of law. People can say whatever they please – that's the fun of it. Are you denying Clementi made a racist comment about Ravi's ethnic heritage?
Part 5
Second, Ravi was disturbed by MB, and yet fearful of saying no to sexiling. So he watched about a minute of MB kissing his roommate when both were clothed. If someone saw me kissing someone else – behavior which routinely occurs in public among gays and straights in NEW JERSEY, I would not consider it an invasion of privacy – especially if I did not have complete, legal rights to the dorm room in he first instance. Ravi turned it off. Weii later turned it on again and showed a group of girls – at that time, the men had their shirts off. But nothing was taped and posted to the Internet. The judge held that since the men's "breasts" were exposed and the law does not distinguish between men and women for this purpose, that a crime occurred. NONSENSE. Men are permitted to go topless and women are not. It may be sexist but it is the law in every state of the union. The word breast is never applied to men – the word chest is normally used unless you're in an anatomy class. A judge has an obligation to interpret the law properly – not to break new ground by suddenly making the showing of a bare male torso to constitute indecency.
Why don't you personally send a complaint against the judge to the appropriate monitoring authorities in New Jersey? I want to watch as they laugh you out of the room.
Part 6
Ravi posted he'd do it again, but he never did. And he never complained about technical issues or other problems that caused the monitor to disfunction – so my guess is that the jury was a little too willing to accept the prosecution's theme that Clementi and only Clementi turned off the monitor. Let's face reality – if Clementi knew he was being spied on, he should have taken his Resident Advisor's offer of a bed in his room for the evening – but he did not because he wanted sex – or perhaps human contact – more than safety. He also had an obligation under the Rutger's housing rules to cease and desist if his roommate objected to the sexiling. Ravi had made his objection clear by this point. And keep in mind, Ravi ALWAYS HAD THE RIGHT TO REENTER HIS ROOM AT WILL DESPITE WHAT HE TOLD SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT GIVING THEM PRIVACY. The terms of their agreement were detailed in writing – a subsequent oral agreement or permission did not negate the written contract.
This decision may make it all the way to the US Supreme Court where they will not accept urban myths as truths and your survey will carry little or no weight.
Oy you are obsessed. Who are you, what are your motivations, and what is wrong with you?
Are you not as obsessed? I'm not obsessed – I just have a problem with one-sideness in any legal debate and from time to time, I will go online when I believe someone has been unfairly scapegoated – regardless of their ethnic heritage, sexuality or personal likeability. That is my obsession.
Part 7
More importantly, the higher courts will explore the abusive use of Ravi's personal texts to support a trumped up charge of obstruction or evidence tampering. It is not illegal to change your texts, alter their content and do whatever you please with them – and it SHOULD NOT be a crime to do so unless you have knowledge that doing so is in fact tampering with evidence in a criminal case. Ravi tampered with the texts to avoid school disciplinary action. He was being questioned by keystone campus cops, not real police officers and he obviously still disagrees with the notion that he committed a crime or that any crime was committed. He was not hiding evidence in a criminal case because the charges hadn't even been conceived of at that point – it took the prosecutors weeks to come up with the invasion charges – how would some 18 year old be better positioned to know what was or wasn't a crime under this prosecution's perspective? He was afraid of discipline and the anger of his peers. We should not stretch the rights of prosecutors to use our texts in this context or we all risk having our personal rights trumped to suit the momentary needs of prosecutors. Think about the consequences.
Part 8
In the end, Ravi knew this other boy barely three weeks. Since Ravi was gone on the weekends, they knew one another less than 15 days. Clementi had already drafted suicide notes before he met Ravi and Clementi had gone on a tour of tall bridges and kept a shot of the GW Bridge on his phone. he complained to his parents that he had no friends and that he was very lonely – a very loud, but ignored, cry for help. He tried to deal with his loneliness by hooking up with an online predator who wanted Clementi for one thing and one thing only. Clementi was not trying to date a kid from the Lambda House – he was emotionally unhealthy.
No one warned Ravi or the college or anyone else about Clementi's emotional issues.
Part 9
Now, I don't recommend what Ravi did and I don't support electronic spying. But I know that unless I have complete control over my environment, spying can occur. That's why you never want to have sex in a nighclub restroom or someplace at the office or any other place that seems private but never is – it's tacky and stupid. Had Ravi spied on Clementi as he changed, an activity contemplated by their contract, I would see a privacy violation. But sex was not in the contract and no kid has the right to force another to accept his activities and his partners – the rights among the parties are clear if rarely enforced. Civil rights and personal rights are a two way street and everyone should feel like they have remedies when their rights are violated – when they don't, they act out and take the law into their own hands, as Ravi did here. Ravi did violate Clementi's basis privacy rights but Clementi likewise violated Ravi's rights – it's just that Clementi is dead and Ravi is still alive.
Thank you 1alawyer for writing such an outstanding post. I think every word you have written needs to be on the front page of every major publication, to not only educate people that remain ignorant of the actual facts of this case but also to END stupid articles and headlines like this one once and for all!
Everything that I have read, which includes too many articles to count and numerous comments on boards like this one, has made one thing abundantly clear – most people are very misinformed and ignorant about the actual facts involved in this case – although that does not stop them from calling for deportation of time in a state prison for an innocent young man!. The media was ruthless in their attack of Dharun Ravi and never bothered to correct misinformation that they put out for general consumption. Even now, with the facts verified during the trial, journalists are still writing that a 'sexual encounter' was taped, streamed, etc. NOT TRUE. The fact is that after seeing Tyler and M.B. kissing for barely two seconds, Molly Wei and Dharun Ravi were shocked and shut the webcam down completely. No second viewing EVER occurred!. Important as well is the fact that Tyler knew that was exactly what happened, commented on it to a friend and then proceeded to ask Dharun to leave their shared room again days later.
People also are unaware or forget the fact that Tyler was very troubled, his mother had just – to quote Tyler- "completely rejected him" and he likely had ongoing clinical depression due to his struggles. Tyler had suicide notes on his computer before heading off to college as well as pictures of the GW bridge. What Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei did was wrong but it in no way caused this young mans suicide. There were so many other issues involved that I find the Clementi family continuing to try to lay all of the blame on the shoulders of Dharun Ravi truly horrifying. They need to look inwards, acknowledge the reality of why Tyler likely committed suicide and let Dharun Ravi complete a sentence (that he never should have had to begin with) and move on with his life!
Why people are so comfortable persecuting a young man and ruining his future without even bothering to educate themselves about the true facts of this case is beyond me and frankly unconscionable..
A second viewing did occur. Ravi, who had been sexiled from his room for at least three hours that evening, spent the first hour or so with Wei, engaged in the conduct leading up to the first streaming. He subsequently left to take a shower – still with no place to come back to because his roommate was utilizing the room for private purposes. After Ravi left the room, it was Wei who streamed again, knowing what she had initially seen, and also shown two other girls. They saw much the same as the earlier stream, with Clementi kissing the predator.
The main point is that Dharun Ravi was demonized by the mainstream media in such a way as to interfere with his right to a fair trial and this poll demonstrates that fact. How many other polls have you seen where they ask if the defendant received a severe enough sentence?
Such polls are conducted all the time with respect to criminal justice trials prominently covered in the media.
Call any criminal justice training school — I might suggest John Jay — ask for their psychology department, and then ask for a list of studies and public surveys they have done. These professionals work constantly to examine public attitudes towards law enforcement and criminal justice. They work specifically towards eliminating biases in the system.
My bad – what I meant is how many times do you dee this nonsense publisized? You talk about inadmissible – why should we care what an unknowledgable person on the street says? Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Thanks for the clarification.
I disagree that MB is a victim at all. It is perfectly acceptable to note that MB was a predator who preyed on Clementi. MB suffered a minor insult, not a crime, since he had zero expectation of privacy in Ravi's room. Do you think that MB is a victim on par with a rape victim?
Comments on this entry are closed.