-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
rutgers spycam trial / verdict
- Thread starter queenlives
- Start date
Yup he can rot in prison.
i think it will be interesting to see what his sentence is and what actually happens in the long run.
a terrible situation with horrible impact on their friends and families.
a terrible situation with horrible impact on their friends and families.
Mean thing to do, but prison - c'mon.
Well if you are speeding, crash your car and kill someone else, you would probably be going to prison as well... Identical situation here.
Just to put it into perspective, this guy could get up to 10 years.
Tony Walker -- Texas. Convicted of murder in 1978. Sentenced to 5 years.
Corey R. Barton -- In 1983 he murdered 16-year-old Shari-Ann Merton. He received 18 years in prison. He was released after serving 9 years and 8 months.
Jack Ferrell -- Florida. Committed Murdered 1981. 15 years to life, 1982. Paroled 1987.
John Sweeney -- Murdered Poltergeist actress Dominique Dunnes by strangling her in her driveway. Sentenced to 6 1/2 years, only served 2 1/2.
Keep in mind the internal torment the victim felt was probably an amalgam of years of abuse, ridicule, shame, and depression. The convicted (Ravi) was merely the spark that ignited the fire (aka, the straw that broke the camel’s back). Was he guilty for what he did? Absolutely. But so is everyone who contributed to the fragile condition of the victim’s state of mind; he was most likely much more susceptible to any torment and it could have been any number of events which could have set the gears in motion for his suicide.
Here is the other thing, do we honestly feel that Ravi is a stone cold killer or merely a one more rock in the burden the victim had to bear? Do we honest feel a college student at a pretty prestigious university is a threat to society and requires rehabilitation in a jail cell? Do we think this person will kill again as the first three murderers I listed above did? I really think there are murders and then there are irresponsible people. Is Ravi guilty? Absolutely. Should he have to pay? Absolutely. Ravi was irresponsible and should be punished as such, but shouldn’t be punished as a murderer.
Tony Walker -- Texas. Convicted of murder in 1978. Sentenced to 5 years.
Corey R. Barton -- In 1983 he murdered 16-year-old Shari-Ann Merton. He received 18 years in prison. He was released after serving 9 years and 8 months.
Jack Ferrell -- Florida. Committed Murdered 1981. 15 years to life, 1982. Paroled 1987.
John Sweeney -- Murdered Poltergeist actress Dominique Dunnes by strangling her in her driveway. Sentenced to 6 1/2 years, only served 2 1/2.
Keep in mind the internal torment the victim felt was probably an amalgam of years of abuse, ridicule, shame, and depression. The convicted (Ravi) was merely the spark that ignited the fire (aka, the straw that broke the camel’s back). Was he guilty for what he did? Absolutely. But so is everyone who contributed to the fragile condition of the victim’s state of mind; he was most likely much more susceptible to any torment and it could have been any number of events which could have set the gears in motion for his suicide.
Here is the other thing, do we honestly feel that Ravi is a stone cold killer or merely a one more rock in the burden the victim had to bear? Do we honest feel a college student at a pretty prestigious university is a threat to society and requires rehabilitation in a jail cell? Do we think this person will kill again as the first three murderers I listed above did? I really think there are murders and then there are irresponsible people. Is Ravi guilty? Absolutely. Should he have to pay? Absolutely. Ravi was irresponsible and should be punished as such, but shouldn’t be punished as a murderer.
I hardly think what Ravi did was anything close to crashing a car and killing someone.
He made some bad choices, but I don't think he deserves prison time. I heard that the vic's mom was not very receptive to his coming out of the closet...how do we know he wasn't distraught about this? We don't...
- Joined
- 22 December 2005
- Messages
- 209
this is going to sound bad, but this stuff happens to everyone.
i am 99.9% sure that he didn't know his roommate was going to commit suicide, so you can't hold him accountable for that.
i am 99.9% sure that he didn't know his roommate was going to commit suicide, so you can't hold him accountable for that.
lots of good points / issues raised ... it'll be interesting to see what the sentence is handed down.
Mean thing to do, but prison - c'mon
+1
Identical? Hardly.
I hardly think what Ravi did was anything close to crashing a car and killing someone.
+1
+1. I've had my ear-full of other unrelated music growing up. Then again.... perhaps that's why I am what I am in terms of how I conduct myself electronically (via internet). I'm a victim. boo hoo.
- Joined
- 25 May 2005
- Messages
- 294
how about holding the kid who killed himself responsible? In a car crash, the victim has no idea they are going to die! The kid knew he was ending his life and thus it was ultimately his decision. This kid had so many other options like switching schools or having the courage to stand up for his sexual orientation.
This ravi guy did not push him off the bridge!!!
This ravi guy did not push him off the bridge!!!
Thought crimes a.k.a. hate crimes are an abomination of justice. It's the flip side of facism, plays to emotion not reason, and in fact the word "hate" has lost all meaning in this society. If you disagree, or disapprove of something you're likely to be called a hater. When we punish for what is in someone's mind, rather than what was in their actions, we are going down a very slippery slope. To what end?
What this guy did was seriously uncool, showing severely poor judgment, but taking a ten year fall for someone else's suicide under the guise of a hate crime, is itself a crime.
What this guy did was seriously uncool, showing severely poor judgment, but taking a ten year fall for someone else's suicide under the guise of a hate crime, is itself a crime.
There is nothing similiar about your comparison - at all. The kid had no priors and made a bad judgement call. Who hasn't?
The same could be said for someone who drives drunk one time and kills someone. Sure there are differences, but the concept is the same. Now the drunk driver is not a murderer, and he surely didn't intend to kill someone, and he is probably a good person who just made a bad decision, but we surely wouldn't feel so bad about sending him to prison.
The difference between a lot of criminals and normal citizens is often times just one bad decision.
He is not being punished as a murderer. He was not convicted of murder.
His sentencing could be UP TO 10 years, which is always sensationalized and MOST LIKELY won't serve anywhere near that. You also used outliers of convicted murderers, instead of more typical prison terms.
No I'm not saying he was convicted of murder. I was saying that he is getting the same sentence as a murderer; or at least the same amount of jail time a person who has murdered. Which in essence means he is being punished as a murderer.
There is a far difference in the type of person who can straight up strangle someone to death or look someone in the eye when he stabs them in cold blood, than someone who took bullying and pranking way too far and didn't understand/foresee the consequences of this actions, some of which he had no control of.
I couldn't disagree with this statement any more. Criminals have a certain mindset that make them habitual criminals. They lack empathy or have disgust or disdain for human life or property. The way they view the world is different than a normal citizen.
There was an experiment done where a $100 bill was placed in a wallet with a phone number inside. The wallet was left in various places and locations from good to bad and they found it was like a >95% of both the wallet AND money was returned; even in some of the most dangerous and seedy places. That is because a normal person doesn't wake up in the morning expecting to go out and steal a wallet or kill someone. However, if you had that same wallet with the same number and a criminal pick pockets you, then it's like a >95% chance you will never see the money or the wallet again. That's because criminals do wake up and think what can I steal or who can I kill.
That's the difference between a criminal and normal person.
Has he been sentenced yet? To my knowledge he hasn't. Don't put the cart before the horse.
No he hasn't but the point still applies. He is eligible for a sentence on par as a murderer is eligible for; which still doesn't seem right.
Been reduced to arguing semantics now?
No. But "sentencing" as our legal system applies it, is not applied equally. It seems your complaint is more with the lack of time served for murderers than the overabundance of potential time served for someone who hasn't even been sentenced yet.
Is he a murderer? No. Did his hate for someone for no reason directly lead to that person's death? Apparently a jury of his peers believes so. They heard both stories, not us.
False. By definition, most of us are criminals. Speeding ticket, anyone? You are confusing the definition of a criminal with the definition of a career criminal/habitual offender.
You don't have to be a career criminal to get a serious sentence.
Last edited:
No, my "complaint" as you put it, is the lack of consistency in the sentencing of various crimes. I don't think I'm out of line to say rape and murder are far more heinous crimes than say stealing or involuntary manslaughter. So why give them equal time in jail? I don't mind sending people to jail. Hell if you want to make petty theft a 20 year jail sentence then that's fine with me. But then make murder a lifetime sentence with no chance of parole and hard labor. Make the sentence fit the crime. However, in this case I don't believe the sentence fits the norm as established by the precedence set by our legal system. He should not be be getting the same sentence, or even the possibility of the same sentence, as someone who has raped and murdered in cold blood. Either this sentence should be reduced, or more heinous rapes and murders should be raised (or both). I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency as already established by the legal system. And based on the responses, it would seem that, with the exception of you, everyone agrees.
I guess this is where you and I differ. You seem to see someone who breaks any law as a criminal and by that nature everyone is a "criminal". Laws are arbitrary and inconsistent. Did you know it's illegal to hula hoop in the city of Las Vegas? So does that make a 5 year old girl who hula hoops a criminal? I would say that you would probably be the only person who takes that position. In popular vernacular this is not the normal accepted use of the word criminal. Most people see criminals as people who commit felony level crimes or repeatedly commit misdemeanors egregiously or irresponsibility. This is not your average person.
^^^Yeah there are so many stupid laws on the books. I got busted for speeding on my Jet Ski in Mission Bay...misdemeanor. When I went to court you should see the stupid offences people were in there for... Possession of a Dairy Crate...unlawful play of hacky sack on the boardwalk... what a waste of taxpayer money.
what a waste of taxpayer money.
good, bad or indifferent, when ravi rejected the plea deal offered to him in december (?), he left himself open to possible conviction by the jury on some or all of the 15 charges against him.
i think it'll be interesting to see what sentence is handed down.
i think it'll be interesting to see what sentence is handed down.
Among the counts he was convicted on are witness tampering
and evidence tampering. There are good reasons why those
kinds of crimes deserve substantial penalties.
and evidence tampering. There are good reasons why those
kinds of crimes deserve substantial penalties.
There is a rationale for hate crimes laws. People disagree on
whether they are a good idea, but I wouldn't say they are
strictly an appeal to emotion and not to reason. And the laws
in this case are not criminalizing mere thought; they are
enhancements that apply in the context of other criminal acts.
You ask, to what end. It is because an entire class of people
is terrorized when people single out that class as targets.
Again, people will disagree on whether that merits additional
punishment, but the effects on the class of people are real.
I have mixed feelings. I see the arguments on both sides.
I am not a criminologist and I can't claim to have studied
the issue in detail.
I have had crimes committed against my property and my
person for essentially no other reason than that I am gay.
Nothing very serious but others have not been so fortunate.
It would be fair enough to me if the people who wronged
me got usual treatment by the law without any hate crime
enhancement. (They all got away.)
I agree and I am concerned about where such a conviction could lead us.
The "you made me", "you make me" mentality in adults is something I have disdain for.
Last edited:
