A Few Thoughts About the Dharun Ravi Case

I've been following the events surrounding the suicide of Tyler Clementi since the story broke back in September of 2010.  It's a story that has received worldwide attention but, if you're unfamiliar with it, take a few moments to read this account.  

Tyler Clementi's decision to end his life was indeed a tragic event but, unfortunately, it was not a rare one.  According to statistics compiled by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide is the third leading cause of death for kids between the ages of 10-24, accounting for over 4,400 deaths a year.  Another 149,000 kids in that age group receive medical care each year for self-inflicted wounds.  Having experienced the teenage years as a kid and as a parent, I'm aware that they are difficult, but it was startling to learn that suicide is such a high cause of adolescent death.

It's virtually impossible to read about Tyler Clementi without feeling sympathy and grief, both for him and for the entire Clementi family.  As the case unfolded, though, I found my sympathies unexpectedly extending to Dharun Ravi as well.  Although  his actions indicated a high level of insensitivity and questionable morals, I was amazed to see him become a nationwide symbol of bullying.

THIS is a bully!

According to  stopbullying.gov (a government website managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) bullying is the "aggressive" and "repetitive" use of power to "control or harm others".  OK.  I'll buy that.  It totally agrees with my personal definition which is "John Sitterly", a kid who lived on Holmes Street and chased me and my friends whenever he saw us walking home from school.  Think Scott Farkus from "A Christmas Story" and you won't be too far off.  Almost everyone reading this blog was either bullied as a kid or knows a kid who was bullied, mentally or physically.  It's not hard to spot. 

But do Dharun Ravi's actions against his roommate fit the definition of bullying?  Were they aggressive?  Were they repetitive?  Was it Ravi's goal to either control or harm Tyler Clementi?  Or was it simply a 20 year old kid playing an incredibly insensitive and invasive prank, one that violated basic human decency and his roommate's right to privacy?  Prior to the initial webcam spying incident, there's no indication of any aggressive or repetitive behavior by Ravi against Clementi.  Following that incident, Clementi easily prevented a second spying incident by turning off Ravi's computer.  Clementi also felt sufficiently empowered to lodge a formal complaint, asking for an immediate roommate swap and punishment for Ravi.  Keep in mind, all of this happened in the span of two days!  To me, this doesn't sound like bullying.  It sounds like one kid doing something extremely stupid, being caught doing it, and being faced with certain expulsion from college as a result.  Dharun Ravi is hardly a saint, but if you want to see true poster-boys for bullying, check out this story.  Or this one.  

THIS is a hate crime!

As amazed as I was about Dharun Ravi becoming the nationwide face of bullying, I was absolutely dumbfounded when he was charged with a "hate crime".  The FBI describes a hate (or bias) crime as follows:

"a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

Yes, Tyler Clementi was gay.  But there is no evidence whatsoever that Ravi's actions were motivated by a pathological bias against gays.  It would be just as valid to suggest that Ravi was biased against Italians because the name "Clementi" sounded Italian!

Since there was no body of evidence to support a "hate crime" conviction, I was absolutely convinced that a jury of his peers would acquit Ravi of that particular charge.  I was wrong.  As it turns out, under NJ law, the jury had to convict Ravi of a hate crime if they believed that:

1. A crime was committed
2. Clementi had been "intimidated" as a result of the crime
3. Clementi reasonably believed that he was targeted because he was gay.  

It did not matter if Ravi's entire life's history showed no bias against gays.  As long as the jury concluded that Clementi believed Ravi was biased, that was sufficient to convict Ravi of a hate crime.  Clearly, the NJ anti-bias legislation needs to be updated or, better yet, eliminated.  I'm confident that there are already enough laws on the books to cover crimes against humanity.


There's one final bizarre twist to this story.  Technically, NJ doesn't have a law against "hate crimes".  Our statute is officially known as an "anti bias" law, although this distinction is lost on almost everyone, including most legal scholars.  However, the judge overseeing this case, Judge Berman, seized upon this nuance to  proclaim:

"This individual was not convicted of a hate crime. He was convicted of a bias crime and there's a difference. I do not believe he hated Tyler Clementi. He had no reason to. But I do believe that he acted out of colossal insensitivity."  

This gave Judge Berman the opportunity to sentence Ravi to only 30 days in the county jail rather than the 10 years expected for a true "hate crime".  The end result was predictable:  no one was happy.  

• Bruce Kaplan, the prosecutor, will appeal the sentence because it does not reflect the seriousness of the conviction.
• Steven Altman, Ravi's lawyer, will appeal the conviction itself, stating that the jury was wrong in convicting Ravi on the more serious counts.
• And Steven Goldstein, chairman of the Garden State Equality group concluded: "Dharun Ravi today got one third the jail time that some shoplifters in our state get.  Stunning."

This one is far from over .