The anti-bullying forces have a great victory under their belt. So what if Tyler Clementi didn’t commit suicide because of Dharun Ravi; Ravi was still wrong, and certainly a galvanizing target in the War against Bullying. Sure, Clementi was no Matthew Shepard, but you take your targets where you find them.
Now what?
Because of hate crime legislation, Ravi faces a term of imprisonment of 10 years. Uh oh. Suddenly the anti-bullying crusade has a problem. They demanded he be convicted. They demanded he be held accountable. And now that they got their way, they are confronted with the consequences of what they asked for. But it’s become clear that they don’t want that either.
Not ten years. That’s too much.
It’s what the law provides, and nobody in the Anti-Bullying Crusade argued that the law was too harsh. But put it to use, and suddenly they’re staring the consequences in the face and they’re not happy about it. A letter to the Editor in the New York Times shows the misguided ambivalence.
To the Editor:
Re “Jury Finds Spying in Rutgers Dorm Was a Hate Crime” (front page, March 17):
This case raises critical questions for the gay community and for us all. How do we balance justice and compassion? Should this young man be imprisoned for up to 10 years for a cruel and immature act that had a dreadful consequence he did not foresee and would not have wished?
What is accomplished by imprisoning him, apart from satisfying our urge for retribution? Is this really the way to end bullying, or are we in danger of becoming the bullies we abhor?
We suggest that Dharun Ravi be sentenced to work for a gay rights organization. There his prejudices would be confronted every day simply by coexisting with people whom he might grow to like and respect.
We hope that a prominent gay rights organization will intervene in the sentencing hearing, saying: “Justice has been served. We applaud that. The message has gone out that harassment and bullying of gay people will not be tolerated. However, we do not support the maximum sentence for this young man and ask the court for leniency.”
STEPHEN KARAKASHIAN
ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ
PHYLLIS RODRIGUEZ
Milwaukie, Ore., March 18, 2012The writers are, respectively, a gay rights activist, a criminologist, and a peace and reconciliation activist. The Rodriguezes’ son died in the Sept. 11 attack.
What the relevance of the Rodriguezes’ son’s death on 9/11 has to do with anything is unclear. Perhaps it’s to create credibility or generaly sympathy. Perhaps it’s to explain, without explanation, what a “peace and reconciliation activist” is. I dunno. But now that the Crusaders have sent their message, they have embraced the belief that they get a say in the sentence as well.
The problem is multifold. You wanted a crime with enhanced punishment for thinking thoughts you don’t like, but then argue that the very enhancement that distinguishes the crime you demanded serves no purpose. It probably seemed like such an important message at the time, that hate crimes demand special especially harsh treatment. But after you’ve calmed down and stopped hyperventilating, it doesn’t smell right anymore.
The letter writers are of the view that the judge whose responsibility it is to impose sentence should take into account their personal views. Not only do they think that they’re view, that a ten year sentence is unduly harsh, should be considered, but they have the perfect alternative. Ravi should be sentenced to work for a gay rights organization. To this end, they hope that such a group “intervene” in the sentence.
Newsflash, singers of Kumbaya. Neither gay rights groups, nor you, can intervene. The imposition of sentence is not a matter of public approval. It’s not a democratic decision. The judge won’t “crowdsource” it. And nobody gets to “intervene.”
Maybe you should have considered the impact of the enhancements imposed by the legislators, a group that sometimes cares what others think provided they can grab some votes, when they tripped all over themselves to come up with punishments that would make the Crusaders all warm and fuzzy.
The hyperbolic adjectives used in abundance to describe how awful it is to suffer a hurt feeling also make a great reason to add a decade to the punishment. And you applaud the harshness, because of words like “cruel” and harassment, and the one no one has yet to adequately define: bullying.
It’s a lot harder than you thought to watch the consequences of your demands play out in the real world. You wanted a message sent? The message isn’t just the conviction of Dharun Ravi, but the punishment for the crimes for which he’s been convicted. You don’t get to choose to truncate the message because it suddenly isn’t quite what you intended. The message will be complete upon sentence, whatever that will be. It can be ten years, because you screamed about the horror of bias crimes, the need to punish those who hurt someone else’s feelings.
You got what you wished for. Are you sorry now?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This was the same thing with Zero Tolerance.
“We want Zero Tolerance! Kids are out of control!”
“It’s a stupid idea that will cause more harm than good.”
“La la la la la! I can’t hear you! Zero Tolerance!”
A few years later…
“Hey wait, MY kid is being kicked out of school? For having scissors?! Zero Tolerance is so unfair!!!”
And now a bunch kids will be, once again, punished for otherwise normal behavior. After enough sacrificial lambs have been sent to the slaughter, the same crowd who wanted anti-bullying laws will be crying when their kid is looking at jail time for a mean Facebook post. Because yes, it really is so unfair.
However, you asked for stupid laws, you got stupid laws, and now you don’t like the result.
Isn’t the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment a bit of democratic crowdsourcing?
We’re not voting on a case by case basis, but if there was wide spread consensus that this sort of punishment for this sort of crime is harsh in the extreme, would that not support an 8th Amendment argument?
When I first heard of Ravi’s devastating ten-year sentence, I was immediately reminded of Michelle Alexander’s excellent book The New Jim Crow along with her recent critical essay in the New York Times. Alexander, a civil rights lawyer, law professor,and respected feminist speaks from the viewpoint of one who has stood in the well and has seen all too often how defendants are punished for insisting on their right to a trial. In this case, Ravi refused a pleas bargain that would have avoided any jail time. He insisted on his right to go to trial and was seemingly punished with a harsh sentence for that. Ravi’s sentence is a timely example of Alexander’s important message on the criminal justice system.
Did you get your 8th Amendment survey from the Supreme Court in the mail yet?
Can we wait until Ravi actually gets sentenced first? And I agree that it’s terribly unfortunate that Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, which demonstrated her mastery of the obvious, was marred by her idiotic NYT op-ed. But then, what can you expect?
My point was that isn’t this the type of situation the 8th Amendment is aimed at?
We didn’t cover it in my Con Law class, but I would think that public perception of a penalty would factor in to whether it’s “cruel.”
No. Nothing whatsoever to do with it, but on the bright side, you win stupidest comment of the day, and that isn’t easy given what we’ve had today. Congratulations!!!
Well deserved but I would have voted for Tannebaum. Con Daily wins for worst blog post yesterday.
You don’t get a vote, but more importantly, if you want to tell BL1Y what you think of his post at Con Daily, do it there, not here.
As Radley Balko points out:
Two privacy violations = 10 years in prison
8000+ privacy violations (including some that are demonstrably child pornography) = No charges filed
I thought that was great when Radley pointed it out. I wish I had thought of it first.