Dharun Ravi Trial - The Myth and The Facts

[app_engine]

Neel D,
How & who decides whether a trial should be by juries or otherwise?

[Neel D]

app_engine,

A trial by jury is a right, in a criminal case depending on the charges and possible punishment. It is seen as a chance for the defendant to get a fair judgement. A defendant will have to waive his right to a trial by jury to get a trial by judge(s). A trial by jury is seen where a defendant can get compassion from fellow human beings in the jury and a fair deal, which may not necessarily happen in a trial by judge, especially if the judge represented a tyrannical government. A jury of peers is "supposed" to have the perspective of context, societal norms, behavior, errors, etc. Ravi's defense team opted for a jury trial because they must have thought that the jury will see the incident in its context - as an immature teenager's mistake when he found himself in the middle of a scandalous event when he had just ventured out into the world by himself.

Unfortunately for Ravi, it is clear from the convictions and acquittals that the jury in his case went in with a presumption of guilt. They only acquitted him of those charges where there was solid argument AGAINST the charges. All prosecution witnesses (not defense witnesses) when questioned said that Ravi never had said anything disparaging of homosexuals or anything disparaging of Clementi. This happened over and over again in the trial. And in all those hundreds of tweets, IMs and emails presented as evidence there was not one instance where Ravi used a slur to refer to a gay person. He always referred to them as "gay" when there were so many unpleasant words available. So, the jury acquitted him of bias intimidation on Ravi's part.

But the jury convicted him of what Clementi "thought" was bias and how Clementi "felt" because of it - intimidated - because the jury took into consideration that Clementi committed suicide. You see how it works? It was a no-win situation for Ravi, when the jury had presumed guilt, in spite of solid proof to the contrary. The jury acquitted Ravi of bias intimidation charge where MB "thought" that Ravi did it out of "bias" and because of that MB felt "intimidated". The jury acquitted Ravi on this charge because MB did NOT commit suicide while they convicted Ravi on the same charge with regards to Clementi because Clementi committed suicide.

The jury went in with a presumption of guilt and acquitted only on those charges where there was solid, unshakeable proof pointing to innocence. It should be the other way around. They were supposed to go in with a presumption of innocence and convict only when there is solid, unshakeable proof pointing to guilt, and that too guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is how the justice system is supposed to work. It is there to protect people from being wrongly punished and to prevent overpunishment for small crimes due to oppressive laws.

There are so many options built into the legal system to provide a fair trial, to offer leniency, compassion and rehabilitation to the defendant because our forefathers believed that someone should not be stripped off his freedom, his dignity, his opportunities, his life and be condemned because he committed a crime or accused of committing a crime, big or small. The defendant may have broken the law out of ignorance, immaturity, momentary lapse of judgement, by an honest mistake, etc. He must be treated fairly in a democratic society. The many options and rights available to the accused are right to attorney, Miranda rights, plea deals, jury trial, appeals, overturning of convictions, leniency for first offense, sentencing judge's freedom to give a reduced sentence, early release for good behavior, and so much more. But the same legal system can be used vengefully to overprosecute the accused as it happened in Ravi's case.

[app_engine]

Thank you Neel D, for the detailed explanation!

[Neel D]

app_engine, you are welcome.

Latest on the case... Prosecution to make punishment recommendation
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...ase_for_p.html

[Neel D]

Prosecutors have recommended prison time for Dharun Ravi who is to be sentenced next Monday, May 21, 2012. A group of about 500 people protested the unfair trial and defended Dharun Ravi at the capital.

Protest - article and video - May 14, 2012 - From NorthJersey.com by Karen Sudol

[Neel D]

Reaching for simplistic answers where there are none.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,6416772.story

[Neel D]

Sentencing...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-tri...ry?id=16394014

Have not caught up with all the details. Sure do appreciate the judge's wisdom.

[NOV]

I heard that the verdict is 30 days prison with no deportation.

That seems fair...

[priya32]

I heard that the verdict is 30 days prison with no deportation.

That seems fair...

Everytime when I watch a video or a news clip on TV, it breaks my heart to see the mother cry.

It sure is a relief...

[NOV]

See the video in Neel's link.
any mother with a heart, would cry...