On the Verge of Serving His Jail Sentence, Dharun Ravi Apologizes

Dharun Ravi, who
plans to start serving his 30-day jail sentence tomorrow,

apologized yesterday for using a webcam to spy on his Rutgers
University roommate as he kissed another man, gossiping about the
incident on Twitter, and daring his followers to watch another
encounter between the two men:

Last Monday, I was sentenced to 3 years probation, 300 hours of
community service, a fine of more than $10,000.00, and 30 days in
jail. Since the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office appealed that
sentence, the sentence does not have to start until the appeal is
decided. Nevertheless, I decided to accept and hopefully complete
the sentence as soon as possible. It?s the only way I can go on
with my life.
I accept responsibility for and regret my thoughtless,
insensitive, immature, stupid and childish choices that I made on
September 19, 2010 and September 21, 2010. My behavior and actions,
which at no time were motivated by hate, bigotry, prejudice or
desire to hurt, humiliate or embarrass anyone, were nonetheless the
wrong choices and decisions. I apologize to everyone affected by
those choices.

At Ravi's
sentencing last week, when he faced a possible prison term of
up to 10 years, Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman
scolded him for his "unimpressive" expressions of regret. "I heard
this jury say 'guilty' 288 times?24 questions, 12 jurors?that's the
multiplication," Berman said. "And I haven?t heard you apologize
once." Ravi, who chose not to address the court,
told the Newark Star-Ledger anything he said
prior to sentencing would be dismissed as an insincere bid for
leniency. Yesterday's statement may or may not be what Berman was
looking for, but those who thought he let Ravi off too lightly are
bound to view it as inadequate, especially since Ravi did not
mention his roommate, Tyler Clementi, who killed himself a few days
after the webcam incident for reasons that remain unclear. Although
Ravi was never officially charged with contributing to Clementi's
death, the aggressive strategy of his prosecutors, who
inflated a minor, nonviolent offense into a felony punishable
by a 10-year prison term, suggests they were trying to hold him
responsible for his roommate's decision to jump off the George
Washington Bridge.
Ravi's apology highlights what seems to be the main reason he
rejected a plea deal with terms similar to the punishment he
received after his trial (except for the month in jail): He did not
see himself as a bigot, and so he did not want to admit that he
spied on Clementi with the intent of intimidating him because of
his sexual orientation. During his trial, the prosecution presented
very little evidence that Ravi?who, judging from his tweets and
instant messages, rarely had an unexpressed thought?harbored any
particular animus against Clementi or gay people in general. "I do
not believe he hated Tyler Clementi," Berman said last week. "He
had no reason to." Berman emphasized that "Ravi was not convicted
of a hate crime; he was convicted of a bias crime." This
distinction is pretty hazy, not only because the terms are
generally used interchangeably but because Ravi was convicted of
deliberately trying to intimidate Clementi through his Twitter
comments and of doing so because Clementi was gay. That theory did
not make much sense, not only because the prosecution failed to
show that Ravi was motivated by anti-gay bias but also because he
sought to conceal his spying from Clementi and (foolishly) viewed
his tweets as private chatter among friends. As far as Ravi was
concerned, he was talking about Clementi behind his back; once he
realized that Clementi had seen his tweets, Ravi
apologized to him (albeit in a pretty disingenuous, half-assed
fashion). The point is not that Ravi's behavior was admirable but
that it did not suggest an effort to intimidate Clementi.
In fact, after distinguishing between "hate crime" and "bias
crime," Berman suggested that the prosecution had applied New
Jersey's law, which heretofore has been used only in cases
involving violence or threats of violence, in a manner that was not
intended by the legislature. Reinforcing that point, he did not
give Ravi any jail time for the bias crime convictions, locking him
up instead for his efforts to conceal his actions from police,
which included deleting incriminating tweets and trying to
influence a witness.
Although Ravi decided to serve his jail sentence rather than
wait for the appeals to be resolved, his lawyers plan to challenge
his convictions on several grounds. With respect to the initial
spying (as opposed to the subsequent tweets), for example, the
jurors found Ravi guilty of a bias crime based not on his intent to
intimidate but based on their supposition
that Clementi felt intimidated. While New Jersey's
law allowed them to take that route, this definition of bias
intimidation seems vulnerable to a due process challenge, since it
means someone can be convicted of a crime he did not know he was
committing.
More generally, Ravi argues that a law aimed at violent gay
bashers has been misused to punish what Berman described as the
"colossal insensitivity" of an immature 18-year-old. I tend to
agree. But in making this argument, Ravi implicitly concedes the
basic premise of New Jersey's statute: that the criminal law should
be used to brand people as bigots and punish them for their
benighted beliefs.
Previous coverage of the case
here.

lesbian reviews lesbian gossip lesbian life