dharun ravi--wow, this guy just looks like a douchebag, doesn't he? even in two dimensions, he fairly oozes that smug, shiny, well-fed arrogance peculiar to his kind. this is the sorta kid for whom college and life beyond were supposed to be as effortlessly golden as the childhood he'd left behind.
guess not so much anymore, huh?
because, see, this is also the sorta kid who, since time immemorial, has taken it as his god-given right to make a living hell outta the not-so-golden lives of kids like
tyler clementi. even my two-sizes-too-small heart aches every time i look at this picture and imagine his tortured last hours, and think of the promise lost.
but that doesn't stop me from asking whether his tormentor should really be facing a 10-year prison sentence for what seems on its face no more than a malicious, stupid prank--and yeah, i mean no matter how horribly wrong it went.
before i go any further, lemme just say that (a) i'm not a lawyer, legal expert or constitutional scholar; and (b) i don't have all the facts of the case as presented to the grand jury that returned the indictment--when i do, my opinion may change.
but from what i can tell, mr. ravi's being charged with a "hate" crime (whatever that even means), because his victim (a) was gay; and (b) killed himself, presumably as a result of mr. ravi's actions [i'm inferring this last part, because even though the prosecutor denies it, i think it's safe to assume that we wouldn't be talking about a 10-year prison sentence had mr. clementi not jumped off the bridge].
so i have a couple questions:
- are mr. ravi's actions criminal only because his victim was gay? in other words, if some future douchebag does this to his nerdy straight roommate--say, a fundamentalist christian kid who hangs himself because, to him, the thought of his fornication being exposed to the world is worse than death--will he be charged with a hate crime, too? and if so, into what protected class does said straight roommate fall? and if not, then why is what happened to the gay kid worse than what happened to the straight kid, and where is equal justice under the law?
- or are mr. ravi's actions criminal only because his victim killed himself? in other words, if he'd picked a thicker-skinned gay kid to psychically bash, would we even be talking about this?
- what if the doubtless charming mr. ravi, his presumed dream-team of attorneys and an endless string of character witnesses manage to snow a jury into believing mr. ravi doesn't have a homophobic bone in his body, and that he was just goofing on a roommate--is what he did still a crime?
you see where i'm going with this? with the introduction of the "hate crime" concept, all of a sudden it's not about what the perpetrator actually did anymore; we have to bring the thought police in, because it becomes all about what was in his heart, what his intentions were, and whether or not he did it to a member of a special, protected class of people--the actual crime kinda gets lost in the confusion.
and that's where my problem with hate crime legislation and protected classes lies. yeah, when it comes to crime, we're all equal under the law--except, of course, for those of us who are more equal (or more hateful) than others.
* * * * *
having said all that, would i want a guy who gay-bashed me or anybody i care about charged with a hate crime? you bet your sweet ass i would--and not only him, but his mama, daddy, pre-natal nurse, obstetrician and/or anybody else who was responsible for bringing his hateful ass into the world.
which is why you're not supposed to let vengeful victims or their advocates write the laws--but that, in essence, is exactly what's happened with hate crime legislation.
4 comments:
Guttermorality poses an interesting question: Why are some crimes more heinous than others?
More specifically, why should it matter who your victim was -- and then proving that you had animus toward that person?
Let's think about this for a minute. Imagine Mr. Ravi had attacked someone who was Jewish in a way that it was clearly a hate crime -- intending to hurt someone because he was Jewish.
Given the history of anti-Semitism in this country (and world-wide), it makes sense that we as a society are going to say that some groups are more vulnerable to crime, persecution, and hate.
That is the theory behind hate crimes. It does not have to do with the particular crime, but it reflects that our society has had a problem with bias motivated violence against certain groups of people and that separate and apart from eradicating or punishing crime, we need to put a value and punish those who perpetuate violence against the most vulnerable.
Second, and this is a secondary reason. With hate crimes, it is often a random violence that occurs based solely upon whether the person's group affiliation and this is in some ways particularly awful.
For example, I remember in the 1980's where some folks in Detroit killed a Vietnamese person because they thought he was Japanese and he was being beaten up because of the problems U.S. manufacturers had with Japanese competition.
Another example is the targeting of the Jewish synagogue in the Valley for a bomb (if anyone else reads this, the Valley is the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles).
So, to answer your question, we punish Mr. Ravi because there is a long-standing history of violence against gay people solely because they are gay and we as a society believe this to be wrong and have taken actions to stop this including stiffer penalties for such crimes.
noblesavage: [sigh] is this the best you got? what you've given me are standard boilerplate talking points which this post has already accepted as a given and is attempting to push beyond.
The "standard talking points" are right.
The issue of "silencing" disfavored groups is a very serious one.
And while your concept that all crimes are hate crimes is a nice one, it is not serious.
If you have ever been around law enforcement, cops take some cases much more seriously than others. Getting pushed to the top of the pile matters.
noblesavage: two things:
(1) i never said all crimes are hate crimes--i'm not sure where you got that. in fact, other than whether a crime was premeditated, impulsive, accidental or the result of mental impairment or a physical need like hunger or safety, the motivations behind a criminal act don't interest me all that much--from a justice-seeking standpoint, anyway.
(2) you still haven't justified your feel-good legislation in my eyes--you haven't even tried. how about addressing a few of the thorny questions i brought up?
Post a Comment