Should Rutgers Alleged Bully Be Deported?

[born2dance94]

<p>I’m… torn on the issue of jail time if deportation is also part of sentencing.</p>

<p>On the one hand, why waste taxpayer money on housing him in jail when if he’s going to be deported right after.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I think he does deserve the time spent in an actual jail. He shouldn’t be able to avoid prison just to go to India and try to lead as normal a life as possible.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

I think the Ravis assumed Dharun’s excellent academic record would influence the jury and result in a not guilty verdict, thus no need to accept the plea deal. But juries are made up of ordinary citizens (not intellectual elites) who expect an 18y/o to be able to solve a problem (sexile from dorm room) in a manner that doesn’t result in humiliation and invasion of privacy. After Tyler’s death Dharun’s friends reported he showed little or no remorse.

</p>

<p>If that’s the assumed premise behind the Ravis’ defense decisions/strategy…it backfired horrifically… </p>

<p>Moreover…I’m quite surprised considering their immigrant background and coming from a society with a similar high regard/expectations for educated folks as my family’s society of origin. Unless those norms are more different than I’ve observed from my limited reading of Indian history and being around many Indian/Indian-American classmates/coworkers…having an excellent academic record would actually be more damning…even if we bought into the defense’s attempt to use the “jerky boy” defense. </p>

<p>In my family…those with excellent academic records/attend elite schools are EXPECTED and would be held to higher standards of behavior so they could serve as good examples for others in their peer groups and to an extent…everyone else. Being even the Ravi’s defense’s “jerky boy” would be unacceptable for anyone who was 14 in my parents’ generation…much less an 18 year old who is expected to conduct him/herself as an adult he/she is under the law…especially one who had an excellent academic record.</p>

[xiggi]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>Again, xiggi you are confused by the definition of aggravated felonies under immigration law. Some of them may well be misdemeanors under state law, such as minor drug possession offenses, but they STILL have to be listed under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) to be considered deportable offenses. The cases you cite are irrelevant because they all relate to offenses under the list. <<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>I am afraid that you are confused by what I have written. I am not confused in the least. My understanding of this matter is not based on a cursory review of the list you quote. That is Removal 101! </p>

<p>It is obvious that I won’t convince you that statutory interpretation by the DOj is the key in the definition of aggravated felonies, which do not have to be aggravated … nor felonies for that matter. </p>

<p>Reading Circuit Courts and SCOTUS decisions -and dissenting opinions- will go a long way to make it clear that there is a lot more at stake than from what can be grabbed from a Wikipedia page or twenty second Google search.</p>

<p>PS You added the last comment about the list not being discretionary. I invite you to read the 2002 position statement by the DOJ on the St Cyr SCOTUS decision to appreciate the degree of discretion used by ICE.</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>

That is Removal 101!

</p>

<p>With all due deference I don’t think you have the requisite legal training to make such statements. You clearly have not even tried to read the actual statute but relied instead on incomplete cliff notes. </p>

<p>You also obviously don’t understand the difference between statutory definition and statutory interpretation. The latter starts from the former not from thin air. While some terms such as morale turpitude are open to interpretation, the fact that only morale turpitude offenses are only deportable offenses if committed within 5 years of admission to the US is not. The judge cannot INTERPRET the latter to mean 10 years. Same thing with witness tampeting: the sentence has to be longer than one year to be a deportable offense: not interpretable. </p>

<p>You don’t understand the difference between aggravated felonies for immigration purpose, which are defined by statute and NOT discretionary and aggravated felonies under NJ state law, which may or may not overlap. It is true that the offense need not be an aggravated feloney under state law,** but it has to be an aggravated felony uder the statute.**</p>

<p>You are simply wrong when you state that the an immigration judge has discretion in designating ANY misdemeanor as aggravated felony. There is nothing in the St Cyr decision that contradicts that point. Please cite the text if you make a legal reference to support a point. </p>

<p>It actually only points out difference between state law and the Federal statute for drug possession charges where state law is often less harsh than immigration law. </p>

<p>Here are some typical cases: misdemeanor under state law, aggravated felony under the statute: </p>

<p>Marijuana and the 30 Gram Exception.

It is not a deportable offense for someone to be convicted of “a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i). The exception does not apply to hashish or other marijuana derivatives. Being under the influence of a drug other than marijuana i.e. amphetamines even if a misdemeanor may be a deportable offense. Flores-Arellano v. INS, 5 F.3d 360 (9th Cir. 1993).

</p>

<p>Sexual abuse:

In In re Small, Board of Immigration Appeals found that the misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse of a minor qualifies as an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(A). In Small, the individual was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree under New York Penal Code §130.60(2); this offense is classified as a class A misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for one year or less. The BIA made this conclusion, reasoning that, “an offense classified by state law as a misdemeanor can be an ‘aggravated felony’ . . . if the offense otherwise conforms to the federal definition [of that term] found in 8 USC §1101(a)(43) . . . .”

</p>

<p>I challenge you to find a single case of deportable offense not listed in the statute.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>When something like this happens to young adults who are not college students, it does not get this kind of coverage. I don’t know of any bullying cases of this sort for other categories of adults. We do treat college student still as children in many ways, not the least of them their financial dependence.</p>

[NJSue]

<p>I am not a lawyer and can’t speak to the details. However, what I am hearing from people in New Jersey is a sense of unease at the application of these very new and untried laws in our state and a growing realization that perhaps we are using a sword instead of a scalpel to address the problem.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

We do treat college student still as children in many ways, not the least of them their financial dependence.

</p>

<p>While this has been mainstreamed in popular culture, this is mainly an upper/upper-middle class phenomenon…especially after 2008. </p>

<p>Many middle/working-class kids have been earning scholarships and/or working through college to defray college expenses…or postponed college to join the military or otherwise worked before college because they didn’t want/weren’t able to depend on their parents to fund their undergrad expenses. </p>

<p>Lived a bit of this myself and have seen plenty of cases of the above throughout my undergrad years and afterwards.</p>

[nj2011mom]

<p>Also not a lawyer, but local resident who followed the case in the news. I don’t understand the defendent’s case - a bunch of older family friends who admittedly hadn’t seen him in a few years were put on the stand as character witnesses. huh? While I can understand not including any Rutgers students (all of which were prosecution witnesses), however I’m not clear why they didn’t find HS friends or teachers. As I read the local paper this weekend, I felt a strong sense the father was controlling the show and was out of touch with how the criminal justice system operates in the US and put family honor above reality. </p>

<p>I wonder if the appeal will cite a poor defense case by the attorney.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>Cobrat, I was not specific enough. When I meant “the college student” I meant the direct from high school into a college dorm type student. They are often refferred to as “kids” and are treated quite differently from other young adults their age.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>We’ll soon see what the actual sentence will be. The young man seems to have family and financial support, so there will likely be an appeals procedure. What he actually serves in terms of sentence and consequences is not determinable at this time. A lot of possibilities.</p>

[LakeWashington]

<p>NJmom188, having an incompetent lawyer doesn’t in and of itself provide sufficient grounds for granting an appeal, as the noted jurist and legal giant Clarence Thomas has said. [SARCASM]</p>

[scansmom]

<p>Altman is far from an incompetent lawyer - he is among the top 100 trial lawyers in NJ, and according to his bio was named one of the best criminal lawyers in NJ in 2005 and a criminal law “super lawyer” in 2006, has served as deputy atty general and asst prosecutor…</p>

<p>[Steven</a> D. Altman](<a href=“http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/index.php/component/comprofiler/userprofile/user10561]Steven”>http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/index.php/component/comprofiler/userprofile/user10561)</p>

[limabeans]

<p>This was my question also: on what grounds will they file an appeal? </p>

<p>That the jury was already biased? That the jury stated (after their decision) that they might have been more favorable if the defense had a gay friend of Ravi testify? that the premise that the jury “could assume Clementi’s thinking” is all wrong?</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@xiggi

I invite you to read the 2002 position statement by the DOJ on the St Cyr SCOTUS decision to appreciate the degree of discretion used by ICE.

</p>

<p>Do you mean this?
<a href=“http://www.justice.gov/eoir/press/02/StCyrQA.htm[/url]”>http://www.justice.gov/eoir/press/02/StCyrQA.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mini]

<p>8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43</p>

<p>Witness tampering is an aggravated felony under the statute. It has no gray area, and the length of the sentence doesn’t matter. Those convicted are subject to “automatic deportation”. </p>

<p>Has nothing to do with Ravi’s or Clementi’s state of mind, or any other element in the case.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>

I don’t understand the defendent’s case - a bunch of older family friends who admittedly hadn’t seen him in a few years were put on the stand as character witnesses. huh?

I thought this was very telling. I don’t think there was anyone who could speak for what a wonderful caring, empathic person Ravi was. Because he clearly wasn’t. I have a problem with “hate crimes” as a separate category, but I don’t have a problem with this verdict. And I think it would be fine if he does some jail time.</p>

[higgins2013]

<p>NO. I’m listening to the news story analysis right now on Public Radio, and it seems the entire situation was far more nuanced than “gay boy bullied to suicide”. I’ve no dog in this fight other than a teenager at home who can do stupid things at times. I think we’d agree that teenagers are prone to moments of stupidity. This situation was pranking. Not rampant hate crime. Not gay-bashing.</p>

<p>Various people have used this suicide as a platform for their own political agendas. I’m listening now to a LGBT representative calling for LGBT training for elementary school-aged kids, while a gay journalist thinks conviction is wrong, given circumstances of case.</p>

<p>I think that Rutgers is at fault, for its RA system not addressing this issue: 30 year-old-man in dorm w/18 year-olds. There was no “sex” - they were filmed necking; that’s all.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>

This situation was pranking.

</p>

<p>Surreptitious setting up a livestream of someone in an intimate encounter, without their permission, goes far beyond a prank. Witness tampering goes way beyond a prank.</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>

8 USC § 1101 (a)</p>

<p>43)The term “aggravated felony” means— </p>

<p>(S)an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year; </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Length of sentence does matter. If there is no bribery, witness tampering may still be obstruction of justice.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@mini

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43</p>

<p>Witness tampering is an aggravated felony under the statute. It has no gray area, and the length of the sentence doesn’t matter. Those convicted are subject to “automatic deportation”.</p>

<p>Has nothing to do with Ravi’s or Clementi’s state of mind, or any other element in the case.

So he could have pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy and/or bias intimidation, which are not on the aggravated felony list. That may have been the State’s “avoid deportation” plea offer.</p>

<p>The cover up turned out to be worse than the crime.</p>

<p>

@cellardweller

Outside of witness tampering (if convicted for more than one year), I don’t see anything that Ravi was convicted of that rises to the level of aggravated felony under the statute.

He was also convicted of several counts of “Tampering with Physical Evidence” and “Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution”. Those also could fall under the “obstruction of justice” part of the aggravated felony definition in 11 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S): “an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year”</p>