The prosecution of Dharum Ravi for the alleged hate crime against Tyler Clementi was overreaching and in my opinion an abuse of the New Jersey hate crime statute.
The purpose of hate crime legislative enacted in almost every state of the union is to punish offenders who commit specific crimes against people because of their ethic, religious, racial, or sexual standing. In other words if an offender attacks someone because of his or her hatred of particular group, that is a hate crime in New Jersey. Further, under the New Jersey hate crime statute you are guilty of the crime based on the state of mind of the victim and not of the offender. Hence, the mens rea or the state of mind of the defendant/offender is irrelevant. If the alleged victim believed that he or she was a victim of a hate crime that is sufficient under the law.
The fundamental question is whether the State under any circumstances should be punishing people for who they are? Where is the line to be drawn between a prosecutor that punishes for thought, i.e., George Orwell’s classic 1984, and the offenders who actual commits a crime against a class of people because who they are? The question arises should a burglar be prosecuted under a hate crime because he only burglarizes homes in “rich” neighborhoods, and hence commits a hate crime against the rich. The answer of course is no; but what would stop an overzealous prosecutor for doing such a thing, under these types of hate crime laws?
In other words if you commit a crime while thinking a vile thought you commit a hate crime. It has never been the law that people be prosecuted for their thoughts, but that is preciously what occurs with these hate crime prosecutions, when abused by the prosecutor.
This case is a perfect example in which the prosecuting authority over-charged a defendant. Whether Mr. Ravi engaged in a college prank, did something stupid or was a jerk is not a hate crime. The overcharging of Mr. Ravi with a hate crime against Mr. Clementi is typical of many prosecutors in New Jersey and is clearly the norm not the exception. The overcharging of a defendant for a crime which was not committed is a common strategy in New Jersey to extract a guilty plea from the defendant, and forcing the defendant to either "take the plea" or risk doing serious time on the over-charged offense. Further the prosecution of Mr. Ravi is a perfect example of how hate crime laws can be abused by juries, which happened in this case.
There is no doubt in this New Jersey criminal defense attorney's mind that Mr. Ravi will prevail on appeal and that New Jersey’s hate crime statute will eventually be held unconstitutional or stricken down by the courts on some other form procedural due process grounds by the New Jersey courses.
Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Dated: April 7, 2012
Tel. No. (908) 354-7006
NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Lawyer, Best Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Criminal Lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment