Was Dharun Ravi’s conviction fairly overturned?

Just weeks ago, Dharun Ravi’s conviction was overturned in an appeals court, stirring up controversy.

In case you forgot or never knew, Ravi’s case reaches back to 2010, when he used a webcam to record his roommate, Tyler Clementi, having a romantic engagement with another man in their Rutgers dorm room — Clementi’s suicide following a few days later.

Ravi was convicted of invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. However, with the state supreme court ruling the latter unconstitutional in the past year, Ravi’s tie to Clementi’s death based on bias intimidation has been wiped off the table.

The supreme court unanimously ruled the bias intimidation statute as too vague, maintaining that that it was unfair to convict the defendant solely based on whether the victim thought they were targeted on account of their race, ethnicity, and more.

In the case of New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi, many were left upset as they felt Ravi was getting off scot-free.

Still, one of Ravi’s fellow high school graduates, Peter Thorpe, supported the ruling.

“If I had to take a stand on the issue, I’d lean in favor of the appeals ruling, at least insofar as it looked more carefully at the case, and let Dharun off for the charges that weren’t based upon solid evidence. I think in these difficult situations everyone has a tendency to polarize to one side of the issue and drown out all other voices, and this revision of the ruling allows us to think carefully about distinguishing between sophomoric immaturity and targeted harassment without compromising the deep condolences we continue to share with the Clementi family. It should help us all, especially young people, reflect on the consequences of those things we do when we’re caught up in the moment and don’t take that extra second to think before we act,” Thorpe said.

Indeed, the bias intimidation law was too vague in its parameters to stay in place, considering both the extent to which intimidation can now vary and its expansiveness, thanks to the internet and all its trolls. Freedom of speech has to remain to some degree without an underlying fear of being apprehended because of someone else’s —possibly skewed — judgment.

A new, much more specified and reasonable law must be drawn so that cases like this don’t occur as often in the first place. Qualifications must be found for what is considered penalty-worthy intimidation — no matter what the victim’s mental state.

However, the most important thing to remember is that Ravi was an adult and he should have known not to do something so childish in the first place. Middle school ended a long time ago. It’s his silly, immature behavior that triggered this and there’s just no doubt in that.

Whether he knew of Clementi’s mental state— as to whether suicide was even a thought to him or not— he really had no excuse. It was unnecessary.

The bias intimidation law may have been vague, but there’s a definite standard that people tend to hold for what is and isn’t acceptable, and Ravi clearly disregarded it. Despite Clementi taking his own life, there was no justification in Ravi’s actions.

For that, the blame remains on his shoulders.

While it is a shame the bias intimidation statute had to be stripped and rendered useless to this case, Ravi was still charged with invasion of privacy meaning he still has penalties to face and the responsibility to bear.

According to MyCentralJersey.com, the appeals court wants to bring the case to a new trial in the state superior court for the remaining counts, such as invasion of privacy and tampering with physical evidence.

Ravi hasn’t been cleared just yet.