After Dharun Ravi was convicted of “bias intimidation” crimes that carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, many people wondered why he had rejected a plea deal that would have kept him out of jail. Ravi’s lawyer explained that the 20-year-old defendant’s parents “didn’t believe their son acted with hate, or bias, and they didn’t want him labeled like that for life.” But it turns out you can be convicted of a hate crime without hating anyone, which only compounds the injustice of laws that punish people for their bigotry.

The jury acquitted Ravi of trying to intimidate his roommate at Rutgers University, Tyler Clementi, on September 19, 2010, when Ravi briefly used a webcam in his dorm room to watch Clementi kiss another man. But the jury nevertheless concluded that Clementi, who killed himself three days later for reasons that remain unclear, felt intimidated and “reasonably believed” he was targeted because he was gay. Under New Jersey law, that was enough.

To convict Ravi of this unintentional, hateless hate crime, the jury had to infer Clementi’s state of mind and conclude that the circumstances justified it. Those elements have reasonable doubt built into them in case like this, where the victim cannot testify and no one else knows what he was thinking. “We’ll never know exactly what he was feeling,” one juror conceded. “I can only assume.” Our system of justice demands more than that.

We do know, based on Clementi’s instant messages and posts, that he initially dismissed what he called Ravi’s “five sec peep” but upon reflection was angry, especially since Ravi had tweeted about it. Two days later, Ravi told his Twitter followers the same man was visiting Clementi again and dared them to watch.

The second viewing never happened, apparently because Clementi unplugged Ravi’s computer. He also applied online for a room change, complained to a resident adviser, and repeatedly checked Ravi’s Twitter feed. Still, the fact that Clementi had sex again in the same room suggests he was not exactly intimidated.

The jury concluded that the aborted second viewing was a deliberate attempt to intimidate Clementi “because of [his] sexual orientation.” Yet the prosecution’s own witnesses testified they had never heard Ravi, who was not shy about expressing his opinions, disparage gay people or Clementi.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by Jacob Sullum.

The day Tyler Clementi discovered that his roommate at Rutgers University had used a webcam to spy on him as he kissed another man, he described the incident to a friend during an instant-message chat. “It could be interpreted as a hate crime,” the friend suggested, according to a recentNew Yorker article by Ian Parker. Clementi’s reply: “hahaha a hate crime lol.”

That risible possibility has become a reality because Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman, jumped off the George Washington Bridge two days later for reasons that remain unclear. The New Jersey trialof Clementi’s roommate, Dharun Ravi, illustrates the dangers posed by hate crime statutes, which enhance the penalties for existing offenses based on bigoted motives and therefore punish people for their opinions.

Ravi, who rejected a plea deal that would have kept him out of jail, faces up to 10 years in prison for being an immature jerk. On the evening of September 19, 2010, having set up the webcam on his computer to automatically accept video chat requests, Ravi went to a friend’s dorm room across the hall to see what Clementi and his visitor were doing. After watching a few seconds of the two men kissing, Ravi shut off the feed.

Ravi compounded this invasion by tweeting about it. “Roommate asked for the room till midnight,” he wrote. “I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later Ravi tweeted that “it’s happening again” and dared his followers to watch. Clementi apparently prevented a second viewing by unplugging Ravi’s computer.

Prosecutors argue that on both occasions Ravi committed (or attempted) an invasion-of-privacy offense that ordinarily carries a sentence of three to five years. But by asserting that Ravi did so “with a purpose to intimidate” Clementi “because of” his sexual orientation, they bumped this third-degree offense up a level, making the penalty five to 10 years.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by Jacob Sullum.

Florida’s delegates to the Republican National Convention are getting snubbed in their own house, after the national GOP decided Wednesday to ramp up penalties on the state for holding an early primary in violation of party rules.

Though Florida is hosting the party’s national convention in Tampa later this year, a Republican National Committee panel voted unanimously to give the state’s representatives second-class access to the whole affair.

Under the resolution, the national party will make sure Florida’s delegates have poor seating and poor hotel options — as in, hotels that are not close to the Tampa Bay Times Forum, the convention venue. According to an RNC official, the delegates will also be limited in the number of guest passes they can hand out.

The Rules Committee voted for the sanctions Wednesday, and the RNC official said no further action is needed to carry out the punishment.

“They will be penalized with reduced guest passes, reduced priority seating on the floor and hotels further away,” the official told Fox News.

A Florida Republican official claimed the national party still has to take one more step to finalize the penalties, but suggested there would be no hard feelings going into November. The official said the state party will “do nothing but (commit) ourselves to making sure that a Republican wins the state of Florida.”

The latest penalties would come on top of the hit the Sunshine State already took to its delegate count.

The state is expected to lose half its 99 delegates as a result of its decision to hold the Republican presidential primary on Jan. 31.

Under RNC rules, Florida was not supposed to hold what’s known as a “winner-take-all” primary before April. That’s a primary in which all the state’s delegates are awarded to the winner, as opposed to one in which the delegates are awarded proportionally.

The very beginning of the 2012 primary calendar is also supposed to be reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Florida’s decision to get in on the early primary action follows a similar move in 2008, and a similar punishment by the RNC.

Leonard Curry, chairman of the Florida GOP, said in a statement that he’s hoping to move forward despite the new penalties.

“I understand why today’s vote took place and we will continue to work to protect Florida Republicans’ interest at the national convention,” Curry said. “With today’s action, I hope that all Republicans can move together, unified and committed to the most important goal we have — the election of a Republican president in 2012.”

When the state party first announced the date in September, Curry said the early vote “properly reflects the importance Florida will play on the national stage.”

A true swing state, Florida, with its 29 delegates to the Electoral College, is considered essential to win the general election. Barack Obama won the state in 2008.

Source: Fox News.

My Two Cents: At least this lady isn’t full of madness like the rest of her Sharia Law following countrymen. End Two Cents.

*Taken from Yahoo News.

An Iranian woman who was blinded by a suitor who threw acid on her face has pardoned her attacker at the last minute, sparing him from being blinded by acid as retribution.

Iranian state television broadcast footage Sunday of Ameneh Bahrami in the operating room with her attacker, Majid Mohavedi, who was on his knees waiting for her to drop acid in his eyes as punishment.

Bahrami said she has forgiven Mohavedi and pardoned him. State TV showed Mohavedi weeping and saying Bahrami was “very generous.”

Mohavedi poured acid on Bahrami’s face and blinded her in 2004 for rejecting his marriage proposal.

A 2008 Iranian court order allowed Bahrami to pour the corrosive chemical in Mohavedi eyes as retribution.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from MSNBC.

A northeast Ohio couple found themselves up to their ankles in trouble for rafting on a flood-swollen river without life preservers and lying about it afterward.

A judge sentenced them to stand in a tiny swimming pool while wearing life jackets and handing out water safety brochures Saturday at a festival in Painesville, 30 miles northeast of Cleveland.

Twenty-year-old Grace Nash and 22-year-old Bruce Crawford pleaded guilty to misdemeanor misconduct during an emergency. Searchers spent hours looking for them last month after they were spotted on the Grand River. They made it to land but lied to an official about being in the water.

They chose the pool punishment and community service over 60 days in jail.

Nash tells The News-Herald in Willoughby they’ve learned their lesson.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

I was golfing the other day with my brother-in-law Ed, a University Professor and proud FDR-liberal, discussing a variety of subjects from Alexander Hamilton to Oklahoma Sooner football when the subject of the role of government as the disciplinarian of Big Business came about. Ed was of the opinion that without the mighty force of the Federal Government laying down large fines to reckless corporations like BP, there is no disincentive to prevent corporate tragedies like the 2010 oil spill – a line of reasoning I have frequently encountered.

Of course, as I attempted to explain to Ed, the market itself has its own ways of punishing business malpractice. I asked Ed if he ever saw a BP commercial before the oil spill, of course he had, and then asked him why BP paid for the commercial. “PR”, he replied. I responded by asking him what comes to mind now when he thinks of BP, those commercials or the oil spill? The oil spill, over night, eliminated the value of billions of dollars of investment in public relations, and that’s not considering the time. During the summer it seemed never a day went by without an invitation to a Facebook group encouraging a boycott of BP – a market driven punishment to the spill (if not a misplaced one).

Then there was the cost of cleaning up the oil itself. Growing up in Panama City Beach for most of my life, I was quick to volunteer my services in cleaning up its beaches. BP paid the cost of my and my fellow technician’s HAZWOPER Certificate (valued over $300), allowing us to work with tarballs with OSHA’s blessing. We received a starting salary of $12 an hour, a guarantee of 80 hours a week (meaning $18 an hour with overtime) and our contractor received a nice profit for every head they hired. I was taking home over $1000 dollars a week. At one point we had 1,000 workers at my base camp in Port St. Joe, and we didn’t even have oil. BP paid for our meals. BP supplied our hard hats, our gloves, our neon safety vests, our medical personnel, our work trucks, our work ATV’s. BP rented out entire marinas and fisheries and dirt lots to set up camps. We enjoyed air conditioned work tents (necessitated by working in 110 degree heat) and all the water and Gator-Aid we could drink. BP rented the services of private fishing boats. BP deployed almost 4 million feet of boom in the water. All of this at a cost.

And then there were the settlements. Though I did not apply for a “BP Check” as it is referred to locally, most everyone else I know did. It is normal to hear stories of people receiving $12,000 check for being fired due to laziness and then blaming it on the oil spill. A former co-worker of mine has received a total of $7,000 dollars, in spite of the fact her tax receipts showed she made more money in 2010 than 2009. Recently BP has offered $5,000 to anyone who filed a claim and agrees not to sue. Local businesses are getting even more. And this in Panama City Beach, where we never saw our beaches covered in oil.

When I bring up these naturally occurring costs, I typically hear a few standard replies. My favorite is “but BP is so large that they will still end up making billions in profits this year.” That may be true, but wouldn’t they have made billions more by not filling the gulf with oil? (I typically choose not to bring up the opportunity costs associated with BP not being able to sell the spilled oil.) Ed asked me whether I believed BP would have paid the cost of recovery if not for the Federal Government, I asked whether he would ever buy BP gas again if they didn’t. And then there is the legal system, which obviously wouldn’t even be eliminated in Murray Rothbard’s state of anarchism, that would supply an avenue for victims to be compensated for their losses. Even with the government imposed escrow fund, a coffee shop owner I know, who opened his business nearly three months after the spill, is using the court system (or threat of it) to receive his own BP check after being denied through the typical claims process.

Of course BP is not the only example of the morality of free markets. When a fast food chain allows tainted food to be sold, even if isolated to one specific store, nation-wide demand for their food goes down, along with their profit margin. When a pharmaceutical company puts out a bad drug, they have to deal with similar legal and liability costs that BP endures. When Toyota makes a car whose breaks don’t work, they have to pay for the nation-wide recall while at the same time suffering from the resulting decrease in demand. When a coffee shop sells a lukewarm cup of coffee, they suffer the opportunity cost of never enjoying the business of the dissatisfied consumer.

It’s easy to develop a near spiritual celebration of the market when you come to understand how the natural morality of the markets is applicable to the individual as well. If you realize that the income an individual enjoys is the direct reward for their labor (be it from selling it to another or applying it to their own enterprise) then one can understand the significance of their budget. The person who spends $50 dollars every two days on a bottle of Jack Daniels experiences the fiscal price of their vice. The person who spends $60 dollars on bag of marijuana, they experience not only a fiscal price for the vice of the drug, but the price of breaking the law (the illegality being directly reflected in the price.)

It is, of course, the government that does its best to destroy this natural morality. When we are told that all food carries with it the endorsement of the FDA, it is only natural for consumers to worry less about the reputation of its producer and to instead focus on cost. When the Southern Pacific Railroad was granted by government a monopoly in California, the resulting corruption was blamed on the railroad industry as a whole, not the politicians who granted the special favor. When criminalizing a relatively harmless drug like marijuana forces its consumers to interact with drug dealers on a black market, it is the plant that is blamed as a gateway drug. I remembered watching in amazement when the aftermath of the oil spill brought about discussion of raising the liability cap for BP, why should any corporation receive protection from the results of their recklessness?

The more I understand the true nature of the markets, the most enthusiastic I become about the economic freedom of capitalism and the more passionate I become about seeing its return to this country. As Mises sagaciously stated “The alcoholic and the drug addict harm only themselves by their behavior; the person who violates the rules of morality governing mans life in society harms not only himself, but everyone.”