I caught this article in my local newspaper on Sunday. I found it rather odd that Mr. Ravi might be (or has already been - this casts doubt on whether or not I have actually read this article, doesn't it?) charged for "tampering with evidence" when he deleted tweets he made on his Twitter account. Am I wrong here or isn't that exactly what you would be EXPECTED to do if you were facing criminal charges? That is, cover it up? Who's gonna just leave an easy path to conviction for their pursuers to follow? You'd be an idiot NOT to cover up evidence that you're guilty of a crime, no? At some level, isn't this merely an extension of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against self-incrimination? I would think leaving damning evidence of your misdeeds out, essentially in the open, for the police detectives to find would make you a rather stupid criminal. Do we really need another Miranda level type of trial to legitimize a criminal's right to avoid getting caught?
I'll admit, the charge seems to be one of those catch-all type charges that apply basically to every case in court that the prosecution might use as a bargaining chip for later plea-bargaining; but the whole idea, at least in the sense of aiding the police in your apprehension seems a ridiculous charge to levy on the accused. I would think evidence tampering would apply more to the police themselves rather than the defendant unless said defendant, let's say, broke into the police station in an attempt to steal such evidence in which case, yes, charge him with evidence tampering by all means. I wonder if that was a run-on sentence?
The prosecution is even trying to pin witness intimidation (I think) on him as well. In other words, he is accused of attempting to dissuade people from testifying against him. And again I have to ask, who the fuck wouldn't do that? I would again understand such a charge if he were threatening witnesses or their families, but simply asking (or bribing) someone not to testify against you? What else would you expect? The article mentions that "it's an understandable impulse to take it down." Duh...
These charges make no sense to me at all. Yes, criminality is wrong. I'm not here trying to suggest that I'm all gung-ho for such behavior but for those who commit such crimes, why is it somehow their obligation to assist in their own capture as such charges imply? If anything, you should be charged for NOT attempting to cover up your alleged crime(s) but then that would come dangerously close to making stupidity illegal and I'm not sure I would want to entertain that slippery slope. Hell, this post would probably be illegal under such a system ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment