Word: chandrasekaran
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...entirely in agreement with The Crimson's conclusion in "Free Vali" that, even if he is found guilty, Vali D. Chandrasekaran '03 should not be made to serve anywhere near 20 years in prison (Editorial, Feb. 7). However, I was disappointed by the editors' failure to apply their thinking more broadly, if not more creatively...
...editorial, The Crimson notes that, "While Chandrasekaran's actions may have demonstrated a lack of judgment, his behavior certainly does not warrant jail time. He is no hardened criminal and represents no further menace to society." I was sad to see the Crimson invoke the same tired "tough on crime" rhetoric that often surrounds debates about mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws and the like. I agree: Vali is not a hardened criminal. He is not a menace to society...
...less punitive--encouraging increased judicial discretion, especially in cases of non-violent offenses, and working toward alternatives to incarceration that address the roots of crimes committed. Further, I would hope that Harvard students and other privileged Americans everywhere will reconsider our national response to crime. Putting people like Chandrasekaran, Drake or van Winkle behind bars for many years is neither an appropriate response nor an effective one. Our country has the highest rates of both incarceration and crime in the world...
...While Chandrasekaran's actions may have demonstrated a lack of judgment, his behavior certainly does not warrant jail time. He is no hardened criminal and represents no further menace to society. Most likely, the scare of facing a possible 20-year jail term will prevent him from ever repeating his offense...
Legally, the Crimson has little influence over this case. However, while decisions regarding his prosecution lie with the English Language Center and ultimately with the district attorney, we implore those responsible for administering justice to be lenient. No action occurs in a vacuum, and Chandrasekaran's crime ought to be considered with the mitigating circumstance that his mischievous actions were nothing more than typical college pranks. Chandrasekaran should pay any damages incurred by the ELC because of the crime, and he should be released. He has certainly already learned his lesson, and undergraduates have been warned by his example. Nothing...