- Joined
- Jun 1, 2025
- Messages
- 31
- Points
- 8
Looking at his past, he may have saved a few people from the gallows before. I have always wanted to ask him about the death penalty, but I held back because he seemed to feel he was the most intelligent and moral person around. It is pointless to talk to someone who is unreasonable and has no basis in law. For the record, I disagree that he is the most moral and intelligent person, and I even think I may be more moral than he is. Intellectually, he is also prevented from improving because he always assumes he is correct (even when he is not).
The question I wanted to ask was this: Did you oppose the death penalty because (1) an innocent person might be wrongly executed by the state where the evidence is insufficient or unclear, or (2) because no one should ever be executed, no matter what evidence is found of his guilt?
I do not think he understands the difference between these two positions—or at least, he was not brave enough to confront that difference. He also seemed oblivious to the harm caused by drug addicts and traffickers.
Now that he has lost his own life—because the death penalty meant to protect society from drug harm turned out, in a grim way, to be “vindicated” by what happened to him—what is his legacy? If his life is gone because of drugs he may have taken, then what does that say now?
Is the death penalty right or wrong? His death will make it harder for those who are still living to fight against it—especially coming from one of the most vocal voices against the death penalty. Personally, I support the death penalty because it is meant to protect society, including people like M. Ravi, and because the legal standard requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. But now the drugs took his life—so now what? Is his life, in the end, an irony?
Whatever good came from his work, he undermined it by taking drugs himself, and he has made it tremendously harder for anyone after him to argue for abolishing the death penalty. I do not support abolition, but I cannot deny my fellow citizens the right to fight for it.
My own feelings about M. Ravi
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about Ravi’s passing.
While many have sung his praises, my personal experiences with him were far from pleasant, and I did not deserve how he treated me.
1) First meeting (around my early 30s, about 20 years ago).
I met him with my partner while exploring the possibility of buying over a hawker business he said he was helping. When my partner asked for a detailed list of kitchen utensils so we could arrive at a fair purchase figure, he scolded us for being “capitalist” and hurled other insults. My partner and I believed in arriving at a fair valuation—not simply handing over money because someone says they need it. In any event, since when has simply giving money ever solved anyone’s problems?
2) Second meeting (about 2–3 years ago).
He visited my office and was rude. He sat on my lap and bounced on it. He also threw a friend’s book that had been gifted to him. He showed no respect to me or to my friends in my office.
He could also make an appointment with you for 9am, show up at 5pm, and still expect you to wait for him.
3) Money matters and work quality.
To be honest, his handling of money was not clear. When we tried to be clear with him, he would say something like, “I am not a lawyer because of money,” which was beside the point.
Frankly, who cares why he became a lawyer? My friends, partners, and I simply wanted clarity on the money—why should that be a problem? In any case, even putting my desire for financial clarity aside, he did not do the job properly as instructed.
He has passed away, and I want to be sensitive to those who loved him for reasons I may not share. We have sued the law firm he worked with because of what he said and promised to us. If he were still alive, I would be very concerned about accusing him of moral failings, because he could sue me for defamation.
Even though the estate cannot sue for defamation (since the law treats defamation as something that cannot be committed against the dead), what stops me from using harsh words is simply my own moral upbringing. I cannot bring myself to speak badly of someone who has passed away.
In any case, M Ravi, rest in peace.
The question I wanted to ask was this: Did you oppose the death penalty because (1) an innocent person might be wrongly executed by the state where the evidence is insufficient or unclear, or (2) because no one should ever be executed, no matter what evidence is found of his guilt?
I do not think he understands the difference between these two positions—or at least, he was not brave enough to confront that difference. He also seemed oblivious to the harm caused by drug addicts and traffickers.
Now that he has lost his own life—because the death penalty meant to protect society from drug harm turned out, in a grim way, to be “vindicated” by what happened to him—what is his legacy? If his life is gone because of drugs he may have taken, then what does that say now?
Is the death penalty right or wrong? His death will make it harder for those who are still living to fight against it—especially coming from one of the most vocal voices against the death penalty. Personally, I support the death penalty because it is meant to protect society, including people like M. Ravi, and because the legal standard requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. But now the drugs took his life—so now what? Is his life, in the end, an irony?
Whatever good came from his work, he undermined it by taking drugs himself, and he has made it tremendously harder for anyone after him to argue for abolishing the death penalty. I do not support abolition, but I cannot deny my fellow citizens the right to fight for it.
My own feelings about M. Ravi
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about Ravi’s passing.
While many have sung his praises, my personal experiences with him were far from pleasant, and I did not deserve how he treated me.
1) First meeting (around my early 30s, about 20 years ago).
I met him with my partner while exploring the possibility of buying over a hawker business he said he was helping. When my partner asked for a detailed list of kitchen utensils so we could arrive at a fair purchase figure, he scolded us for being “capitalist” and hurled other insults. My partner and I believed in arriving at a fair valuation—not simply handing over money because someone says they need it. In any event, since when has simply giving money ever solved anyone’s problems?
2) Second meeting (about 2–3 years ago).
He visited my office and was rude. He sat on my lap and bounced on it. He also threw a friend’s book that had been gifted to him. He showed no respect to me or to my friends in my office.
He could also make an appointment with you for 9am, show up at 5pm, and still expect you to wait for him.
3) Money matters and work quality.
To be honest, his handling of money was not clear. When we tried to be clear with him, he would say something like, “I am not a lawyer because of money,” which was beside the point.
Frankly, who cares why he became a lawyer? My friends, partners, and I simply wanted clarity on the money—why should that be a problem? In any case, even putting my desire for financial clarity aside, he did not do the job properly as instructed.
He has passed away, and I want to be sensitive to those who loved him for reasons I may not share. We have sued the law firm he worked with because of what he said and promised to us. If he were still alive, I would be very concerned about accusing him of moral failings, because he could sue me for defamation.
Even though the estate cannot sue for defamation (since the law treats defamation as something that cannot be committed against the dead), what stops me from using harsh words is simply my own moral upbringing. I cannot bring myself to speak badly of someone who has passed away.
In any case, M Ravi, rest in peace.
