Support NeoGAF

[Leona Lewis]

What about the other "straws" in his life that contributed to his suicide. Do they all get a pass?

They didn't do anything illegal. Ravi did.

 

[Glorified G]

They didn't do anything illegal. Ravi did.

So you can drive someone to suicide. As long as you do it "legally"

Even though technically he wasn't charged with Clementi's suicide. It still a contributing factor to the case. Which I don't think it should be.

 

[ThisWreckage]

At first, I thought he was an asshole for violating someone's privacy. It also seems that he had a problem with his roommate being gay, despite what he says. After reading that he rejected that plea deal, I now know that he is a moron on top of all of this. A real winner.

 

[Loofy]

So you can drive someone to suicide. As long as you do it "legally"

Even though technically he wasn't charged with Clementi's suicide. It still a contributing factor to the case. Which I don't think it should be.

Theres a possibility theres some bias, but technically that would be against the law. The verdict shouldnt be a reflection on whether he committed suicide or not.

Which is why that case in south korea was stupid.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-21/boys-jailed-after-bullied-classmate-takes-life/3841470

 

[Loofy]

At first, I thought he was an asshole for violating someone's privacy. It also seems that he had a problem with his roommate being gay, despite what he says. After reading that he rejected that plea deal, I now know that he is a moron on top of all of this. A real winner.

It was still probable that he'd be deported back to india under the plea deal.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I still don't think it was as big of a deal as it turned out to be. Had he known that his roommate would have killed himself, I seriously doubt that he'd have done it. I'm sure he just thought that it was funny and that he'd have a verbal argument with this stranger that he was assigned to live with.

This would be a justifiable sentence had this guy been an openly homophobic bigot with a history of discrimination.

I don't think the fact that he committed suicide was all that important to the case, though it probably will be to the sentence. Taping someone having sex without their knowing and plastering it on the internet is and should be illegal. I'm not sure whether criminal or civil penalties are the most appropriate remedy, or whether 10 years and deportation fit the crime, but there should be some sort of legal remedy.

 

[Dresden]

It's not like he'll be deported back to Somalia or whatever.

He'll have a cushy call center job.

 

[apana]

Does everyone in India have a call center job? I think there is part of this that is unfair because of the whole deportation thing, but at the end of the day he was a total idiot for not accepting the plea deal. He really thinks he is going to go up against the state and media and get off scot free without facing jail and deportation? Does he see Casey Anthony staring back at him in the mirror? If he accepted a plea deal and killed some of the media hype the immigration people would not be so eager to kick his ass out of the country, especially if the state was arguing he not be deported.

 

[mavs]

I don't think the fact that he committed suicide was all that important to the case, though it probably will be to the sentence. Taping someone having sex without their knowing and plastering it on the internet is and should be illegal. I'm not sure whether criminal or civil penalties are the most appropriate remedy, or whether 10 years and deportation fit the crime, but there should be some sort of legal remedy.

Wouldn't be much case for intimidation without the suicide unless Clementi went quietly to the police AND they felt it was worthwhile to press charges. That last bit seems rather unlikely, I think with a death police feel compelled to take drastic action but otherwise they probably wouldn't see it as their responsibility.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Found this on google.
http://nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1576

Im a little confused to what bias intimidation actually is. Cause to me the link above is basically just saying being a bigot can get you 15-30 years in jail.

This is great. Thanks for digging it up for us.

It's really obtusely written, but as far as I can tell, bias intimidation is essentially something that you can tack onto another offense. The language talks about "underlying offenses," anyway. So, for example, if you commit bias intimidation in the course of a "disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense", it's a 4th degree crime (a misdemeanor?). Under most circumstances, bias intimidation ratchets the crime up one level: from 4th to 3rd, 3rd to 2nd, etc. It's only if the underlying crime is a first degree crime (I'm guessing the highest classification of felony in NY) that bias intimidation becomes its own crime with 15-30 year sentencing.

In other words, you're only getting the 15-30 year sentence if you murdered someone as a hate crime, or in any case did something heinous enough to merit a first-degree felony charge on its own.

The law also has an interesting facet that I'd like to call more attention to:

(2) knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity

In other words, in order to be bias intimidation, a crime does not have to be commissioned out of malice (homophobia, racism, whatever). All that is required is that the perpetrator know that their actions will cause an individual or group to be intimidated because of their minority status. No mind-reading required, as brucewaynegretzky would have us believe. You might think that burning a cross on your lawn just looks cool and bear no ill will to your black neighbors, but if you know about the history of the symbol and burn it anyway, you're guilty.

In a contemporary discourse rife with the brucewaynegretzky's of the world refusing to believe that prejudice can ever motivate anyone's actions, it's a smart way to write the law.

 

[someday]

No he said what Ravi did wasn't bothering him all that much. Different statements. The point is how would something you found to be not much more than an annoying pain in the ass motivate suicide? Especially a week later?

I just read this article today since it was posted and this statement here is off a bit. He did tell his friend at first that it didn't bother him, but this didn't last long. After the initial conversation with his friend (don't remember her name) he saw all of the posts on Ravi's twitter feed about himself and the viewing party and it's sort of like the reality of the situation set in for him. He stayed up till past 5am that night on forums asking for advice and stated that he was upset by the situation.

Also, he committed suicide either the next day or the day after that. It wasn't a week. As for his mother, she admits that she wasn't jumping with joy about him coming out, but she didn't reject him (of course, this is her saying this after her son is dead so maybe there is more to this). She says that she was sad about him not feeling comfortable coming out to her earlier since he had known that he was gay since middle school. The article states that his brother is gay. There also didn't seem to be a lot of other reasons for him to be suicidal. He was doing better than he had hoped in the music department, he had a lover if not a boyfriend and seemed to be having a good time there, and was at least hopeful of finding new friends. So, don't know why this roommate situation shouldn't be seen as a huge catalyst.

I don't have a problem with the verdict here. Ravi was an asshole, a douchebag, and a whole lot of other things. But that isn't the point. He set up that cam and planned the second viewing (open for anyone who happened to see his twitter feed) because Tyler was gay. Ravi's statements about his roommate's orientation are filled with disdain. He didn't do it because he thought Tyler was poor. He texted Tyler to "apologize" only after being informed by the RA that Tyler had told him everything and requested a new room. It was also about 5 minutes after Tyler posted that he was jumping off the GW bridge via facebook.

Finally, he was out to his parents and a few personal friends, but there is still a difference between that and being ready to be out to the whole world. Finding out that there is a group of people that you don't even know discussing and laughing at you over it could be really traumatizing.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Wouldn't be much case for intimidation without the suicide unless Clementi went quietly to the police AND they felt it was worthwhile to press charges. That last bit seems rather unlikely, I think with a death police feel compelled to take drastic action but otherwise they probably wouldn't see it as their responsibility.

You might be right, but I certainly hope you're not. Invasion of privacy is a serious deal. I would at least hope they'd take it as seriously as a persistent peeping tom.

Then again, I'd be pretty surprised if there were no civil remedies for invasion of privacy, though that's really only a deterrent if the person you're suing either has money or was doing it under the aegis of a corporation.

I'm not denying that the high profile nature of the case changed the way things played out a bit, but I'm also not particularly perturbed by it because it looks to me like this is how all such situations SHOULD be handled- the problem is not that Ravi had the book thrown at him but that (assuming what you say is correct) those who harass in a similar way get off with slaps on the wrist.

Yep, this is why hate crime legislation in this country just typically sucks. Commit a crime against a minority and regardless of your intent people say, "You should have known it would be interpreted by the community as threatening. a(2) is the real kicker there. Basically it says Ravi "should have known" that Clementi would think the internet crime was pointed at his sexuality.

Btw, the jury didn't actually convict Ravi of acting out of his own bias, but rather that he should have known Clementi could perceive it that way, which it isn't even clear he did since he SAID it didn't bother him that much....

You're getting your mens reae mixed up. The bolded standard would be negligence- i.e. someone should have known that they were committing a crime. The actual standard in this particular statute is knowledge- that he actually did know, not that he should have known.

 

[beat]

Still confusing the motivations. He may well be a homophobe. Doesn't make the actions motivated by homophobia. If Tyler Clementi was a shy, "poor", awkward hetero kid do you think Ravi wouldn't have done the same thing? That seems to be the legally relevant question for a hate crime. I believe yes.

Leaving the bias crime stuff out of it, Ravi still invaded Clementi's privacy and then tampered with witnesses and evidence, all of which are serious crimes which he was prosecuted for -- as well as the bias intimidation add-ons.

If Clementi was the same kid but hetero and Ravi had done all the same stuff, he still damn well shoulda been prosecuted.

From where I'm standing, kid killed himself. I mean sure, dick move and all, but the kid made the mistake of killing himself. That shouldn't be on his roommate's hands.

Great! Legally, it wasn't. Ravi was prosecuted for the invasion of privacy, bias crime, and witness/evidence tampering. Clementi's death-possibly-by-bullying wasn't among the charges. Yes, his death hung over the trial, but whether Clementi died or not wouldn't have changed the fact that Ravi committed a whole bunch of felonies.

 

[jiggle]

lol did he really fall asleep during the trial?

I'm utterly dumbfounded that he didn't accept the plea bargain.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

You're getting your mens reae mixed up. The bolded standard would be negligence- i.e. someone should have known that they were committing a crime. The actual standard in this particular statute is knowledge- that he actually did know, not that he should have known.

The problem is I'm NOT getting my mens rea mixed up. Look at section a(2) of the statute. In relation to the orientation bias. Ravi was expected to know that Clementi would think it was because he was gay.

Leaving the bias crime stuff out of it, Ravi still invaded Clementi's privacy and then tampered with witnesses and evidence, all of which are serious crimes which he was prosecuted for -- as well as the bias intimidation add-ons.

If Clementi was the same kid but hetero and Ravi had done all the same stuff, he still damn well shoulda been prosecuted.

The problem IS the bias stuff. First, most of those "serious crimes" you're talking about rarely get prosecuted. I've said I think he technically committed some crimes, but quite frankly this is a misuse of prosecutorial discretion. The bias add-ons are what are going to jack up the sentencing.... I think you're missing my point. Ravi is a criminal in the strictest sense of the word, but so is a significant percentage of any college campus.

 

[Sarye]

What happens to that asian chick who was also involved? does she get off scott free?

Like people have said. She took the deal but her deal was much better than ravi

Also she wasn't involved in the second incident. From what I read her involvement was only the first incident when Ravi used her computer and I doubt she really knew what he was doing until it happened.

Think her punishment was a bit harsh since she was volunteerily cooperating with the police before stuff went down.

I don't have a problem with the verdict here. Ravi was an asshole, a douchebag, and a whole lot of other things. But that isn't the point. He set up that cam and planned the second viewing (open for anyone who happened to see his twitter feed) because Tyler was gay. Ravi's statements about his roommate's orientation are filled with disdain. He didn't do it because he thought Tyler was poor. He texted Tyler to "apologize" only after being informed by the RA that Tyler had told him everything and requested a new room. It was also about 5 minutes after Tyler posted that he was jumping off the GW bridge via facebook.

I should clarify, I don't really have a problem with the verdict either. I think Ravi's intention wasn't motivated by the fact that he was gay but more because Ravi was a douchebag. So what he was finally charged for in the end is fair.

 

[talisayNon]

holy shit..

 

[Amibguous Cad]

The problem is I'm NOT getting my mens rea mixed up. Look at section a(2) of the statute. In relation to the orientation bias. Ravi was expected to know that Clementi would think it was because he was gay.

A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits.... an offense... (2) knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity

The word "should" appears nowhere in the statute. It requires that he actually know that the action would cause him to be intimidated.

The problem IS the bias stuff. First, most of those "serious crimes" you're talking about rarely get prosecuted. I've said I think he technically committed some crimes, but quite frankly this is a misuse of prosecutorial discretion. The bias add-ons are what are going to jack up the sentencing.... I think you're missing my point. Ravi is a criminal in the strictest sense of the word, but so is a significant percentage of any college campus.

You keep saying this, but I have no idea where you're getting it. I'm pretty damn sure a significant portion of my college campus wasn't peeping in on their roommates having sex, much less filming it and showing it off to other students. Ravi isn't being prosecuted for being a dick to his roommate. He's being prosecuted for filming his roommate having sex without his consent, the offense being aggravated by bias intimidation.

 

[Sirpopopop]

It's not like he'll be deported back to Somalia or whatever.

He'll have a cushy call center job.

Racism much?

With that said:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2012/03/exclusive_interview_dharun_rav.html

 

[cousins]

He doesn't even show any remorse, deport his ass to the gallows.