Rutgers Univ. Webcam-Twitter-Outing-Suicide Case Conviction

[Jingthing]

What do you think about this? While I think this Mr. Ravi character acted very obnoxiously, I just don't see a serious conviction, possible 10 years in prison and deportation fits the crime. Mr. Ravi didn't personally create the homophobic society that gives many young people such shame that they are sometimes triggered to suicide. While I favor hate crime convictions against actual violent bashers and murderers, this case to me seems a big overreach.

It does seem quite clear and obvious that Mr. Ravi IS guilty of the invasion of privacy charge. However, if the end result wasn't suicide, it's doubtful there would have been any legal consequences to Mr. Ravi. Again, Mr. Ravi didn't actually kill his roommate.

A New Jersey jury on Friday found former Rutgers freshman Dharun Ravi guilty of hate crime and invasion of privacy for using a webcam to spy on his college roommate kissing another man. Three days after the incident, the roommate jumped to his death.

http://slatest.slate...lying_case.html

Edited March 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[submaniac]

You know JT, this was an interesting case and I didn't know the verdict was in until I saw it on TV.

First of all, it is really a d**k move to video your roommate and broadcast it over the internet, whether they are gay or straight. If my college roomate did that to me (and of course they wouldn't have because they were good people) the roommate should should have gone to the police himself...for protection...from me.

Secondly, from reading on the case, the kid was already offered a plea bargain from the prosecutor; community service and no jail time, and no threat of deportation. The kid did not take it. He decided to roll the dice, and, well, that's what happened.

Based upon 1 and 2 whatever sentence he gets, he deserves because he chose the outcome by not handling it better at all stages. First, shouldn't have done it. Secondly, when caught doing it, should have plead to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration. If you can't exercise good judgment doing number 1 or number 2, then sitting in jail will wise you up a bit.

I also think the kid is a spoiled brat. I base this upon the news reports in which the kid makes comments that his gay roommate was poor. I suspect that his parents in India are wealthy Hi-So's (like wealthy Thai Hi-So's) who send their spoiled, wealthy children for an education in America. And being gay in Indian culture...you guys probably already know. I kind of think this kid took the cultural values and was like "he's gay, he's nothing...I can do what I want to him."

Geez, if you don't like your roommate, talk to the college and switch roommates. That's what we did in my day. Don't need to torture him so that he commits suicide.

Edited March 18, 2012 by submaniac

[Jingthing]

You know, you make an excellent point about the plea bargain which he rejected. I hadn't considered that in my view that he doesn't deserve the resulting harsh sentence. I think you're right -- he should have taken the plea bargain. I reckon that's exactly what he's thinking now too.

[submaniac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/nyregion/dharun-ravi-in-rutgers-spying-case-rejects-plea-deal.html

On Friday, a Superior Court judge, Glenn Berman, laid out some of the terms of the plea offer: Mr. Ravi would be put on probation, be required to perform 600 hours of community service and receive counseling. Also, the state would help him try to stave off any attempt by the federal government to deport him.

Probably should have taken the plea deal.

[Jingthing]

I wonder what his lawyer advised.

[Jingthing]

This article gives voice to the idea that the sentence was rather over the top. (But he still should have taken the plea bargain.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/03/20/did_dharun_ravi_really_commit_a_hate_crime_.html

...

Dharun Ravi should be reasonably punished for his concrete crimes—preferably in a way that instills the empathy he obviously lacked—but he should not be crucified for a “meanness” that is sadly all but inherent to our culture. That will only serve to cheapen true, violent, targeted crimes of hate and to waste another life in a case where one lost is already far too many.

The point about cheapening is something I felt about this case before but didn't mention. Perhaps this kind of severe hate crime punishment should indeed be reserved for those who more explicitly and violently target minority groups?

[submaniac]

^^

I think the issue in this case is tied into the ultimate results. Here, a kid actually died as a direct result of Mr. Ravi's conduct. If that did not happen, this case never would have been brought into public view. While I can concur that perhaps sever hate crime punishment should be reserved for "worst cases", the results in this case were very severe, whether or not the perpetrator intended the consequences or not. The consequences of the conduct always come into play.

For example, someone drinks, gets drunk and drives. Fine and well if they just get caught for drunk driving. The consequences are relatively minor: maybe a little time in jail, a fine, restrictions on your license, etc. Now given the same example say the same drunk driver, instead of getting caught by the police, runs someone over and kills them.

The drunk who killed someone certainly did not intend those consequences when he drank too much and got in his car. If he did not kill someone, the punishment would have been relatively minor. If he did not get caught, then there would be no punishment at all. But if you kill someone because you drank too much, then you need to accept that it is a much more severe consequence, even though that was not your intended conduct.

Here, he did not intend to kill his roomate. He was just being an a**hole. But someone is dead as a direct result of his conduct. Somehow Mr. Ravi has not made the "mental connect" that "hey my actions resulted in someone else's death" or else he would just taken the community service and counseling. Just my thoughts.

[tombkk]

Of course, unless we make a thorough research and learn everything that was revealed in court - not only some internet articles, I won't comment on whether the sentence was too harsh. However, one thing that Ravi apparently said (according to the article in Slate linked above) made me think:

"I’m never going to regret not taking the plea," Ravi told the paper. "If I took the plea, I would have had to testify that I did what I did to intimidate Tyler and that would be a lie. I won’t ever get up there and tell the world I hated Tyler because he was gay, or tell the world I was trying to hurt or intimidate him because it’s not true."

Says something about the philosophy of plea bargaining. If you say something which is not true, you get off the hook. Institutionalized and rewarded lying. Therefore, hat's off to him.

What is the background of the poor guy who jumped to his death because of this, I wonder. Do we know whether he had parents who supported him in his homosexuality? Does the university have gay support groups that he could have contacted?

The trial was not about the death of young Tyler, and we might never learn why he chose to jump. While one could argue that it would be another invasion into his privacy if we did, I believe that we need to look at how this can be prevented in the future. I think the discussion avoids the root of the problem.