Former Rutgers student found guilty of spying and intimidation

[LSN80]

Having turning down a deal that could have avoided him jail time in exchange for undergoing counseling and doing 600 hours of community service before his trial began, 20 year old Dharun Ravi now faces up to 10 years in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/16/justice/new-jersey-rutgers-trial/index.html?hpt=us_c2

In September 2010, 18 year old Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, Ravi's roommate, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington bridge into the Hudson River. Although not directly implicated in his death, Ravi was charged with intimidation born of a gay bias and invasion of privacy when he placed a webcam in his dorm room, aimed directly at Clementi's bed. Ravi had discovered that his roommate had met a man online, exchanged texts messages with, and eventually had a sexual encounter within their bedroom after viewing the webcam.

After discovering that Ravi and friend Molly Wei had not only taped his sexual encounter with another man, but broadcast it via social media, Clementi left a short message on his Facebook page that he was jumping off the George Washington bridge, then did so. Unlike Ravi, Wei took a plea agreement that spared her jail time. The terms of the agreement stated that Wei had to testify against Ravi, specifically to his motives, and complete a 3 year program on cyber-bullying and 300 hours of community service. Despite his attorney maintaining otherwise, Wei testified that Ravi taped Clementi in secret and made it viral with the motivation to intimidate Clementi solely because of his sexual orientation.

Ravi's attorney's argued initially that Ravi used the Webcam because he didn't his roommate's companion, and had used the Webcam to record his activities. However, Ravi's Twitter account showed messages from Ravi that indicated that he set up the Webcam, went to Molly Wei's room, and watched as his roommate was "making out with some dude." In closing arguments, Ravi's attorney Steven Altman said the following:

"He hasn't lived long enough to have any experience with homosexuality or gays. He doesn't know anything about it. He just graduated high school."

Even if I were to buy the argument that Ravi was using the Webcam only because he didn't trust his roommate's companion, how does that explain his actions that followed? Specifically, how does one go from watching over their belongings to broadcasting a sexual encounter over sexual media? I find the claim that he was too young to understand that was purported by his attorney to be sadly laughable, especially in this day and age. If he wasn't exposed to the terms "gay", "******", or "homo", among others, in the context of day to day life, it's unfathomable to think he escaped them within the context of social media. I find this exercpt from the closing arguments
of Prosecutor Julia McClure to be far more plausible:

"He tried to embarrass Clementi because he was gay, and his actions were motivated by a desire to intimidate him expressly because of his sexual orientation.These acts were purposeful, they were intentional, and they were planned."

I can understand the civil nature of this case, as we see celebrities suing magazines, photographers, and websites all the time over the unauthorized release of compromising photos of themselves. But how is this case a criminal one? Because it took place in New Jersey. CNN legal analyst Paul Callan explains:

This verdict is unprecedented. It sends a message to people across the rest of the country about the potential consequences of unauthorized webcam use in an age of expanding social media.New Jersey enacted a law that said if you secretly record (someone engaged in an intimate act) with a webcam or any other kind of video and you broadcast that without their permission, that is a crime. Every place else in America up until this law was enacted, you could sue somebody for civil damages for the embarrassment, but you weren't going to go to jail. New Jersey said it's criminal."

Callan's poor grammar aside, this is certainly the first case Ive seen where someone was successfully criminally convicted in the usage of the unauthorized videotaping of others sexual encounters. With this verdict, and the amount of scrutiny that this case has been under nationally, I imagine other states will follow suit, removing cases such as these from strictly the civil landscape to that of the criminal one, if they haven't done so already.

One can only hope we don't need more motivation such as Tyler Clementi's death to see stricter laws come to pass.

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for Dharun Ravi, who faces up to ten years in jail?

Do you agree with the New Jersey law that makes taping people in the throws of a sexual encounter(including one partner taping another without consent) a criminal offense, and not just a civil one?

Can you find the logic of Ravi rejecting a plea that would have avoided him jail here, taking his chances at trial?

All other thoughts or discussion on this subject are welcome and encouraged.

 

[Mustang Sally]

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for Dharun Ravi, who faces up to ten years in jail?

Put him in jail for a year. Even less time would be enough to ruin his life......or rather, to cause people to see that the guy has ruined his own life. (Would you want to employ the guy after he's out of jail? Would you want to befriend him as he makes his way through college?)

While it wasn't Ravi's intention that Tyler die, let's face it: Tyler would not be dead had it not been for Ravi's actions. He wanted to "out" Tyler. He wanted Tyler to suffer. He wanted to embarrass him in view of as many people as he could. He succeeded.

This wasn't a crime of profit. Those crimes are reprehensible but at least we understand what's behind them; the desire for money or power. But crimes like Ravi's are somehow worse, because they're done essentially for no reason at all....except to hurt, to humiliate......to make someone else feel bad so you can feel good. Ugh.

It's a new world out there and new laws are going to be made to keep up with the damage people can do to each other with the flick of a switch. It's ironic that in the age of political correctness, so many people are being so careful as to not offend anyone else.....as opposed to others who wouldn't even think twice about ruining the lives of people who have caused them no harm. The callousness of this kind of behavior is spawning new ways to make folks accountable for what they do; it's a necessary step to curb this garbage.

So, yeah. Put him in jail for a year and publicize the living hell out of the fact that you did. Let the defense attorneys pull all the tricks they can to try to keep their scumbag clients out of jail. Some will succeed, but if enough bad guys get convicted and people see them punished, maybe a dent can be made in the ever-growing practice of ruining people's lives just because you feel like it.

 

[H33LTurn]

I'm just going to state this, I hate people like Ravi. He flip flops on the situation so much. On one hand he texts the victim telling him hes okay with his sexuality but on the other hand he starts spreading his roommate's business all over the school. Either you're okay with who he is or you're not. He acts like hes on some secret mission to figure out the inner workings of his roommate's life. I say 5 years in prison should teach him a lesson. He's shown no remorse for what hes done yet I dont think what he did is horrible enough to make him lose a decade of his life. I dont see the logic of him denying the plea deal. Maybe he's worried people will think he didnt pay for his crime but thats a stretch. Someone obviously didnt brief him on how horrible jail is.