Rutgers Student Ravi Convicted of Bias Intimidation and Spying 714
In 2010, Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi used his computer's webcam to spy on the activities of his gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, and commented about it publicly on Twitter. Days later, Clementi committed suicide. Ravi was indicted on 15 charges, going to trial last month. Now, reader doston sends word that the trial has ended, and Ravi has been found guilty on all 15 charges, though the jury returned a not guilty verdict on aspects of certain charges.
"After less than three full days of deliberations, the five men and seven women of the jury found Dharun Ravi, 20 years old, guilty of invading the privacy of his 18-year-old roommate, Tyler Clementi, and his dorm-room date. They also found that Ravi was motivated by bias under a New Jersey hate-crime law that had been largely untested so far. ... The jury had been asked to decide Ravi’s motivations when he trained his webcam on Clementi and his date on two separate occasions in September 2010, in a case that set off a national conversation about cyber-bullying and treatment of gay youth. ... Ravi faces up to 10 years in prison on most serious bias intimidation convictions, but is likely to receive a lesser sentence based on sentencing guidelines because he is a first time offender. The India-born Ravi, who has spent most of his life in the U.S. as a permanent resident, faces the possibility of deportation as a result of his criminal conviction. He rejected a plea deal in December that would have kept him out of prison and offered him assistance with immigration authorities."
Comment removed (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Mindcrimes (Score:5, Informative)
The theory of "Hate Crime" was introduced to combat people with a shared belief system looking the other way. It was very hard to fight the KKK during the 20s because so much of the local police forces were members. The feds needed new tools to take them down.
Certain segments of society have special protections over other segments of society because, historically, certain segments of society have special animosity coupled with power over other segments of society.
The chances you take by the actions you take (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, he can be sentenced up to ten years. Sentencing hasn't occurred yet. In fact, the article notes the time spent will likely be less because of the nature of his background and lack of criminal history.
Also, he was offered a plea deal that included no prison time. By, rejecting this deal, he decided to take his case to the jury and accepted the chance of a harsher sentence if found guilty on the charges.
As for the motivated by bias factor that made him guilty of a hate crime, certainly, these laws are controversial and this case may lead to their re-examination.
But, it is the law of the state he was in, he was found guilty of violating it. If the jury thought he violated the law, then good for them for putting aside their personal objections to it and doing what is required of them.
If you don't like these kinds of laws, you lobby to change it. Via the courts or legislation. Maybe this case will be a basis for challenging the law in this state, for example.
All in all, this seems very simple. Don't spy on people. Don't violate their privacy. There are consequences for such actions, and those may be legal in nature.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
If you steal a stop sign and someone who was also speeding crashes, you are probably guilty of manslaughter.
This poor kid was obviously very troubled, but if you look at the totality of his communications, he was obviously pushed over the edge by this Ravi asshole. If Ravi hadn't have been such a colossal jerk, the kid would still be alive. He only started thinking of suicide AFTER he started getting harassed.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
If he was robbing a bank when a guard pulled a gun, he couldn't shoot the guard and claim self defense. He broke the law and as a result someone is dead. Is it murder?
In the case of the robbery, this would be first degree murder. As I understand it, a number of states also consider deaths caused in pursuance of a crime to be "aggravating circumstances" and could subject the person in question to a death sentence. This is very different from the current crime, but I imagine the jury and judge might have treated the suicide as an aggravating circumstance, say with respect to sentencing.
Moving on, I am concerned that Ravi was tried on various "hate crime" related charges. There really isn't a place for these in a democratic society. The social or physical characteristics of the victim shouldn't matter for the most part.
Re:"Bias Intimidation"?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Bias intimidation is intimitading a group of people based on your bias. He didn't just post the video (which would just be an invasion of privacy), he posted text saying in effect 'look at these digusting people, gays deserve ridicule'. That is bias intimidation. The same thing is true of burning a cross in a black's front yard, or painting swastikas on synagogues. Those are not just simple acts of arson and vandalism, they are intended to send a message to all blacks and Jews that they better watch out. That is intimidation.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
I can see why it is on the news. But a Tech Site like Slashdot?
Even nerds have to worry about living in police state where you can be thrown in jail for ten years for
1. Thought crimes
2. Other people's actions (when they decide on their own to commit suicide)
3. Committing an offense that would be normally be consider not too serious but becomes serious when committed against special protected classes (I believe there are precedents for this in castes laws in India and in Celtic laws where punishments were based on the social status of the victim and the criminal).
Given that nerds often have thoughts outside the norm, often have trouble anticipating the behavior of more normal people, and often find ourselves at the bottom of social status, such a system is very troubling for us.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:3, Informative)
But, he had changed his mind. First off, there was never any "broadcast" to begin with. He and a friend (and maybe a third, I don't remember) saw exactly two seconds of the video feed from the webcam before turning it off. Why did they turn it off? Because they felt creepy watching it. He later posted a bunch of tweets and "invited" people to see the next broadcast, but there never was any next broadcast -- he changed his mind about doing one. There was no terrible crime here.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there is no evidence of this. Moreover, from the New Yorker article on the case, a few weeks back, I learned that Clementi had taken a "tour" of the bridges around the NYC area weeks before leaving for Rutgers. It's reasonable to believe he may have been harboring conflicting thoughts concerning suicide before he ever met Ravi.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
I think you could make a point without sending someone to prison for ten years...
From TFA: "He rejected a plea deal in December that would have kept him out of prison and offered him assistance with immigration authorities."
He clearly could have avoided doing time. Instead, he and his lawyer tried to argue that (from this article [cnn.com]): "He hasn't lived long enough to have any experience with homosexuality or gays," attorney Steven Altman said in closing arguments this week. "He doesn't know anything about it. He just graduated high school."
Evidently the jury didn't find it very convincing.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
Ravi might be a douchebucket, but he is not responsible for clementi's choice to take his life.
Looks like the prosecutor and the courts agreed with you. He isn't being charged with the kid's death.
Re:Damn unfortunate (Score:3, Informative)
However, you might want to read up on the case you're ranting about before telling other people about their ignorance.
the harassment, intimidation and embarrassment of his "outing" pushed him over the edge.
If your spouse videotapes their spouse while they are with their adulteress/adulterer (let's not imply it's always the guy who cheats, okay) in their bedroom and broadcasts it to the world ... we might feel it was justified.
As a well-researched recent New Yorker article pointed out: There was no recording. There was no broadcast. And the victim was already "out." With this knowledge of what actually happened in the case, please feel free to modify your rant as appropriate.