Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Courts Your Rights Online

Rutger's Student Dharun Ravi Sentenced To 30-Day Jail Time 683

Posted by samzenpus
from the go-directly-to-jail dept.
parallel_prankster writes "New York Times reports that a judge in New Jersey has sentenced Dharun Ravi to 30 days in jail Monday for using a webcam to spy on his Rutgers University roommate having sex with a man, in a case that galvanized concern about suicide among gay teenagers but also prompted debate about the use of laws against hate crimes. The case drew wide attention because his roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge in September 2010, a few days after learning of the spying. A jury convicted Mr. Ravi in March of all 15 counts against him, which included invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. The relatively light sentence — he faced up to 10 years in prison — surprised many who were watching the hearing, as it came after the judge spent several minutes criticizing Mr. Ravi's behavior."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rutger's Student Dharun Ravi Sentenced To 30-Day Jail Time

Comments Filter:
  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:20PM (#40069729) Homepage Journal
    Because if I hurt your feelings so bad you kill yourself, it's really your fault for having a glass jaw. I mean, what if this comment I'm typing right now made you kill yourself? Am I then guilty of killing you?
  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:23PM (#40069779) Homepage Journal
    (But the real answer is: he was never charge with causing any death. Because such charges wouldn't stick. Because that's not how legal causality works.)
  • Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreedomOfThought (2544248) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:26PM (#40069829)
    So I can get a year in prison for having a joint on my person, but I can invade someone's privacy and become the cause of their death and just suffer a month? Interesting how that works.
  • Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N1AK (864906) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:26PM (#40069831) Homepage
    Seems like a reasonable sentence to me. As stupid, and intolerant, as what he did was and as severe as the consequences were there's nothing gained by excessive punishment. Would a longer prison sentence really act as a deterrent to similar behaviour? Isn't a criminal record, the court process he's been through, a month in prison and having to live with the consequences of his actions enough for doing something stupid and not considering how bad the consequences might be?

    Some poor bastard has already lost his life. Another has pretty much ruined his. Sticking someone in prison longer doesn't make any of that better; it's just an expensive way to cause more suffering.
  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:27PM (#40069855) Homepage Journal
    It's no different than secretly filming your roommate having straight sex. The only difference is that one is frowned upon more, and that is society's fault, not the individual who recorded him's fault. And reacting to something society disapproves of via suicide is a lack of proper coping skills. Did the guy even seek help? Probably not. Cowardly. Of course people are mad. This is sad. But it's not direct action. It's a bunch of shitty shit that happened.
  • Re:Wait a minute (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:31PM (#40069897) Homepage Journal
    That guy didn't cause the kid's death. He just pranked him. The combination of society's homophobia and the kid's total lack of coping skills killed him. Saying "i caught my roommate having gay sex" isn't homophobic. It's simply fact.
  • by travbrad (622986) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:36PM (#40069961)

    The whole idea of "hate crime" is pretty ridiculous anyway.

    If you assault someone because you hate gays/minorities/etc, why is that worse than assaulting someone because you hate them individually? It just reinforces the idea that we should treat certain groups of people differently. Is that really the best way to address prejudice in society?

    Does anyone really think some dumb asshole bigot is going to think "there are hate crime laws I better not commit this crime"?

  • by The God of Code (2641925) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:40PM (#40070019)
    You are talking about things you don't know nothing about. There is a major difference between secretly filming gay sex and straight sex between someone. Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.

    And don't start talking about coping skills. These people aren't the ones without coping skills, it's the ones around them. How do I know? Because I am currently dating a shemale. I really cute and loving one, mind you. But I cannot tell this to my parents. Hell, I cannot even think how it would be if I was in the position to tell my parents that I wanted to be other gender.

    These issues are real, especially in western countries. I had to move around the world because I cannot be what I am in where I was born. So stop the bullshit about 'coping skills'.
  • by Baloroth (2370816) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:41PM (#40070021)

    Is that he was tried for invasion of privacy and not a hate crime.

    Because clearly most crimes are done out of love, right? The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off. You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it. What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime. A murder is a murder: why should the white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) get a harsher penalty than a white person killing another white? They both did the same damned thing.

  • by X0563511 (793323) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:41PM (#40070025) Homepage Journal

    That's not homophobic in and of itself. Not without more context. (I hope you realize that)

  • Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:41PM (#40070027)

    I generally try to keep it civil, but you're a fucking idiot. I often try to give stupid people the benefit of the doubt, but you're so far beyond stupid that it's probably not possible to do so. "Yeah! Let's rape him because he was intolerant and a jerk and someone committed suicide over it!" The defendant is certainly not blameless, but he didn't kill the kid.

    If this is the best that you can contribute to what should be a serious discussion, you might consider just getting off the Internet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:46PM (#40070081)

    My best friend spent 90 days in jail for DUI, but his drinking and driving never caused anyone's death. Seems like 30 days in jail for causing someone to commit suicide is pretty light in comparison.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:49PM (#40070127)

    It wasn't a hate crime. It was a bias crime. The judge himself made that distinction at the sentencing as part of his justification for being so lenient (compared to the possible 10-year sentence).

  • by Aglassis (10161) on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:53PM (#40070165)

    You seem to be living in the fantasy world that everyone is strong and should be able to take punishment.

    People are weak. They don't know how to cope. But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected. We should be outraged that this poor gay kid was driven to suicide.

    This case is different that secretly filming your roommate having straight sex for exactly those reasons. Dharum Ravi exploited Tyler Clementi when he spied on him. He exploited his fears and insecurities.

    Don't consider crimes like black boxes. The entire circumstances matter. The motives matter. Society had a role, no doubt. Tyler Clementi lamented that people on Ravi's twitter feed were disgusted by Clementi's relationship but not one of them called out Ravi and said that what he was doing was wrong. More than anything else, this is probably what drove him to suicide. He saw people unanimously disgusted by him with no defenders or anyone who opposed his privacy being violated. He had no faith that even if he changed roommates that conditions would get better. Think about that before you call him a coward again you fucking asshole.

  • Re:sex offender? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:54PM (#40070175)

    you can get more time on minor drug related charges than this guy did on 15 counts. WTF?
     
    So you want this guy to spend more time in stir because our drug laws don't make sense? WTF?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, 2012 @05:57PM (#40070199)

    Depends on intent. If you recorded the former with intent to jack off to it later, that's invasion of privacy. If you did so with the intent to blackmail a subset of the participants, that's, well, blackmail. If you recorded gay sex with the intent to out a subset of the participants as being gay, intending further to mock them, discriminate against them, or whatever else in an atmosphere where such proclivities are frowned upon, that's a hate crime.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:02PM (#40070239) Homepage

    A white gang and a black gang killing each other isn't a hate crime, but a white man killing blacks for being blacks or a black man killing whites for being white is. Hate crime and terrorism have a lot in common, in both cases it's not just about your direct victims but about all the people you intimidate. It's not just one murder, it's a message that the next black person that shows up will suffer the same. It's a message that the next gay person will suffer the same. It's a message that the next person who gets up and uses his freedom of speech will get a bullet to the brain. That more than puts a little cramp in your freedoms.

  • by epyT-R (613989) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:07PM (#40070295)

    ..and you seem to be defending a world where everyone should shed their protective layers and bond in some kind of emotional orgy.. That's the trend in culture nowadays and it's bad for us in the long run. it's what breeds this kind of extreme behavior in the first place, from suicide, to columbine. People have become vats of nitroglycerine, ready to go off at the smallest jab. People NEED to handle this better.. and, no, talking about your feelings and 'expressing your feminine side' doesn't work very well for guys, but, of course, everything is judged by feminine ideals nowadays...

    people are weak. they should strive to be stronger than that and the culture should support this.. they don't know how to cope because we make sure we beat the spine out of 'em by the time they enter 6th grade, under the guise of 'preventing violence,' and promoting 'tolerance.' All it really does is is breed passive aggressive behavior, in both bullies and the bullied. this has a major role in both ravi's and clementi's behavior.

    if you want privacy, don't have sex in a shared dorm room. I do'nt know what else to say.. This is just pragmatic, tactical logic. seriously, if there's a camera or a computer in the room, make sure it's off.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:10PM (#40070321) Journal

    You are talking about things you don't know nothing about. There is a major difference between secretly filming gay sex and straight sex between someone. Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.

    The only way to have a society without discrimination is to treat everyone indiscriminately. That applies to the law, as well.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:10PM (#40070323)

    i still don't see how it is more severe cause he was gay. if the fact that he was gay somehow was left out of the article, the majority of you would be like "yep, thats college. now does he get straight a's cause his roommate died?"

  • by hackula (2596247) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:16PM (#40070401)
    The sticks and stones thing works up until you introduce the video. It is not hard to imagine how a video like this could be used for blackmail and even the idea of it being leaked could be devastating to just about anyway. Idk about you, but I would not just shrug off the idea of a video of me in that sort of compromised situation being seen by everyone on my dorm room floor (much less parents, etc.).
  • by Aglassis (10161) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:18PM (#40070419)

    Secretly filming your roommate having gay sex is a little worse than just saying something random and mean on slashdot.

    If I were to overreact like that, I would have been dead by now, several times over. Somehow I don't think that I would want anyone to be punished for my own instability, though.

    That is a weaselly statement. Ravi isn't being punished for Tyler Clementi's instability. He is being punished for spying on him, trying to destroy evidence, and trying to coordinate statements with a witness. He is guilty as sin for all of those crimes.

    But even if he were being punished for causing Clementi's suicide, he had to have known that he was selecting an extremely vulnerable victim. He knew that Clementi was a loner and semi-closeted and was afraid of being open about it--and then he exploited him. If he were to be charged with the hypothetical crime of pushing this poor gay kid to suicide, then he wouldn't be punished for Clementi's instability. He would instead be punished for exploiting it.

  • by St.Creed (853824) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:20PM (#40070455)

    It's also pretty weird that for some reason or another colleges don't give their students privacy. I know this is the case in China because students are dirt poor (or used to be). However, in the US I would have thought the situation to be a bit better. We had a national debate in The Netherlands about forcing two prisoners in a cell (bad idea btw). Forcing students to give up their privacy for years seems... 3rd worldish. Or was this done specifically to make sure there's no privacy and thus no sex amongst students? Does anyone need insight in how stupid that would be?

  • by Aglassis (10161) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:23PM (#40070485)

    But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected.

    .....and the government is going to be the one to do that, huh?

    Maybe I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS being spent to "protect" a weakling, by punishing the strong.

    If we continue to coddle weak mindedness in our society, the only possible outcome will be our eventual downfall, and enslavement to a society which chose another path.

    Bullshit. Picking on gay kids makes society weak. Our society will be much stronger when that type of behavior is minimized.

  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:30PM (#40070575) Journal

    If I killed a guy with 10 kids, I affected his whole family by removing their main source of income.
    If I killed the only oncologist in a small city, I affected everyone in that city who has cancer.
    If I killed a guy who would have otherwise invented cheap FTL space travel had he lived, I affected the whole frickin' human race. ...you still want to travel down that rabbit hole?

    Long story short - it does not work that way. Otherwise, you place one behavior or characteristic as being more valuable than any other.

  • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:33PM (#40070611) Homepage

    You give zero fucks, don't care what people think of you, your behavior, or your opinions, including the "STFU vagina" bit...

    And then you posted as anonymous coward?

    I agree that everyone has to learn to cope with a certain amount of abuse. It's a fact of life. But we have rules that limit that degree of savagery to acceptable levels. This kid obviously blew past them... so he gets a brief stint in jail.

  • by epyT-R (613989) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:34PM (#40070617)

    'hate crime' is just an excuse to build a caste society, where certain things cannot be said/done to certain groups.. This is not possible in a society that respects free expression and, ironically, equality.

  • by chrb (1083577) on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:38PM (#40070651)

    Maybe I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS being spent to "protect" a weakling, by punishing the strong. If we continue to coddle weak mindedness in our society, the only possible outcome will be our eventual downfall, and enslavement to a society which chose another path.

    So protecting minorities like Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] (homosexual) or Einstein [wikipedia.org] (Jew) from persecution would result in no benefits to our society?

  • by causality (777677) on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:01PM (#40070873)

    No. That is stupid solution to the problem. Our culture should support acceptance (when not hurting others) and not tolerate maljustice and abuse.

    I don't think you have ever seen a person who had the grace, courage, and understanding to accept persecution without any kind of emotional reaction. It makes the bully look stupid and embarasses them thoroughly. It creates a contrast between real strength versus the insecurity the bully is trying to cover up by acting tough. Whereas if you fall into the emotional trap laid by the bully, his way works and you look weak while he looks dominant.

    If you have never seen this, or better if you have never demonstrated it yourself, you really have no clue how powerful it is. It is not the simple "just take it" and it is not the simple "ignore him hoping he goes away" type of doormat behavior you might be imagining. It's more like being able to walk up to the bully and tell him right to his face how pathetic he is, calmly, and watch him back down with his tail between his legs even if he's much bigger than you.

    The bully depends on your reaction to get the energy he needs. Deprive him of that and he's like an engine with no fuel. Believing me on this is not good enough and you'll probably end up in a fistfight if you do it without understanding. You have to see it yourself.

    The solution is to lock up people who wish to harm others.

    Who wish to harm others? Sir, you are advocating that we prosecute thoughtcrimes. I don't really need to explain why that's a bad idea, do I?

    I am sorry that you're so thoroughly identified with being some kind of "outcast" that you cannot separate a rational look at the situation from your emotional knee-jerking and desire for vengence against someone who probably has a lot in common with those who have tormented you. It's like you're still reliving what you went through instead of overcoming it and being better for having endured it. That's too bad.

    That also means you're unfit to form a solid, well-founded opinion about this until you stop feeling like a victim and identifying with people who are victims. There are good reasons why judges and other professionals are expected to recuse themselves from cases to which they have emotional attachments. As I like to say, if you want to throw someone a rope you must first make sure you're standing on higher ground. That's why identifying with them will never help them. All you could ever do with that method is teach them to be "better" victims (i.e. become more so).

    If every single transgendered person were pesecuted ruthlessly with grave cruelty, that would still do less harm to society than implementing thoughcrimes. You're trying to cure the disease by shooting the patient in the face. That's not so good for the patient. If you care so much about transgendered people, gay people, or any other people, you don't want them to live under the thumb of an Orwellian government.

    People in general tend to act nicely towards others.

    If by that you mean a phony sort of "niceness" that is not real kindness, okay, but what good is it? Most people are only "nice" because they want to obligate you to like them and make them feel like good people. If they were truly good people they wouldn't need you to feel that way. They'd treat you with kindness and dignity whether or not you appreciated it because it would come from who they are, not who you are.

    Instead, every chance they get, most people find opportunity to do something thoughtless, inconsiderate, careless, or something irritating that needles you. Or they'll take some liberty to push you and see if you'll stand up to them -- if you don't they assert a false superiority, and if you do they act hurt.

    These kinds of constant, childish games where the object of the game is to puff up with pride and look down your nose at other people is what most human

  • by RedBear (207369) <redbear&redbearnet,com> on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:31PM (#40071099) Homepage

    How do I know? Because I am currently dating a shemale. I really cute and loving one, mind you.

    And I'm sure that she just loves being called a shemale, too! Never mind that every transgendered person I've ever met has generally considered the term to be pretty damn derogatory.

    Secretly videotaping interracial sex is just as bad. How do I know? Because I'm currently dating a nigger. I really cute and loving one, mind you.

    WTF are you talking about? The N-word is a purely derogatory slang form of the descriptive word "negro", which of course merely means "black". I've never heard anyone else imply that the descriptive term "shemale" is offensive in any way, just as the equally descriptive term "ladyboy" is not offensive. Racial slurs are in a whole different class. Being offended by a purely descriptive term makes no sense. That would be like me being offended by someone calling me a "white male". That's taking offense-sensitivity a bit far.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:37PM (#40071159) Journal

    Did I run your dog over because I hate you, or because it ran into the street and I couldn't react?

    Did you film someone having sex as a prank, or because you wanted to fuck up their entire life by exposing their sexual proclivities?

    The only difference that the law should make is whether the act was intentional or not; the precise motive behind the intent is not relevant. Just like murder vs manslaughter. So whether you wanted to film it as a prank or to "out" doesn't matter - so long as you filmed with intent to causing harm by publishing it, that's the crime; it shouldn't matter whether the person so filmed is gay or not.

  • by swalve (1980968) on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:49PM (#40071243)
    There is nothing "strong" about what this guy did.
  • by causality (777677) on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:53PM (#40071283)

    It is like the way American black people often call each other "nigga". A black person saying it is assumed not to have racist intent. If a white guy goes up to a black stranger and says "wassup nigga!" that really might be perceived as racist.

    This is true but shouldn't be. It's either OK or not. It shouldn't matter what race says it. If you determine whether it's OK or not by the color of the persons skin, then that's being racist.

    Well yeah. We didn't eliminate institutionalized racism. We just made it politically useful.

    Elections these days demand isolated groups who feel persecuted by the other groups, so they demand protection that politicians are only too happy to provide. That's how one wing does it. The other wing demands fearful people who feel threatened by a foreign enemy with unpronouncable names and unknown languages, so they demand protection that politicians are ony too happy to provide.

    The professional manipulators who engineer elections depend on one thing: that you will be a sucker for one of these tactics or the other. They really don't like people who can see through both of them. Those people must be marginalized. They must never be given media time or any other solid representation. They are a threat to the status quo.

    This is statecraft. Please stop celebrating it and pretending like it's noble. I know that makes some feel patriotic, like some of that nobility transfers to them because they approve of it, but it's a lie. Find your own identity.

  • by swalve (1980968) on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:53PM (#40071287)
    The penalty shouldn't be higher just because the victim happens to be gay, but because the guy did it specifically because the victim was gay.
  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday May 21, 2012 @07:57PM (#40071315) Homepage Journal
    Precisely.

    What he did was wrong...but c'mon....everyone does stupid shit when they are in HS and college...and hell, even well into your 20's...especially men.

    Just because someone is so fragile, that they can't handle some embarrassment...and decides to off themselves, should in no way constitute a lengthy and harsh penalty for this young man.

    What he did, probably necessitates a fine,and some community services....I'm guessing he broke some sort of law for illegal video (I know that wasn't even against the law till not that long ago in the state of LA)...but that gay kids death is not on his hands at all.

    Embarrassing? Yes. Possibly open to civil suits (if said kid hadn't killed himself), Yes. But prison? No way.

    If this kid was so unstable that this act put him over the edge...who's to say what else could have done it...or what else was in addition to this that pushed him over the edge.

    Some people are weak, and prone to that type of behavior. That's life, but no reason to ruin this young man's life over nothing more than a bad choice of pranks gone wrong.

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday May 21, 2012 @08:02PM (#40071361) Homepage Journal

    The only way to have a society without discrimination is to treat everyone indiscriminately. That applies to the law, as well.

    Well, that's exactly what we have right? (UNless you are gay, black, female, illegal immigrant, legal migrant, minority....basically if you're not a white male it seems.).

    Seriously....we now are putting in laws that make murder worse if a white guy kills a black guy because he's black. It is much worse that if he killed another white guy for any other reason. WFT? A death is a death....? At least...it used to be?

    A few decades back...the rallying cry for the civil rights movement WAS for equality in all things. Nowdays...it is for a 'little' more equality if you are anything but a straight, white male.

  • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Monday May 21, 2012 @08:17PM (#40071469) Journal

    What he did was wrong...but c'mon....everyone does stupid shit when they are in HS and college...and hell, even well into your 20's...especially men

    Just because someone is so fragile, that they can't handle some embarrassment...and decides to off themselves, should in no way constitute a lengthy and harsh penalty for this young man

    What he did, probably necessitates a fine,and some community services....I'm guessing he broke some sort of law for illegal video (I know that wasn't even against the law till not that long ago in the state of LA)...but that gay kids death is not on his hands at all

    The number 1 (unwritten) law that the kid broke is the law of Political Correctness

    Under the (yet-to-be-written-into-the-lawbooks) Political Correctness Code Of Conduct, you are forbid to do anything against the gay, the minority, the underprivileged, the poor, the handicapped, etc., etc ... or we will fire your ass

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday May 21, 2012 @08:26PM (#40071541) Journal

    Your logic would re-legalize all kinds of discrimination.

    On the contrary, it would make all kinds of discrimination equally illegal.

    The intent behind refusing to seat someone in your restaurant would not be relevant.
    The intent behind refusing to allow someone to attend your school would not be relevant.
    The intent behind refusing to rent someone an apartment would not be relevant.
    The intent behind refusing to loan a family money to buy a house in a certain neighborhood would not be relevant.
    The intent behind refusing to employ someone would not be relevant.

    Note that none of these is illegal unless the intent is to deny members of protected classes.

    Which is a problem. If that kind of discrimination is still a real problem in US (is it?), then it should be plainly illegal to deny this kind of thing to anyone without a good reason, regardless of whether they belong to a "protected class" or not.

    Frankly, the very term "protected class" is a slap in the face of equality. The moment you start drawing arbitrary lines between individuals and segregate them into "classes" of any kind, any pretense of equality goes out of the window. There's no such thing as "positive discrimination" - when someone gets preferential treatment, that's just a politically correct way of saying that others get less. The notion that classes should get "the same baseline of opportunity" is ridiculous on its face; it's people who should get that, and the only way you can do it is by refusing to categorize them into classes in the first place, and treating any case of unwarranted discrimination equally.

  • by Burning1 (204959) on Monday May 21, 2012 @08:33PM (#40071603) Homepage

    If someone gets beat to shit because they are an asshole, I can avoid the same fate by not being an asshole.

    If someone is beat to shit because of their skin color, I cannot change my skin color to avoid the same fate.

  • by Caerdwyn (829058) on Monday May 21, 2012 @08:55PM (#40071759) Journal

    Oh look. A clueless fucktard heterosexual. HOW SURPRISING.

    Did anyone force him to be gay? YES. It's a genetic predisposition. Nobody chooses to be the target of frat-boys and jock-boys. Nobody chooses to be the target of screaming maniacs who justify their hate in the name of Jesus. Nobody chooses to play the role that Jews played in the 30's (complete with people like Ravi who intend only misery and death to their targets).

    People like you, who obviously believe that gays are their personal punching bags and rightful targets of ridicule, are why these laws exist. You think it's okay to abuse others over their orientation. The law says it's not (though this 30-day sentence makes me think that dealing with people like Ravi with a noose rather than a judge is much more appropriate... if the courts won't defend gays, then gays must defend themselves by any means necessary). It's people like you who are the reason I carry a gun.

  • by El Rey (61125) on Monday May 21, 2012 @11:36PM (#40072765)

    It seems to me to be the opposite.

    Look at similar cases. A guy in Ohio videotapes a woman in the shower in his own house, and he gets 7 years and has to register as a sex offender.

    This guy videotapes gays and gets 30 days.

    If there was favoritism towards gays, this guy would have gotten more than 30 days...

  • by honkycat (249849) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:14AM (#40072963) Homepage Journal

    A man died as a direct result of this douche bag's actions.

    There are a lot of things wrong with what he did, but calling it a "direct result" is misleading.

  • by xenobyte (446878) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @03:33AM (#40073933)

    A man died as a direct result of this douche bag's actions.

    There are a lot of things wrong with what he did, but calling it a "direct result" is misleading.

    Misleading? - It's plain wrong!

    There are countless suicides every year linking to direct bullying, and it's beyond rare that someone actually gets prosecuted for it. There was no bullying or blackmail involved here as far as I know. There was just a recording of a sexual act. There's no direct link to the suicide so I'd have acquitted the guy completely for the suicide but of course convicted for the invasion of privacy.

If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then a consensus forecast is a camel's behind. -- Edgar R. Fiedler

Working...