Rutgers Student uses webcam to view roommate's sexual encounter

[Trojan_Ripper]

I agree with the decision to not charge Ravi as a factor of his roommate's death. Even though the intent was to humiliate the roommate, I think that anyone would be surprised that this whole debacle lead to a suicide.

I agree. No hate crime IMO, and no proof whatsoever that he caused his roommates suicide.

Why else would the State offer him a plea deal involving no jail time? He rolled the dice and lost playing with a sure “find of guilt” on the least of invasion of privacy.

Bad thought process on his part. I find it hard to believe his attorneys did not advise him to take the deal.

[el ايمان]

I think dude was convicted because not one person on the jury was surprised that this whole debacle lead to suicide. Do you honestly think that he would be facing one minute of jail time absent the death? Let's say that he had filmed him doing his homework and Clementi found out and reported him to the police. Would they have arrested him for the crime of invasion of privacy? He would have still been filming him without permission and would still be, legally, guilty of that count of the indictment.

I don't see the reasonable jump to suicide after something like this. He was caught in the act of getting tail. Its not as if this was some sort of sudden, traumatic de-closeting that opened him up to a realm of homosexual persecution; he was openly gay.

He rolled the dice and lost playing with a sure “find of guilt” on the least of invasion of privacy.

Bad thought process on his part. I find it hard to believe his attorneys did not advise him to take the deal.

This is what I'm thinking.

[LetThereBe]

Dharun Ravi Guilty Of Invasion Of Privacy In Webcam Spy Trial

Guilty of Invasion of Privacy, Guilty of Bias Intimidation, Guilty of Witness Tampering and Guilty of Hindering Apprehension. Seems 12 good folks felt I was pretty right and not very "unreal" in my view.

Ha!

As the subsequent posters have pointed out, I see no mention in his conviction of "murder" or "homicide" or anything else that would indicate he was at all responsible for his roommate's death.

...so if anything, the final conviction works against your argument.

I don't think anyone here disagreed that he was guilty of invasion of privacy. I don't think anyone disagreed that it was fitting that he be arrested and punished. While I still disagree with this being a "hate crime", the charges themselves are appropriate.

Do you honestly think that he would be facing one minute of jail time absent the death? Let's say that he had filmed him doing his homework and Clementi found out and reported him to the police. Would they have arrested him for the crime of invasion of privacy? He would have still been filming him without permission and would still be, legally, guilty of that count of the indictment.

Yes, it is true that the emotional appeal to the jurors likely influenced their decision... which is not a positive thing. He should have been treated the same whether or not the roommate killed himself. It is just this kind of attitude that I was talking about in an earlier post: it is dangerous to only allow serious repercussions AFTER the damage has been done. If what a bully is doing is so bad that it might lead someone to kill his/herself, then we should be serious about punishing the offense BEFORE someone actually dies.
It is like a DUI. Even if you don't kill someone, we acknowledge it is dangerous and unacceptable... and in effect punish offenders before someone gets killed.

[lsbskins1]

Ha!

As the subsequent posters have pointed out, I see no mention in his conviction of "murder" or "homicide" or anything else that would indicate he was at all responsible for his roommate's death.

...so if anything, the final conviction works against your argument.

I don't think anyone here disagreed that he was guilty of invasion of privacy. I don't think anyone disagreed that it was fitting that he be arrested and punished. While I still disagree with this being a "hate crime", the charges themselves are appropriate.



Yes, it is true that the emotional appeal to the jurors likely influenced their decision... which is not a positive thing. He should have been treated the same whether or not the roommate killed himself. It is just this kind of attitude that I was talking about in an earlier post: it is dangerous to only allow serious repercussions AFTER the damage has been done. If what a bully is doing is so bad that it might lead someone to kill his/herself, then we should be serious about punishing the offense BEFORE someone actually dies.
It is like a DUI. Even if you don't kill someone, we acknowledge it is dangerous and unacceptable... and in effect punish offenders before someone gets killed.

What is being punished is the recklessness of the act, and absent the idea that it is plainly foreseeable that exposing an individual to public ridicule can very easily lead to a sense of loss and devastation, there is no recklessness. It does matter that thinking individuals can see the possibility of a suicidal outcome. I might be able to agree with your logic if you were suggesting that he needed to be tried no matter what the consequence actually was. You seem to be suggesting, instead, that holding him accountable for anything more than a simple misdemeanor is an injustice. Like the drunk driver, what was egregious about his behavior was his lack of concern for consequence.

And I am very confused as to what you think would answer your desire to punish bullies if you refuse to allow the law to hold them accountable for the actual consequence of their actions. What would you do? Would you never try a drunk driver who killed someone because trying them did not prevent the death? Known consequence is a necessary part of deterrence. I agree it isn't enough to punish afterwards but that isn't a logical argument for NOT punishing afterwards at all.

[LetThereBe]

What is being punished is the recklessness of the act, and absent the idea that it is plainly foreseeable that exposing an individual to public ridicule can very easily lead to a sense of loss and devastation, there is no recklessness.

It is foreseeable that there is a sense of loss. If there was realistically no negative aspect of invasion of privacy, it wouldn't be illegal to begin with.
It is NOT foreseeable that the victim will kill his/herself.

I might be able to agree with your logic if you were suggesting that he needed to be tried no matter what the consequence actually was.

That is exactly what I'm suggesting, and have been suggesting. You can't foresee how someone will react, so making punishment purely conditional on reaction does nothing to prevent the reaction. If invasion of privacy is worth punishing, be SERIOUS about punishing it. Don't only get serious when someone unpredictably kills himself after the fact.

You seem to be suggesting, instead, that holding him accountable for anything more than a simple misdemeanor is an injustice. Like the drunk driver, what was egregious about his behavior was his lack of concern for consequence.

I am saying that holding them accountable for someone else's reaction, over which they had no control (and in this case can't even know that this is what it was in reaction to) is an injustice.
If something is a serious enough offense that it will likely result in another person killing his/herself, then we make the punishment of that offense serious whether or not someone actually DOES kill his/herself.
If a public broadcasting of a private sex act is so damaging that we feel suicide is a common or reasonable response, then the broadcasting itself should not be considered a misdemeanor.

And I am very confused as to what you think would answer your desire to punish bullies if you refuse to allow the law to hold them accountable for the actual consequence of their actions. What would you do? Would you never try a drunk driver who killed someone because trying them did not prevent the death? Known consequence is a necessary part of deterrence. I agree it isn't enough to punish afterwards but that isn't a logical argument for NOT punishing afterwards at all.

Of course you still punish afterwards, just as he was punished after the fact in this case. I'm just saying you don't trump up new charges after the fact when it wasn't a foreseeable result. This man was guilty of invasion of privacy. Maybe as a result of this invasion of privacy, a person is dead.
After or before this result the man should be punished for invasion of privacy. Neither after nor before should the man be guilty of murder, homicide, or otherwise a killing when it was not a foreseeable consequence.

[lsbskins1]

It is foreseeable that there is a sense of loss. If there was realistically no negative aspect of invasion of privacy, it wouldn't be illegal to begin with.
It is NOT foreseeable that the victim will kill his/herself.



That is exactly what I'm suggesting, and have been suggesting. You can't foresee how someone will react, so making punishment purely conditional on reaction does nothing to prevent the reaction. If invasion of privacy is worth punishing, be SERIOUS about punishing it. Don't only get serious when someone unpredictably kills himself after the fact.



I am saying that holding them accountable for someone else's reaction, over which they had no control (and in this case can't even know that this is what it was in reaction to) is an injustice.
If something is a serious enough offense that it will likely result in another person killing his/herself, then we make the punishment of that offense serious whether or not someone actually DOES kill his/herself.
If a public broadcasting of a private sex act is so damaging that we feel suicide is a common or reasonable response, then the broadcasting itself should not be considered a misdemeanor.



Of course you still punish afterwards, just as he was punished after the fact in this case. I'm just saying you don't trump up new charges after the fact when it wasn't a foreseeable result. This man was guilty of invasion of privacy. Maybe as a result of this invasion of privacy, a person is dead.
After or before this result the man should be punished for invasion of privacy. Neither after nor before should the man be guilty of murder, homicide, or otherwise a killing when it was not a foreseeable consequence.

You are confusing inevitable with foreseeable. Not every person whose privacy is invaded is going to become so despondent that they kill themselves. But then, not everyone who gets shot, point blank, in the face with a Glock, dies. That hardly means that it isn't foreseeable that if you shot someone, point blank, in the face, with a Glock, that it is a very strong possibility that they will die and that you just should not do it. And I would also say that there is a categorical difference between discharging your Glock in someone's face and illegally firing the weapon in the air on someone else's property. Both could be considered an "illegal discharge of a weapon", but the crimes are not the same. Simply a single element of the crimes are similar and subject to the same statute. Again, it matters what element of Clementi's privacy was violated. Pretending that it doesn't is not very logical.

[LetThereBe]

You are confusing inevitable with foreseeable. Not every person whose privacy is invaded is going to become so despondent that they kill themselves. But then, not everyone who gets shot, point blank, in the face with a Glock, dies.

Give me a statistical comparison. Do most people shot point blank in the face die? I would hazard a guess that the answer is yes... and that in most cases the INTENT was the other person's death.
What percent of people that have their privacy invaded or are otherwise bullied kill themselves? One percent? A hundredth of a percent?

When the result in question is a usual consequence, that is foreseeable. When it is statistically a minute possibility, that is not foreseeable.

And I would also say that there is a categorical difference between discharging your Glock in someone's face and illegally firing the weapon in the air on someone else's property. Both could be considered an "illegal discharge of a weapon", but the crimes are not the same.

The fundamental difference is intent. You are presumably aiming for the face (intending to kill) in your point blank example. That is not your intent when firing in the air.
How does that translate to a bullying example? If you are bullying with the intent to get someone to kill his/herself I agree that could be construed as murder. There is no reason to believe that was the case here.

Again, it matters what element of Clementi's privacy was violated. Pretending that it doesn't is not very logical.

I can agree that what element of privacy was violated matters. Just as there is a difference between stealing someone's pencil and stealing someone's car. Some invasions of privacy are far more damaging than others.
That still does not make death a "foreseeable result" and the prosecution was right not to pursue murder or homicide charges.

[el ايمان]

Committing suicide after being embarrassed is hardly the rational option.

[lsbskins1]

Give me a statistical comparison. Do most people shot point blank in the face die? I would hazard a guess that the answer is yes... and that in most cases the INTENT was the other person's death.
What percent of people that have their privacy invaded or are otherwise bullied kill themselves? One percent? A hundredth of a percent?

When the result in question is a usual consequence, that is foreseeable. When it is statistically a minute possibility, that is not foreseeable.


The fundamental difference is intent. You are presumably aiming for the face (intending to kill) in your point blank example. That is not your intent when firing in the air.
How does that translate to a bullying example? If you are bullying with the intent to get someone to kill his/herself I agree that could be construed as murder. There is no reason to believe that was the case here.



I can agree that what element of privacy was violated matters. Just as there is a difference between stealing someone's pencil and stealing someone's car. Some invasions of privacy are far more damaging than others.
That still does not make death a "foreseeable result" and the prosecution was right not to pursue murder or homicide charges.

Here, we must go back to the drunk driving example: What percentage of the time, when someone drives while intoxicated, does someone actually die. It isn't about probability, it is about responsibility and simply avoiding the behavior because it poses a foreseeable risk that can absolutely be avoided. I brought up the point blank shot to the face to illustrate that even something that deadly does not always result in death. It is immaterial if 1 in a 100, 1 in a 1,000 or 1 in 10,000 instances of the behavior would lead to the outcome. What matters is that a reasonable person can see the danger and a reasonable person would avoid the behavior. What percentage of kids fall into pools and drown? I'd bet the ratio of kids who did fall in pools and drown to the kids actually exposed to the danger is pretty low. We still require you to fence pools so that it doesn't happen and you are still liable if it does happen and you didn't put up a fence.

As with the intent, that does matter. It is a factor involved in what variation or degree of murder can be charged in cases when any form of murder charge can be brought. But, you do not have to intend to cause the death of someone to be responsible for their death and the law recognizes this. I don't know if some form of "murder" charges were not brought in this case because of statutory limitations or if it was a discretionary choice of the prosecutor. Maybe they felt evidence for the charge was there, but not strong enough to risk it endangering convictions on the charges they had very strong evidence for. The point is, not being charged with a crime is not the same as not being guilty of that crime. You may be right that the prosecution was wise in choosing not to pursue a murder charge, but I suspect you are right for a different reason than you think you are right.

[lsbskins1]

Committing suicide after being embarrassed is hardly the rational option.

You are correct and it is absolutely immaterial to the issue at hand.

[LetThereBe]

Here, we must go back to the drunk driving example: What percentage of the time, when someone drives while intoxicated, does someone actually die.

I would guess that when someone drives inebriated it results in injury or death with far greater frequency than bullying results in suicide.

It isn't about probability, it is about responsibility and simply avoiding the behavior because it poses a foreseeable risk that can absolutely be avoided. I brought up the point blank shot to the face to illustrate that even something that deadly does not always result in death. It is immaterial if 1 in a 100, 1 in a 1,000 or 1 in 10,000 instances of the behavior would lead to the outcome.

Is it? So it really makes no difference if it is 1:2 or 1:100000000?
We daily accept risks greater than that. You face a greater risk of choking on your food, but we don't consider it a "foreseeable risk" if you don't cut an adult's steak into little quarter inch size pieces before serving them, even though that tiny, tiny, tiny risk can "absolutely be avoided".
If you are going to call something as unpredictable as human behavior regarding suicide a "foreseeable risk" what about the fastfood companies that we can statistically prove increase risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses that will lead to an early death? What about the parents that "recklessly" allow their children to eat that food?
What if I suggest a walk with my sweetheart in the rain, though we are more likely to be struck by lightning than if we only walk in clear weather?

What matters is that a reasonable person can see the danger and a reasonable person would avoid the behavior. What percentage of kids fall into pools and drown? I'd bet the ratio of kids who did fall in pools and drown to the kids actually exposed to the danger is pretty low. We still require you to fence pools so that it doesn't happen and you are still liable if it does happen and you didn't put up a fence.

If statistically we could show that the risk is extremely low, I would not be in favor of requiring fencing.

But, you do not have to intend to cause the death of someone to be responsible for their death and the law recognizes this.

You do if you want to call it murder.

I don't know if some form of "murder" charges were not brought in this case because of statutory limitations or if it was a discretionary choice of the prosecutor. Maybe they felt evidence for the charge was there, but not strong enough to risk it endangering convictions on the charges they had very strong evidence for. The point is, not being charged with a crime is not the same as not being guilty of that crime. You may be right that the prosecution was wise in choosing not to pursue a murder charge, but I suspect you are right for a different reason than you think you are right.

...or it could be the fact that he had no evidence of any kind outside of the roommate being dead.
No suicide note. No conversations with witnesses. You can't even prove that this was the primary cause of the suicide, let alone that he should be responsible for the roommate's choices.

[lsbskins1]

I would guess that when someone drives inebriated it results in injury or death with far greater frequency than bullying results in suicide.



Is it? So it really makes no difference if it is 1:2 or 1:100000000?
We daily accept risks greater than that. You face a greater risk of choking on your food, but we don't consider it a "foreseeable risk" if you don't cut an adult's steak into little quarter inch size pieces before serving them, even though that tiny, tiny, tiny risk can "absolutely be avoided".
If you are going to call something as unpredictable as human behavior regarding suicide a "foreseeable risk" what about the fastfood companies that we can statistically prove increase risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses that will lead to an early death? What about the parents that "recklessly" allow their children to eat that food?
What if I suggest a walk with my sweetheart in the rain, though we are more likely to be struck by lightning than if we only walk in clear weather?



If statistically we could show that the risk is extremely low, I would not be in favor of requiring fencing.



You do if you want to call it murder.



...or it could be the fact that he had no evidence of any kind outside of the roommate being dead.
No suicide note. No conversations with witnesses. You can't even prove that this was the primary cause of the suicide, let alone that he should be responsible for the roommate's choices.

People have to eat, people have to drive in the modern world and, even though I am sure you can come of with numerous other examples of behaviors that are statistically fairly risky, most of them will involve personal choice and assumed risk. Ravi did not make a choice that affected only his own life, he made a risky choice that impacted, very significantly, the life of another. There is a different threshold in that circumstance, especially considering the fact that there was absolutely no practical necessity associated with the behavior. We can go round and round about this forever. You obviously have a different definition of personal responsibility than I do. Stupid actions should have consequence. Ravi is facing a consequence that is probably less just than it could be, but is in no way unjust for him. The New Jersey legislature, at some point, was populated with enough individuals who wrote law that set certain standards for conduct. In our system, that represents the voice of the people. 12 jurors found that he violated reasonable standards of conduct as defined by code. You might disagree with the judgment of the legislature and the jury, but "reasonable" is defined, not by your personal opinion, but by society and its institutions. There are certainly standards that exist that, in my opinion, are not the correct ones. But I don't get to personally dictate those standards any more than you do. Being social creatures, we live within the standards of our community. I advocate my position, you advocate yours and at some point, a choice is made. That's how it is supposed to work.