student kills self after webcam spying UPDATE: Conviction Overturned

[oceanblueeyes]

If one renders a guilty verdict, the assumption is they expect the perpetrator to pay for the crime.

If not, what's the point of having a trial?

Juror #2 reply to the question made no sense. What does he expect will happen? This wasn't a civil case. It was a criminal trial.

Maybe he thinks community service........or speaking out about bullying to students or probation would be sufficient.

IMO

 

[~n/t~]

He may have thought he was guilty, but that the punishment didn't fit the crime. JMO.

That's what it sounds like but again this is a criminal trial. Not a civil case. What does a juror expect in a criminal trial? Maybe he thinks the convicted felon should get probation, house arrest? This wasn't a misdeameanor charge. These were some serious charges. He faces up to 10 years in prison.

I guess it doesn't really matter because the judge decides but it did leave me and I guess Vinnie a little surprised by the response.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM

IMO, Ravi's actions come across as someone who has not come to terms with his sexuality. I really don't think hate or bias was his motivation. MOO, JMO, OMO, etc. etc.

The evidence presented sure seemed to show it was done with bias intimidation.

The jury got it right, imo.

Bullying and intimidation in this country is rampant and children are taking their lives at a young age because they cant stand the immense cruelty and pressure from the bullies. And they dont have to be face to face with them any longer. Due to social networking sites........now the bullies have an avenue to bully 24/7.

So anything that sends a strong message that it has to stop is a good day for our country and all of the children that are being bullied and intimidated.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Clementi's family in March 2011, before a grand jury indictment elevated the incident to a hate crime, released a statement saying Ravi should not receive "harsh punishment."

MB said he didn't want to see Ravi go to jail when he was on the stand.

The victim's family and friend behaved with more kindness and compassion than the perpetrator and his family.

"It's very important that the jury returned a guilty verdict on the bias crime. It sends a message and it has a deterrent effect on what kids do. It's really important to say, we're not tolerating this," said Susan Abraham, a professor at New York Law School.

Victim statements are among the most important factors the judge will consider, legal experts say. "I wouldn't be surprised if the judge gave him a sentence of a year in jail, or six months or something like that. Now that the symbolic point is made.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/16/us-crime-rutgers-idUSBRE82F0VP20120316?feedType=RSS

 

[Luna24]

So we will punish those who don't have a parent as good as you were?

You don't have to take my word for it. Just cruise Facebook in that age range and you will see it for yourself posted on the walls.

Your boys are obviously the exception. I'm happy for you. I'm happy for them. I'm not so happy for other kids not similarly situated.

I also don't think that simply teaching kids doing something is "wrong" will keep them from doing it...obviously...look at all they do even after being educated about the pitfalls.

BBM - no, not necessarily...but yes, you punish those who break the law because there are consequences to those choices when he broke the law.

Plenty of young adults make bad choices about things - for example, drinking and driving (I did it myself a couple times in my youth and I'm lucky nothing bad happened to someone else or me). But if it did, I would have had to pay the price because there are consequences, no matter how I was raised.

 

[Luna24]

My boyfriend is over in the UK and the verdict was on the BBC radio news today...I was a little surprised at the coverage of it but I'm hoping this truly will help set a precedent and make people realize there are consequences to this behavior.

Tyler's dad's statement as well as MB's statement brought tears to my eyes -- I hope they all can find peace...sounds like Tyler's family is on a mission and will do everything they can to make people see the lesson in Tyler's suicide.

for anyone that missed it:

Tyler's dad:

Good afternoon, everyone. On behalf of the family and our supporters, I’d like to thank Judge Berman, who presided over the process in a firm but restrained way that maintained the dignity of the court while preserving the rights of the press, and for his sensitivity to the need to protect the privacy of the victims.

Thanks to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office for their investigation and presentation of the case, especially to First Assistant Julia McClure, who not only prepared and presented the case thoroughly but who was very sensitive to our concerns and our feelings and took great care to protect the privacy of our son and his friend, M.B.

And of course, thank you to the folks at the victims advocacy unit [actual name appears to be the Victim Advocacy Center] who took care of all of our needs during this stressful time.

The trial was painful for us, as it would be for any parent who must sit and listen to people talk about bad and inappropriate things that were done to their child. We were here every day because we wanted to be here for our son and because we believe the trial was important because it dealt with important issues for our society and for our young people today and because of worldwide media attention that was brought to it. The criminal law is important because it deals with conduct that we find so bad, that we make it a crime.

We have come to understand that the criminal law is only one way of addressing these problems and that there are other ways that are better, particularly when it comes to changing the values and behavior of young people in [the] important areas of respect, privacy, responsibility in a digital world.

As you know, our lives have taken a new turn, and we’re on a mission to address these issues in an affirmative way through the Tyler Clementi Foundation, which we have set up in memory of our son. We hope that the media attention will not fade and that positive efforts on these important issues will be acknowledged. Just a word about personal responsibility.

To our college, high school and even middle-school youngsters, I would say this: You’re going to meet a lot of people in your lifetime. Some of these people you may not like. But just because you don’t like them, does not mean you have to work against them. When you see somebody doing something wrong, tell them, “That’s not right. Stop it.”

You can make the world a better place. The change you want to see in the world begins with you.

We will be issuing a statement regarding the results of the trial in the near future via press release. I thank you for your attention.

MB's statement

I am pleased that the jury returned a just verdict in this case. I had hoped for all concerned that a trial could have been avoided but that was not my choice. It was Mr. Ravi’s decision, and now he will have to live with it.

There has been so much hurt caused to too many innocent people. Tyler was a good person and seeing his family go through the tortures of the trial was painful. For all of my life I have been known to the world by my name. That simple luxury was taken away from me as my identity became reduced to simply, M.B. in order to protect the privacy of myself and my family.

When I learned of Tyler’s death, it bothered me terribly that perhaps there had been something I could have done or said to him that would have changed the course of events. I will never have that chance nor will his family or other friends who saw him differently than Mr. Ravi did.

I testified in this case because I was required to do so. I bore no malice or hatred toward Mr. Ravi; however, having to come to court and testify under very intimidating circumstances reopened the wounds that will take a very long time to heal. Nevertheless, I will heal and I attribute much of my optimism to the way I was treated by the members of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s office. Julia McClure and her prosecution team gave to me the respect and dignity that will enable me to move forward.

As far as punishment for Mr. Ravi is concerned, I have always believed that for him to heal within and be a better person the redemption would have to begin and end within his own mind and heart. But we must be mindful that when one person truly hurts another, society must have the right to demand justice for all. And if that means that Mr. Ravi should be reminded that his type of conduct must be deterred, then so be it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/201...-dharun-ravi-conviction/?mod=google_news_blog

 

[Luna24]

He voted Guilty because he believes beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

He may not want him to do any time because of his youth.

Who knows. The Judge will make his decision whatever that may be.

IMO

I agree - I wouldn't be surprised if it does have to do with his youth especially since that juror is so young himself. He's a very well spoken young man - here is video of him:

http://videos.nj.com/star-ledger/2012/03/juror_in_ravi_case_speaks_abou.html

He may think he shouldn't do jail time but I'll be surprised if he doesn't do at least a year...I believe I read that three of the counts that he was convicted of had options for 3-5 years in jail, not just one count...I can't see the judge letting him not serve any jail time despite the victims and victim's family statements...but who knows...

 

[gxm]

The evidence presented sure seemed to show it was done with bias intimidation.

The jury got it right, imo.

Bullying and intimidation in this country is rampant and children are taking their lives at a young age because they cant stand the immense cruelty and pressure from the bullies. And they dont have to be face to face with them any longer. Due to social networking sites........now the bullies have an avenue to bully 24/7.

So anything that sends a strong message that it has to stop is a good day for our country and all of the children that are being bullied and intimidated.

IMO

Do you consider all bullying a bias crime? And do you consider all instances of surreptitiously videotaping, and then broadcasting, another person's private moments a bias crime? If so, there are a ton of bias crimes that are not being prosecuted.

I don't believe Ravi's motivation was hate, or even bias. I think he was motivated by curiosity. It was absolutely wrong. I believe that secretly videotaping another person's (or couple's) private moments is wrong no matter who the victim is.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Do you consider all bullying a bias crime? And do you consider all instances of surreptitiously videotaping, and then broadcasting, another person's private moments a bias crime? If so, there are a ton of bias crimes that are not being prosecuted.

I don't believe Ravi's motivation was hate, or even bias. I think he was motivated by curiosity. It was absolutely wrong. I believe that secretly videotaping another person's (or couple's) private moments is wrong no matter who the victim is.

No, I do not believe all bullying a bias crime, but, imo, this one was, and the jury agrees, and they heard the evidence entered at trial to come to that determination.

I dont believe Ravi was curious. He had made demeaning remarks about his roommate being gay even before he spied on him.

IMO

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I believe the prosecution has no desire to see Ravi rot in jail for 10 years. They did not ask for remand or for his bail to be increased. Instead, they let him go home until his sentencing on May 21. From what I have read here, neither the Clementi family nor MB want the max. for him either.

However, Ravi did reject that last plea deal which was one of the sweetist ever. No jail time, community service, and help with immigration. I would love to know what thought went into that decision. I'm failry sure his attorneys suggested he take the deal, but was the final decision mainly Ravi's or his father's? Did his parents urge him to plead out? Did Ravi believe he did nothing wrong? Did he hope the defense of immaturity would hold up in front of a jury? We'll probably never know.

At this point, if the plea deal was rejected, I would expect the prosecutors to confer with the Clementi family and M.B. when making their recommendation to the judge. I am sure it will include some prison, but not beyond a year.

In the long run, it will be up to the judge. He will hear mitigation on the 21st before he makes his final decision. If the Clementi family asks for mercy, it most likely will happen.

I look forward to hearing what Berman has to say when he pronounces sentence.

I spent many years in that area. To this day, every time I pass the prison in Avanel/Raway, it sends shivers down my spine. It's a creepy place from the outside and must be even more creepy on the inside. A short stint in protective custody there would perhaps scare Ravi enough to make him start to think of others who are different as human beings, capable of being terribly harmed by his thoughtless actions.

 

[hollyblue]

Just me, but I hope he has to serve a little more time than 1 yr. No, he didn't pull a trigger to end this young man's life, but his actions certainly helped in him making that fateful decision. By his own words he set the intention for bias, but to be honest, this doesn't negate the fact the couple could have been hetersexual...and intimiated. He didn't just take a picture to show it to the victim, or make snide remarks to him about his tryst...he posted it to the internet...forever. For those that think he should be free because it was just his immaturity, how would you feel if you were the victim of this or how do you think his parents would feel if the table was turned...and immaturity doesn't have a chronological age. He was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong otherwise he wouldn't have been deleting. JMO, IMO, etc.

 

[zippitydoda]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxrEmxxGMM"]Rutger's Verdict: Dharun Ravi Guilty in Tyler Clementi Case: Bias Intimidation, Invasion of Privacy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[zippitydoda]

Note that there is a commercial, ironically about webcams, in front of the juror's interview...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Q7MLGwD1DB0

 

[gxm]

No, I do not believe all bullying a bias crime, but, imo, this one was, and the jury agrees, and they heard the evidence entered at trial to come to that determination.

I dont believe Ravi was curious. He had made demeaning remarks about his roommate being gay even before he spied on him.

IMO

Then you believe that it is not bias when people make demeaning remarks about someone's weight or sexual activity (as long as it's not homosexual)? Just trying to figure out why you think it's worse when the victim is a homosexual and not just an awkward, overweight, or allegedly/rumored promiscuous straight teenager or young person?

IMO, there is no excuse for voyeurism or taping someone's private moments. Period. But I also believe that it does not matter what the sexuality of the person being taped is. Regardless, I can see no "hate" in Ravi's attitude, nor did he go looking for a gay man to intimidate like the case in Mississippi where the teenager went looking for a black man (James Anderson) to violently attack. It was not a hate crime, it was a voyeuristic crime of opportunity. I truly believe that if it hadn't been Tyler, Ravi would have taped somebody else if/when the opportunity presented itself.

I agree with those who think the jury reacted to public pressure in their verdict on the bias aspect and I really don't think it will go very far in protecting the average child, teenager, or young adult from harassment or "bullying" in school.

 

[zippitydoda]

Then you believe that it is not bias when people make demeaning remarks about someone's weight or sexual activity (as long as it's not homosexual)? Just trying to figure out why you think it's worse when the victim is a homosexual and not just an awkward, overweight, or allegedly/rumored promiscuous straight teenager or young person?

IMO, there is no excuse for voyeurism or taping someone's private moments. Period. But I also believe that it does not matter what the sexuality of the person being taped is. Regardless, I can see no "hate" in Ravi's attitude, nor did he go looking for a gay man to intimidate like the case in Mississippi where the teenager went looking for a black man (James Anderson) to violently attack. It was not a hate crime, it was a voyeuristic crime of opportunity. I truly believe that if it hadn't been Tyler, Ravi would have taped somebody else if/when the opportunity presented itself.

I agree with those who think the jury reacted to public pressure in their verdict on the bias aspect and I really don't think it will go very far in protecting the average child, teenager, or young adult from harassment or "bullying" in school.

I believe the jury's only role here was to judge, based upon NJ law, Dharun Ravi's actions - not protect the average child, teenager, or young adult from harrassment.

DR did not surreptitiously webcam stream anyone else - he only did it to Tyler, twice, and as he himself stated to "keep the gays away".

 

[gxm]

I believe the jury's only role here was to judge, based upon NJ law, Dharun Ravi's actions - not protect the average child, teenager, or young adult from harrassment.

DR did not surreptitiously webcam stream anyone else - he only did it to Tyler, twice, and as he himself stated to "keep the gays away".

Did DR have more than one roommate? I was not aware of that.

And don't you find it odd, and unjust, that laws are in place that don't protect those citizens who fall into the "non-bias" category. Erin Andrews' stalker only got 30 months because that was all the judge said he could give him. Why is it worse to humiliate and intimidate a gay person? Is Andrews, or her stalker's other victims, a lesser being?

I pretty much agree with Paul Butler who makes the point much better than I:

"Let's be honest. A lot of people want a pound of flesh from Ravi because they blame him for Clementi's death. Tyler's reaction was tragic, and it was idiosyncratic. It is possible to deeply mourn Clementi's death and also to acknowledge that he probably had issues other than Ravi. No judge in the country would have allowed a homicide prosecution, because, legally speaking, Ravi did not cause the death, nor was it reasonably foreseeable. Of the millions of people who are bullied or who suffer invasions of privacy, few kill themselves.

But in the classic fashion of overreaching prosecutors, the New Jersey district attorney found 15 other crimes to charge Ravi with. Legal experts expect that he will get at least a five-year prison sentence and then be deported to India, where he was born but hasn't lived since he was 2."

Rutgers spying verdict won't end bullying

 

[zippitydoda]

Why the focus on this not stopping future bullying, and not the focus on the actual crimes commited by Dharun Ravi? It almost sounds to me that people are mad that DR has been convicted, and that they consider this a waste of time and tax dollars to support a selfserving dog and pony show for the PT and gay rights advocates, all at the expense of young, immature, confused and naive Dharun Ravi.

I am insulted that someone would suggest that I want a pound of flesh all due to Tyler taking his own life, and that "somebody" else has to pay for it. Dharun Ravi is not a victim here - he is an adult perpetrator of many crimes who got caught, and is now convicted.

Putting DR in jail won't stop bullying. IMO - putting people in jail does not stop or hinder crimes -if it did, why are our jails filled to the rafters and we have to build more of them? By that logic, if we lock up one serial killer, is that suppossed to stop other serial killers? By jailing a drunk driver, that will stop other drunk drivers? No it won't.

IMO - We have laws so that when a person commits an act, it can be judged against the law as to whether it was a criminal act. Laws do not stop crime - they exist to determine if a crime was committed. We are judged by our actions, and if we choose to commit a crime, we might get caught and have to pay the price the law deems.

Here is what I believe, if DR had not done what he had done, this sad situation would never have become a MSM story - not the other way around. If Tyler had simply taken his own life, for whatever reasons, and DR was in no way involved with Tyler other than being his roommate, this would have been seen as just a tragedy for Tyler and his family. What sent this into the public realm was the discovery of all of the criminal acts that DR did to Tyler prior to his suicide.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Then you believe that it is not bias when people make demeaning remarks about someone's weight or sexual activity (as long as it's not homosexual)? Just trying to figure out why you think it's worse when the victim is a homosexual and not just an awkward, overweight, or allegedly/rumored promiscuous straight teenager or young person?

IMO, there is no excuse for voyeurism or taping someone's private moments. Period. But I also believe that it does not matter what the sexuality of the person being taped is. Regardless, I can see no "hate" in Ravi's attitude, nor did he go looking for a gay man to intimidate like the case in Mississippi where the teenager went looking for a black man (James Anderson) to violently attack. It was not a hate crime, it was a voyeuristic crime of opportunity. I truly believe that if it hadn't been Tyler, Ravi would have taped somebody else if/when the opportunity presented itself.

I agree with those who think the jury reacted to public pressure in their verdict on the bias aspect and I really don't think it will go very far in protecting the average child, teenager, or young adult from harassment or "bullying" in school.

I believe the jury did the job they were sworn to do. I find them no different than any other jurors. They weighed the evidence and upheld the laws they were given.

Crminal cases are for individuals. This was not about protecting others but it was about finding this defendant guilty based on the evidence.

But if this case makes one person stop and think before they act out on their biases then so be it.

If a person is singled out and targeted only because they are overweight, then yes, imo, that is a crime of hate. If the biased individual acts out on that bias and invades the privacy or puts forth criminal actions against the victim in order to intimidate or harm based solely on their weight then that is flat out wrong. Although I have never read about such case.

Ravi has every right to voice his anti-views about gays but he did not have a right to act out on those biases by invading Tyler's privacy with the intentions to intimidate, humiliate and ostrasize him. That is when he took it a step further. A step he didnt have the right to take.

IMO

 

[ziggy]

I'm still having a problem with the title of this thread: there was NO SEX TAPE PUT ON THE WEB.

 

[ziggy]

Then you believe that it is not bias when people make demeaning remarks about someone's weight or sexual activity (as long as it's not homosexual)? Just trying to figure out why you think it's worse when the victim is a homosexual and not just an awkward, overweight, or allegedly/rumored promiscuous straight teenager or young person?

IMO, there is no excuse for voyeurism or taping someone's private moments. Period. But I also believe that it does not matter what the sexuality of the person being taped is. Regardless, I can see no "hate" in Ravi's attitude, nor did he go looking for a gay man to intimidate like the case in Mississippi where the teenager went looking for a black man (James Anderson) to violently attack. It was not a hate crime, it was a voyeuristic crime of opportunity. I truly believe that if it hadn't been Tyler, Ravi would have taped somebody else if/when the opportunity presented itself.

I agree with those who think the jury reacted to public pressure in their verdict on the bias aspect and I really don't think it will go very far in protecting the average child, teenager, or young adult from harassment or "bullying" in school.

A thanks would not have been enough.

The legislation is flawed. The law is a bad one. The courts have no choice but to follow the law...even bad ones.

I absolutely believe the jury was acting under public pressure to do justice for Tyler. I think it will back fire. And you are correct, this law does not prevent "bullying" for those who are not in a "protected class" of people. shame.