Rutgers student commits suicide after being spied on

[vonFiedler]

Since when does punishment have to be fair,

Seeing as we're talking about something that happened on US soil, the answer would be "since the constitution was ratified". That goes both ways of course, and I don't know the suspect well enough to say whether or not five years is fair. However, I do know his actions caused someone to commit suicide, and by sending him to jail maybe a few people will think twice before being giant pricks in the future. Not all of them will, but some of them will.

And FYI, no American gives a shit about having to do community service or counseling. Most of us have to do both at some point in our life without the law being involved, and they are at worst moderately annoying (though I do enjoy community service myself).

 

[Obsessed]

And FYI, no American gives a shit about having to do community service or counseling. Most of us have to do both at some point in our life without the law being involved, and they are at worst moderately annoying (though I do enjoy community service myself).

This.

Community service is necessary to graduate high school, and most colleges look for students that partake in community service. Flipping through my college brochures, I find that every college advertises how nearly 100% of their students love giving back to their community and actively participate in community service.

Community service is a minor annoyance at best. It doesn't qualify as a punishment for a crime as severe as invasion of privacy, and harassment. It isn't really a good punishment for deterring crime. Hell for all we know, Ravi might already be involved in community service. Making it mandatory wouldn't do shit.

 

[VKCA]

If anybody is curious, this is the thread where tyler ask's what to do after he finds out his roommate is spying on him. The ads are nsfw, and its not confirmed whether or not it is the same person, but the folk on justusboys seem to think it is, and cit2mo was traced back to Rutgers, so they are quite likely the same person.

 

[billymills]

I mean basically participating in gay-outreach organizations, and Ravi being coerced into helping those he's attacked. If community service isn't that big a punishment, make it one. Make it daily for 5 hours, for a year. More productive than jail, probably cheaper too, and presumably just as effective.

vonFiddler I mean why should it be fair, not why is it. I don't care what a piece of paper says, either there's a good reason why, or there isn't. That it's been done for 2 hundred years makes it less likely to be applicable today than more so.

 

[Firestorm]

The argument is that billymills believes people like Ravi should be rehabilitated to rejoin society. Obsessed and lati0s believe people like Ravi should be punished.

Personally, billymills' ideal seems like a better use of taxpayer money. 5 years is a fair sentence for this, but let's not kid ourselves, that's just to make ourselves feel better about the bad guy getting punishment. There's no rational reason for it.

 

[billymills]

The argument is that billymills believes people like Ravi should be rehabilitated to rejoin society. Obsessed and lati0s believe people like Ravi should be punished.

Personally, billymills' ideal seems like a better use of taxpayer money. 5 years is a fair sentence for this, but let's not kid ourselves, that's just to make ourselves feel better about the bad guy getting punishment. There's no rational reason for it.

I've always had difficulty clarifying my position, thanks Firestorm.

I understand my view is an ideal, but I'd really like to see at least some effort in that direction. (I'm fine with punishment, but I believe it should be in some sort of progressive form.)

 

[umbarsc]

This topic (actually most of Cong) can be summarized as: straight white males think a minority overreacted.

There is nothing minor about someone being kept in the closet because of his friends and family. There is nothing minor about being gay while your roommate and friends are so outright homophobic. And there is nothing AT ALL minor about being outed by your homophobic roommate because he videotaped you having gay sex and put it on the internet. If anyone really thinks this was a dumb prank gone wrong, then they really are clueless about this situation.

This is obviously a hate crime. There's no questioning it - it's pretty much indisputible unless your fingers are jammed in your ears and your eyelids are stapled shut. There's only a matter of how we deal with hate crimes. Intent is obviously important in the judicial system - that's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Personally, I think hate crimes definitely need to be dealt with more harshly than other crimes, for a couple reasons. First, deterrence is definitely important; by making examples of people who commit hate crimes, it helps prevent such instances in the future, whereas that's more difficult to do with crimes of passion or financial motive (where the perpetrator is not thinking clearly or very desperate). Second, a person motivated by systematic hatred is less likely to feel remorse, and more likely to repeat the crime; if someone kills just because they hate gays / Jews / Kentuckians they're not going to feel remorse, they're going to see it as a victory for their cause, and if the punishment is light enough they're just going to continue to repeat the crime.

The fundamental issue of "why do we jail" basically comes down to a) rehabilitation, b) revenge, or c) deterrence. B is pretty obviously ruled out, no one is claiming that the legal system actually implement it (even if they rant about "the fucker should rot for life" they most likely don't mean it literally). It really comes down to A or C. The repeat offender statistics show that if our goal is A, we definitely have failed; these people aren't being effectively rehabilitated. The only plausible model remaining is C, which is what most people on the "5 years" side is claiming. It's not entirely that simple, I'd say maybe 2/3 C and 1/3 A, but deterrence is the main goal of jailing (I say that because the logical extreme would be life sentence or death for every crime whatsoever, but obviously no one is advocating that, so a balance is struck between the two).

 

[Obsessed]

The argument is that billymills believes people like Ravi should be rehabilitated to rejoin society. Obsessed and lati0s believe people like Ravi should be punished.

Personally, billymills' ideal seems like a better use of taxpayer money. 5 years is a fair sentence for this, but let's not kid ourselves, that's just to make ourselves feel better about the bad guy getting punishment. There's no rational reason for it.

Actually, I think people should be rehabilitated. That is just as important as deterring crime. I just don't think community service is going to do anything at all.

I think giving this prick some jail time (maybe not 5 years) would do a lot more good than slapping him on the wrist. Prison will help rehabilitate him, and show people that invasion of privacy/harassment is serious business. It might even help prevent gays from being picked on.

 

[Llama]

I am a current student at Rutgers, the guy who committed suicide lived in the freshman dorm Davidson C. I have a friend who currently lives there, and knew him personally, she said he was a nice kid, but was kind of a shut in, still shame this had to happen.

It's been discussed heavily in this thread, but still what an unbelievably dick move on the roommate's part, not sure if he has been expelled yet, despite having this story thrown in my face everywhere I go, I don't really pay it much attention.

 

[MrIndigo]

Intent is obviously important in the judicial system - that's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Intent is a strange concept in a legal sense. It's not the same as motive. Motive is evidence of intent. For instance, if the guy here was homophobic it is evidence that he intended that his actions would cause harm to this person, but it's only weak evidence. It would need something much stronger to show that he actually intended to cause the person to take their own life.

Personally, I think hate crimes definitely need to be dealt with more harshly than other crimes, for a couple reasons. First, deterrence is definitely important; by making examples of people who commit hate crimes, it helps prevent such instances in the future, whereas that's more difficult to do with crimes of passion or financial motive (where the perpetrator is not thinking clearly or very desperate).

Second, a person motivated by systematic hatred is less likely to feel remorse, and more likely to repeat the crime; if someone kills just because they hate gays / Jews / Kentuckians they're not going to feel remorse, they're going to see it as a victory for their cause, and if the punishment is light enough they're just going to continue to repeat the crime.

Except it doesn't. Hate crimes are not motivated out of a calculated assessment of consequences, they are motivated out of hatred (if ever there was a passionate motivation, hatred would surely be one). You will never get rid of bigotry by creating legal sanctions for hatred; if anything, you'll only enflame resistance further as the bigots say "The goddamn government is always siding with those dirty whining minorities". It's not going to encourage interaction and break down the hatred and bigotry, it will just consolidate it. You also have the problem that harshening the sentence doesn't make it easier to convict (in fact, statistics suggest the reverse) and you have the problem of creating martyrs.

Deterrance is not the only relevant motivation behind criminal sanction, of course; rehabilitation, preventing recidivism, retribution, protection of the public.

The fundamental issue of "why do we jail" basically comes down to a) rehabilitation, b) revenge, or c) deterrence. B is pretty obviously ruled out, no one is claiming that the legal system actually implement it (even if they rant about "the fucker should rot for life" they most likely don't mean it literally). It really comes down to A or C. The repeat offender statistics show that if our goal is A, we definitely have failed; these people aren't being effectively rehabilitated. The only plausible model remaining is C, which is what most people on the "5 years" side is claiming. It's not entirely that simple, I'd say maybe 2/3 C and 1/3 A, but deterrence is the main goal of jailing (I say that because the logical extreme would be life sentence or death for every crime whatsoever, but obviously no one is advocating that, so a balance is struck between the two).

Actually, retribution IS a relevant consideration. The old phrase is "Justice must be done and seen to be done"; if the general public don't feel that an accused is being appropriately sanctioned, it motivates them to avoid dealing with the courts and use vigilante justice instead, which means the government and the courts lose their power to control people.

Personally, I feel that the expense related with prisons means that it really should be used primarily to protect the public from violent individuals, and as such I don't really think jail is appropriate a punishment here, unlike mandatory attendance at counselling etc. and community service/payment of equitable damages to the deceased's family.

 

[MrIndigo]

Actually, I think people should be rehabilitated. That is just as important as deterring crime. I just don't think community service is going to do anything at all.

I think giving this prick some jail time (maybe not 5 years) would do a lot more good than slapping him on the wrist. Prison will help rehabilitate him, and show people that invasion of privacy/harassment is serious business. It might even help prevent gays from being picked on.

Prison is statistically not a good rehabilitation system. It doesn't teach lessons, and it is quite common for people incarcerated for minor crimes to come out worse offenders because of the company they have been keeping while imprisoned.

It's also hardly the healthiest location to be trying to reeducate people about homophobia, is it?

 

[Obsessed]

Prison is statistically not a good rehabilitation system. It doesn't teach lessons, and it is quite common for people incarcerated for minor crimes to come out worse offenders because of the company they have been keeping while imprisoned.

Is forced community service a better rehabilitation system? I know prison isn't the best system, but it seems the best option we currently have.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but having to help out at a soup kitchen won't make Ravi any less of a prick with a terrible sense of humor.

 

[Royal Flush]

Oh I saw this yesterday on tumblr, how sad.

I have zero respect or sympathy for people who commit suicide. It's the ultimate cowardly thing to do in this world, and I hate even the thought of it.

Actually suicide is a bit paradoxical, I mean, ok he wouldn't bear the aftermath and commited suicide, but you must have guts to do this, lol. And come on, everyone has their own reasons, what a nasty thing to say...

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

This topic (actually most of Cong) can be summarized as: straight white males think a minority overreacted.

I'm black bro.

Generalizations are fun right? Especially when they bite you in the ass.

I still think the roommate was homophobic (but not necessarily a person who who hates homosexuals), I still think he didn't intend to drive the kid to suicide, and I still think the roommate was an idiot who deserves to face his charges of invasion of privacy and harassment, and yes I agree that rehabilitation is what we should strive for rather than just throwing him in jail and letting the system turn him into a monster if he survives his sentence.

I also think the victim, Tyler, also may have overreacted or his suicide was due to many other personal issues as while I assume that yes having a tape of yourself having sex (even if you're straight) without your consent + being outed are emotionally tramatic and hard to face at the same time, I still don't think that necessarily should drive a college freshmen to suicide.

The causes of suicide has to have been an attitude or emotional issue that has been going on for a while and something (like this) pushed him over the edge, not that he was perfectly fine before and this incident alone drove him to kill himself.

Also partially, that being outed is such a terrible thing is equally a part of society at large but that's another argument for another day I suppose.

 

[ginganinja]

I believe the case of Megan Meier is slightly similar to this one.

With a father who had originally worked with people with issues with depression I have grown up with certain views on suicide. Basically I don't regard suicide is 'cowardly' since the people involved literally feel that they have no options in life. Also its likely that they are not in a stable state of mind when they are considering suicide and thus can hardly be caused cowards.

Anyway regarding this case, regardless of whether its a hate crime or not I still think its still a breach of privacy not to mention a rather nasty thing to do. I feel sorry that this student had to suffer so much to push himself to commit suicide

 

[Stagnant]

Invasion of Privacy and posting a video without consent are the only reasonable charges, imo.

Otherwise, Clementi is more at fault for his own actions. Being a closet homo (undoubtedly builds anxiety and stress), having sex (gay) in a dorm room, and ultimately killing himself.

 

[Not Scicky]

Otherwise, Clementi is more at fault for his own actions. Being a closet homo (undoubtedly builds anxiety and stress), having sex (gay) in a dorm room, and ultimately killing himself.

This is probably the worst thing I've ever read on Smogon.

I agree that Ravi shouldn't be charged with any charges other than Invasion of Privacy etc. but to say "Oh it's Tyler's fault for being a (BAN ME PLEASE)" is ignorant as hell.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Wait a sec though-- when discussing Ravi's crime and his future as an American Citizen, there is no way we can conclude that Prison is the best option. I am directing this to all those who are saying he should "rot in prison" and so forth.

Do any of you honestly believe that prison will "correct" this boy to be ready for society? That my friends, is laughable.

I do not care if you believe it was a hate crime or not-- the fact of the matter is we are talking about a college freshmen. Your average 18-year-old brat right out of high school, even if labelled an adult, does not have a proper moral compass yet (this would be half the reason the we aim to recruit soldiers out of that age group). Even if you want to say he's not a kid (and he isn't), this doesn't change the fact that his bigotry towards homosexuals is not the result of a life-long hatred to gays; it has a lot more to do with immature, stupid inability to respect those who are different.

I remember being in college, and those 4 years of my life were critical in developing professionally, academically, philosophically, and developing as a better person. If anything, I strongly remember the years in college doing a lot to make me more accepting and open-minded towards others, including homosexual people. You just meet, get to know, and befriend so many people on a personal level in college! Heck, college was when people were actually coming out and I actually made more openly homosexual friends!

tl;dr: So, you want to take this kid out of the college system and retard his education, take him out of the real world, and lock him up amongst hardened criminals for those 5 critical years of his youth?

And you really think that will "rehabilitate" him for society? Really?


Say what you want about how terrible/serious the invasion of privacy was, and say whatever you want about how terrible Tyler's death was (though Ravi is not at all to be held responsible for this)--

--but don't kid yourself into thinking that prison is what's best for Society, let alone Ravi himself.

 

[sneeze]

I understand what you mean, but in a way you're just challenging the prison system as a whole, but I guess there's nothing wrong with that ^_~

What happened to his friend? O.o

 

[mtr]

Going along with what Chou said...

People don't come into college as finished products. They come in as works-in-progress. And many times they leave as works-in-progress.

Any charge related to the suicide is a red herring. Any catalyst can send a suicidal person over the edge, (so to speak, lol I just realized how fitting that cliche was given the method of death) and if not the sex tape you probably would have heard about his suicide on its own some time later.

The charge should be invasion of privacy, and the punishment probably shouldn't be a fine (which his parents will probably pay), but community service. From reading Ravi's statements on CNN, I get the sense that he's an asshat, but was looking for amusement rather than malice.

 

[sbc]

I think that the action here should be punished and not the consequence, namely the "hate crime" if you perceive it as that and the violation of privacy. Even though what the people did was extremely douchey and wrong, I doubt that they intended to make him die nor would they expect that there was any reasonable chance that he'd commit suicide.

I'm obviously looking in from the outside but suicide just seems like to extreme an option and it I'd guess that the guy was mentally unstable to begin with. Dropping out of college and moving away for a while for everything to cool down would make more sense.

 

[Genesis_Of_Sarcasm]

Do you think this is excessive? Do you think Ravi is guilty on either of these charges?

I feel that Ravi is guilty of invasion of privacy, and although what he did was terrible, I doubt this was actually a hate crime and was simply a harmless prank gone wrong. Therefore, I feel that 5 years in prison is excessive.

Idiots get what idiots get. That guy may not have purposefully spied on Tyler Clementi the first night and broadcast the sexual encounter across the internet, but there was a second time where he purposefully tried to. That's what makes me believe he definitely deserves every ounce of what he gets; it was no accident, he knew he was ruining some poor child's life and decided to continue doing so anyways. Now, I haven't heard anything about the girl, though (was her name Molly?). I really don't think she deserves to be in this case whatsoever. I had read that she was also being put on trial, but Ravi was the one that was doing everything, not her. At least, as far as I know anyways. Hopefully Ravi gets hit with the hardest hammer of the law and that this case will teach people across the world about why you shouldn't wreck someone's life or humiliate them, GLBT or otherwise.

As for Tyler Clementi himself, it's a shame that he had to make the final jump. What happened to him was cruel and unfair, but killing yourself isn't the way to go. With all respect, may he rest in peace.

 

[rickheg]

As someone who has actually attempted suicide, and contemplated it many more times, I feel the need to post here.
To those who say Ravi cannot be held responsible for Tyler's death, I'm fairly certain he can. I imagine it'd be pretty easy to prove that Tyler killing himself was a direct result of Ravi's actions, which I believe makes him legally responsible for it (although my legal knowledge on the matter is admittedly lacking).
And to those saying he "just shouldn't have done it," or something along those lines, you don't get it. Suicide is obviously a last resort; you fully believe that there is no alternative. You believe your life is basically over, and your future is ruined beyond repair. It's difficult to explain to anyone using a clear head, because you don't have one when thinking about it.
That said, I believe (and it doesn't seem anybody would disagree) that the whole "prison is a place of rehabilitation" system has failed miserably. However, I just can't think of any action that would "rehabilitate" Ravi, and others who commit similar acts, and be effective in general use.

Also, R.I.P. Tyler Clementi

 

[MrIndigo]

As someone who has actually attempted suicide, and contemplated it many more times, I feel the need to post here.
To those who say Ravi cannot be held responsible for Tyler's death, I'm fairly certain he can. I imagine it'd be pretty easy to prove that Tyler killing himself was a direct result of Ravi's actions, which I believe makes him legally responsible for it (although my legal knowledge on the matter is admittedly lacking).
And to those saying he "just shouldn't have done it," or something along those lines, you don't get it. Suicide is obviously a last resort; you fully believe that there is no alternative. You believe your life is basically over, and your future is ruined beyond repair. It's difficult to explain to anyone using a clear head, because you don't have one when thinking about it.
That said, I believe (and it doesn't seem anybody would disagree) that the whole "prison is a place of rehabilitation" system has failed miserably. However, I just can't think of any action that would "rehabilitate" Ravi, and others who commit similar acts, and be effective in general use.

Also, R.I.P. Tyler Clementi

In Australia, There is no legal liability for suicide directly resulting from something you said or do short of actual immediate physical violence. Novus actus interveniens (which is a rule you have in the USA in some form) says you cannot be responsible for the injury or death of another person that resulted from an independent event or action by another between the injury and your action, including an action by the victim.

The only way someone can be held to be responsible for another's suicide (in Australian law) is under the Royal case; their suicide must be a direct and necessary consequence of your threats of immediate physical harm. The case in question had Royal start beating up his wife or de facto (don't remember which). He hit her in the head with a crystal ashtray, beat her head against the ground, and apparently caused her to bleed so much that it began to soak through the ceiling into the flat below. She got away from him and locked herself in the bathroom. He started breaking down the door, so she climbed out the bathroom window to escape and fell to her death. The HCA said that the immediate threat of violence meant that her ONLY option was to try and escape and the fact that she fell to her death meant that the mens rea and actus rea coexisted throughout the entire collection of Royal's assault, up to and including her attempted escape.

This isn't even a case of deliberate, intentional suicide, only accidental. I imagine it would be even harder to find legal culpability in the former case.

 

[ChaosAkita]

I think the coverage on this travesty is asbolutely ridiculous. Originally, I thought the guy probably just had some sort of undiagnosed mental disorder triggered by such a small event (or deserved to die if he was just so homophobic/dumb) but I don't even think his suicide had anything to do with the video. Apparently, he asked people online for ways to get back at his roommate (not something typically associated with upcoming suicidal behavior) and had posted videos of himself masturbating before.

Describing this as a hate crime is a complete affront to other people who have suffered from similar actions and didn't make such a big deal about it or have suffered from real hate crimes before. It definitely won't help the lives of any gay people.