College student who secretly taped and distributed his roommate’s sexual interactions with another man was found guilty of hate crimes, as well as invasion of privacy and other crimes.
According to the New York Times this morning, Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers University student who secretly videotaped his college roommate kissing another man, and then distributed it to other students via social media.
According to NYT.com:
Mr. Ravi’s roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge three days after Mr. Ravi viewed him on the webcam. The case became a symbol of the struggles facing gay, lesbian and bisexual teenagers and the problem ofcyberbullying in an era when laws governing hate crimes have not kept up with evolving technology.
Ravi was never charged with Clementi’s death, but there was always the question of whether sharing someone’s private acts, and then promoting them, could be considered a hate crime.
An earlier NYT.com article explains why Clementi was not charged with manslaughter:
Like most states with a cyberbullying statute, New Jersey’s focuses on primary and high school education, found in the part of the legal code devoted to education, not criminal acts. The privacy law in this case is used more often in high-tech peeping Tom cases involving hidden cameras in dressing rooms and bathrooms. State Senator Barbara Buono sponsored both pieces of legislation, and said the law had to adapt to new technologies. “No law is perfect,” she said. “No law can deter every and any instance of this kind of behavior. We’re going to try to do a better job.”
Still, the punishment must fit the crime, not the sense of outrage over it. While some have called for manslaughter charges in the Rutgers case, those are difficult to make stick. Reaching a guilty verdict would require that the suicide be viewed by a jury as foreseeable — a high hurdle in an age when most children report some degree of bullying.
What do you think? Should Ravi’s crimes have been considered strictly invasion of privacy, or does the charge of hate crime seem appropriate? Should Ravi have been charged with Clementi’s death?
AP Photo/John O’Boyle
Not enough information in this article for me to go on. But if all he did was tape and distribute, then no way can I see this as a “hate crime” just because the victim was a member of a minority sexual orientation.
It is not hate crime by any stretch of imagination. It is more like a prank which resulted in a person committing suicide.
This case would not be an easy decision for a jury, in any way. It’s my feeling that the prosecution would have to prove a history of prior hateful actions and attitudes against homosexuals by the defendant in order for this to be labelled a true hate crime. If he has a history of harassment towards a specific group of people then it fits the bill, but if his actions were caused by dislike of only Mr. Clementi, then I don’t think the tag can be extended. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that… Read more »
On the subject of whether it’s a hate crime or not…I too am not sure whether I’d agree with that or not…but then that’s because I just don’t know enough about it. I have a problem with the idea that you’d need evidence of prior actions to prove this was hateful. I mean everyone who actually commits hate crimes has a first time doing it…ya know what I mean? I think, rather, that they’d have to prove Ravi didn’t have a personal conflict Clementi.
This guy is seven kinds of a turd. We need hateful intent, not just an incensed populace, to prove a hate crime. That’s not something you haul out just because you’re madder than usual. I would like to see this guy suffer a good many disasters in his–with luck–extremely miserable life. But I have a problem with criminalizing it. Outing somebody could, with less of a stretch than lawyers can manage before coffee, be considered equally actionable. Maybe even if the outed doesn’t commit suicide. Maybe if he only quits a publically visible job and leaves town. We’d have a… Read more »
You don’t think he should be prosecuted for filming someone having sex without their permission?
Ravi is such a class act, isn’t he? People today think with their egos… wanting thrill, fame or infamy. Do they not think they’ll get caught, and the consequences of their actions? Most of the people are in jail because they don’t think; they just act on impulses. Thinking is hard work guys, so must be self-control! Riots, shenanigans and other stupidities are caught on cameras and posted on Facebeook and YouTube; when are these people going to learn?
It’s a hate crime. Ravi would never have bothered with videotaping and posting it on social media, had his roommate not been gay. Ravi wanted and succeeded in “outing” his roommate, and publicly humiliated him. Friends and decent human beings don’t do that to each other — to innocent persons.
I don’t think it’ s anyone’s duty or business to out gays and lesbians, as it’s a very personal choice and life-changing one for them. Ravi took that choice away from his roommate.