@EngEsq: I agree with everything you wrote. I'm also a strong advocate for gay rights, being gay and all.

EngEsq and tgarry01,

Under New Jersey statutes, a charge of bias intimidation doesn't stand alone. Rather, a defendant must first be found guilty of crimes specified in NJS Title 2C, Chapters 11 through 18. If the jury finds a defendant thus guilty, then the jury may consider whether or not bias intimidation is an exacerbating factor of the underlying crime. This legal concept is no different than aggravated murder: The jury must first find a defendant guilty of simple murder; then the jury can consider whether or not that murder included aggravating factors.

In this case, the jury found Ravi guilty of invasion of privacy (the underlying crime, Chapter 14 of the statute). The jury then considered whether or not his offense included the aggravating factor of bias intimidation. The jury concluded from the evidence that the offense did indeed include this aggravating factor. The law is quite clear, it was appropriately applied to this case, and based on the evidence the jury found the defendant guilty of all charges against him.

Read the relevant statutes, read the indictment against Ravi, and read at least a summary of the evidence presented against Ravi. If the matter is still muddled in your minds, then you're not really trying.

Lune

One thing I fail to understand: if being and acting on being gay is "normal", then how can being gay be a protected class for all of these laws which single out specific classes of people for protection ?

If its "normal" then being gay does not have to be protected.

If being gay is protected, then being gay is obviously not normal, by defintion.

What muddled thinking! For example, being black is normal so, therefore, blacks shoudln't be a protected class? Twisted GOP radical reasoning.

Is being non-Caucasian "normal"? Because non-Caucasians are, as you put it, some of those "specific classes".

Nice way to try to rationalize your homophobia.

Why should his alleged homophobia, or any personal opinions for that matter, be put on trial at all? The only state of mind that matters is in a criminal case is whether the crime was committed with intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence. Personal biases, even hate, are not society's business. We are free to think as we please, and should only be held accountable for OUR ACTIONS. (That means invasion of privacy in this case... not his thoughts on homosexuality, or his roommate's action to take his life.)

One thing I fail to understand: if being and acting on being gay is "normal", then how can being gay be a protected class for all of these laws which single out specific classes of people for protection ?

The bias law doesn't apply to "protected" classes of individuals ... it applies to everyone. If someone had broadcast a sexual encounter by Ravi BECAUSE Ravi was straight, then the bias law would apply there, too.

What if someone secretly videotaped me picking my nose and showed it to all my friends, and I later committed suicide?

That's what this case looks like when you take out the politics.

JLM-268998,

If someone secretly videotapes you, then they've invaded your privacy, a crime. You activities at the time of the secret videotaping and your subsequent responses to the secret videotaping are entirely irrelevant to the crime.

Lune

I don't agree with a bias ruling for any reason. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ravi's actions might have been wrong, but ultimately he didn't make Clementi jump off the bridge; Clementi did it to himself.

The lesson here, for Mr. Ravi and for everybody else, is to mind your own business, and to not meddle in someone else's private life.

Whether or not he set out to make him commit suicide is irrelevant, the question is did he set out to humiliate Mr Clementi because he was gay, were his actions based on a bias towards a particular social group. You don't need to prove an intent to cause physical harm, once you've established that a crime of violence or intimidation has concerned it becomes bias if the crime was committed because of membership of a particular social, cultural or religious group.

JLM-268998, that my be your point of view but both lawmakers and the courts have taken a very different view, that crimes committed because of particular biases are worthy of singling out as being more dangerous and worthy of greater punishment.

Sean 336944, It can be difficult to ascertain that, unfortunately in this case we don't need to speculate how we would know if he hadn't have committed suicide because he did.

If Ravi didn't stream Clementi on the internet, Clementi would still be alive. I believe Ravi's actions were connected to Clementi's death. There is so much meanness in the world, why go out of your way to cause more? Why add to someone's pain and anguish, just because you can. I'm sorry but Ravi got what he deserved. I think it would be justified if all bullys would meet the same fate.

Sean-336994,

Why would you ask me questions about the victim of a crime, hurt feelings or otherwise? As I clearly stated, the activities of crime victims at the time that crimes are committed against them and their activities following the commission of crimes against them have no bearing on the actions of perpetrators when they commit crimes nor on the charges subsequently filed against them.

This case is quite simple. Ravi invaded Clementi's privacy (Ravi's actions; Clementi's actions at the time of the crime and subsequent to it don't impinge). Ravi was additionally charged with bias intimidation because the criminal investigation produced clear evidence that Ravi committed a crime against Clementi because of his (Ravi's) pre-existing bias against gay men (again Ravi's actions;Clementi's actions don't impinge).

Criminal trials *of all types* center on alleged perpetrators and their actions. The effect of crimes on victims are only taken into account at sentencing, *after* defendants are found guilty. That's a clear and objective fact of our criminal justice system. For the life of me I can't imagine why people have gotten so dumb about this aspect in this one particular case.

Lune

I think that the guy that suicided invaded Ravi's privacy! He wouldn't let Ravi alone to study and subjected him to constant harassment by his gay buddy that slept over and disturbed his studies. Ravi had no privacy at all!

Really? The problem is that the young man (Clementi) should never have been taped (or streamed) having sex -- with anyone -- without his consent. That's wrong, it's a crime, and it IS invasion of privacy. However, if my roomate had done the same thing to me and my girfriend (or her roomate had done it for that matter) it would have been the same crime. THAT is the nondiscriminatory approach. I'm very sorry that Clementi couldn't deal with being "outed"; what a shame that he took his own life, but it's too much to punish Ravi for that as well, which is essentially what is being done and I would say there would be a great basis for an appeal if the appealate courts aren't eaten up with political bias, as this might rise to the level of a "reversible error". That having been said, what tools Ravi's lawyers were not to take a plea bargain! Did they seriously think that he was going to be acquitted on all charges and that a jury was not going to find him guilty of having done anything wrong?

Rlquall,

Under New Jersey statutes, if your roommate had secretly recorded you and your girlfriend having sex (or doing anything else, for that matter), he would be charged with invasion of privacy (as Ravi was). If the criminal investigation turned up evidence that your roommate secretly filmed you because you're (say) Asian and your girlfriend is (say) Norwegian, and he thinks that interracial relationships are an abomination, and he wanted to intimidate and humiliate you because of your abominable relationship, then he would be charged with bias intimidation.

The New Jersey statute doesn't specify any particular race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation for special protections: Rather, it protects all people, as it must under the Fourteenth Amendment.

You should also note that Ravi wasn't charged with "outing" Clementi, nor was he found guilty of doing so. He was charged with and found guilty of invasion of privacy, and he was charged with and found guilty of carrying out his criminal acts because of his pre-existing bias toward gay men. You should also note that (as the evidence shows) Clementi didn't kill himself because he was "outed": He killed himself because a vicious criminal invaded his privacy for the purposes of intimidating him through humiliation.

Lune

Even my dirty dog hypothetical college roomate (who doesn't exist, incidentally, the one who I had was a pretty great guy) doesn't deserve any punishment for "thinking" that my Asian ass (also a hypothetical) shouldn't be in bed with that pretty blonde Norwegian girl (I wish), but only for the actual invasion of my privacy. Look, part of me wishes that the hateful thoughts of Fred Phelps and his ilk could be punished as crimes per se, but the rational part leads me to realize that if we start there, the end will prove to be just as hateful and wrong as he is. But common sense to me that if poor Clementi hadn't offed himself (what an incredible waste!) that this case wouldn't have resulted in this kind of conviction, and it would surely have been a shame if nothing were done, because Ravi's actions were reprehensible in any event.

Rlquall,

You've made an error in the facts that many posters here also make. Ravi was *not* charged and convicted of harboring any particular thought, nor was he charged and convicted of harboring any irrational bias: He was charged and convicted of *acting* on his irrational bias. He could have despised gay men (any other group, for that matter) until pigs flew, and he wouldn't have faced any legal consequences. Only when he carried out crimes prompted by his irrational bias did he open himself to criminal prosecution. People opposed to this verdict are unintentionally or deliberately confusing thoughts and attitudes (nothing illegal there) with criminal actions (plenty illegal there).

No law anywhere in the US (including the New Jersey statue) criminalizes thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.

Lune

lune you just keep repeating bias intimidation over and over, the people here who think ravi shouldnt have to go to jail for ten years for a mean prank, even if the victim of said prank chose to then kill himself, believe that the state shouldnt have the right to add massive sentences to smaller crimes even if they can "prove" you're guilty of thoughcrime. clementi made the choice to commit suicide, the message shouldnt be suicide was a logical outcome to bullying. nor should it be that you can be convicted of having the wrong thoughts in your head.

You keep on repeating that he was punished for thoughts, he was not, he was punished for actions which clearly displayed his bias, tweets like "don't icall me tonight unless you want to see my roommate make out with a guy again" is clearly singling him out for humiliation due to his sexuality. He could think whatever he wanted and nothing would come of it, once he started acting on those thoughts to intimidate and ridicule it stopped being thought and became action and therefore punishable.

Franko Relaxo,

See AussieRob's post, which pretty well covers the salient points. Just to underscore a couple, Ravi didn't carry out a prank, mean or otherwise: He invaded Ravi's privacy. In all 50 US states (the territories too, I think, though I haven't had time to double check), invasion of privacy is a crime punishable by imprisonment. In New Jersey, invasion of privacy is punishable by up to five years in prison. That's the penalty faced by anyone found guilty of invasion of privacy in New Jersey, regardless of the circumstances of any particular case.

Again as AussieRob points out, Ravi wasn't charged with and found guilty of a thought crime. He was found guilty of criminal *actions* (invasion of privacy) carried out to intimidate a gay man because of his *demonstrated* bias against men of a particular sexual orientation. In New Jersey, such intimidation is illegal and is punishable by up to five years in prison. Anyone in New Jersey found guilty of bias intimidation faces the same sentence, regardless of the circumstances of any particular case.

Ravi could have had all the thoughts that he cared to have until hell froze over, with nary a legal consequence in sight. When he chose to *act criminally* on those thoughts, though, be became a man who carried out criminal acts. When people commit criminal acts, they risk getting caught, charged, tried, and found guilty. That's what happened to Ravi. Why is that simple causal chain so difficult for so many people to grasp?

Lune

Just to further add to the discussion we actually do punish thought regularly. If you walk out your door with a plan in your head to go down the street and kill someone for an unpaid loan then that's first degree murder. If you leave your house and decide to do a burnout in your car and unintentionally kill someone during your reckless act that's involuntary manslaughter. The only difference between the two are the thoughts of the person involved.

I have a question for everyone. If I were to video tape and then publicize you having sex, would you consider it a sex crime? I would, because I would feel violated and that my power to say no had been taken away from me, albeit by electronic means, the perpetrator, by making my encounter public took away my right to tell anyone who watched the video no, and that is the definition of rape. If I video taped myself and published it there would be a difference but this guy should be on trial for rape and sexual assault because he took away his roommate's right to say no.

AussieRob,

Your assertion that "we actually do punish thought regularly" is of course entirely false. You state that "if you walk out your door with a plan in your head to go down the street and kill someone for an unpaid loan then that's first degree murder." No, it isn't. The plan is not murder. If, however, you walk out your door and murder someone, then that's murder. That's a creature in the world making a change in the world.

This particular case didn't involve walking out the door and murder. This case involved someone criminally invading privacy and criminally doing so for purposes of prejudicial intimidation. For @!$%#'s sake, the proponents and the contestants of this verdict get it so wrong. Ravi acted criminally. He was caught, charged, and found guilty of criminal acts under New Jersey statutes. That's all that matters in a court of law, until sentencing is handed down. Until then, all the tears for Ravi or Clementi have no place.

Lune

I'll say this: One year, three months, and 12 days before the day of the webcam incident, homosexuality was still an imprison-able criminal offense in India. Personally, (and I have been all over the US as a semi driver for 30+ years), there would have been no bias conviction for what happened here in far more than half of America. I am not trying to excuse what happened here at all, but the facts amount to nothing more serious than very similar incidents that happen every single day here involving the gay community, or the Jewish community, or the Hispanic community, or the African American community, or even boys against girls on the playground, which do not end-up with the finding of a similar highly-egregious criminal-intent finding.

Basically what happened here is a single incident of teasing among 18 year old college freshmen just 21 days after their first semester in college started. Yes, the victim was so traumatized by his classmates finding-out his big secret that he tragically felt no other way out, but I don't believe that the victim's actions make what happened intentional murder. This is certainly not the first time that someone who has been teased has attempted to harm themselves or have attempted or committed suicide. No, this is just the first time that the young person who teased the victim has been charged with and found guilty of teasing resulting in death with a hateful "bias" component thrown in which makes such a conviction far more serious.

The way that I am looking at this verdict, this young man was made an example of by the criminal justice system, for a single thoughtless action at least partially based on his background, one where homosexuality was a criminal offense. Imagine that you are a conservative college freshman even from the majority of America where homosexuality is still today a behind closed doors kind of lifestyle and you begin to suspect that your roommate is gay? What do you do? Do you request a roommate change before you are certain, or do you first try to spy on him to get some proof of his behavior? (Remember your age). Do you tell anyone else if your suspicions turn-out to be true? If so, from this verdict onward, you are guilty of a criminal offense worse than drunk driving resulting in death if the victim commits suicide later???

The way that I am looking at the bigger picture here, from this verdict forward, we are going to need a whole lot more jail cells, on top of what is already by far the highest incarceration rate in the world, as this court has just attempted to outlaw teasing. Are we as a nation ready to imprison another couple million or more of our own children for an offense that almost every single one of us has been guilty of at one time or another during our own younger years?

If you are a boy and you tease a girl is that bias intimidation? How about if you are someone of western European heritage and you call someone of eastern European ancestry a bias-based name, such as "Pollock", or you tell a racist joke, and then the victim kills themselves three days later? My own guess is that there was far more wrong with the young victim than just what his roommate did, as committing suicide when your dorm-mates find-out that you are gay is well beyond what would be considered normal behavior. Perhaps we should also charge just about every student at the victim's high school for previously intimidating him too, a sum of actions which greatly contributed to what the victim finally chose to do? Perhaps there might be other people from the young victim's background who might be just as guilty of contributing to his eventual death too?

I'm sorry, but I can not see convicting Dahrun Ravi for what is almost certainly the sum of a number of negative events that happened to the young victim over time, and I strongly feel that this conviction is a gross miscarriage of justice. Yes, I do feel that some criminal sanction is warranted, but certainly not 2nd-degree murder. If Ravi had told his dorm adviser and that person had laughed with the victim or even other dorm residents within earshot the end result would likely have been the same. Perhaps we now need to prosecute everyone else who was a resident in this dormitory, who was told by Ravi of his roommate's sexual proclivities, and who then participated in the ostracization of the victim with bias intimidation resulting in death too?

No, this is just a simple case of teasing based on different backgrounds and beliefs, with a tragic suicide-based outcome, most likely as a long-term sum of many negative similar events going back several years, and the young man that we have chosen to condemn is guilty of nothing more than being the straw that broke the camel's back. I would ask the New Jersey appeals court to void the bias conviction myself.

Invasion of privacy? Yes. Intent to murder based on bias hatred, because of an action that amounts to teasing, a whole 3 weeks after his first college semester started? Not a chance.

Does this verdict mean that it is no longer permissible for a straight college freshman to request a dorm reassignment based on the knowledge that their roommate is gay, something that has been done probably 10,000 or more times previously without anyone killing themselves over it?

I might be curious if the young victim was filmed using a condom or not, as the lack of a condom, in a gay sexual act between a college freshman and an anonymous older male, especially in the NYC-area, would obviously raise the risk of exposure to the HIV virus, and as such, perhaps Ravi's defense should be that he was worried about his own health risk, to being exposed to the HIV virus based on his roommate's promiscuous and unprotected sexual behavior, in a region of the US with a much higher than average rate of HIV infection? Could such a worry be legitimately viewed as bias?

Yes, this verdict is obviously a miscarriage of justice, and at least the most-serious charge should be overturned.

oldtimer-88224,

Apparently your time isn't old enough to understand a simple fact of statute-cum-common-law that's been part of this culture for a thousand years: Break the law, get caught, get charged, be found guilty, and pay the price. Those are actions of and consequences due the perpetrators of crime.

All of your ridiculous assertions notwithstanding (and they withstand -- not), victims are most assuredly *not* responsible for the actions of the criminals who commit crimes against them.

Go back to your bed in the semi.

Lune

oldtimer-

It's obvious that you're failing to grasp that laws were broken. This "boys will be boys" mentality just doesn't fly. It wasn't that he was 'curious' if his roommate was gay. He KNEW this already. He didn't just view it himself, he spread the news and invited others to watch. He put it out on more than one social media site. I can tell by your minimizing that you're not gay. You can't even begin to understand the trauma of what this 'kid' put him through. It was enough for him to commit suicide. If you do something that you KNOW is going to cause a person mental harm and that person takes their own life, then morally (if not legally) you're as responsible for that person's death as if you killed them with your own hands. This jerk showed not one shred of remorse for his actions. He broke the law. His actions were driven by bias. He got what he deserved. I hope that during his time in jail he will choose to accept responsibility for his actions and change his behavior. Every person has a choice every single day no matter what their age... treat others as you'd want to be treated. When you stray from this very simple ideal, you become part of the problem with the human race.

I am not an advocate for Gay rights, point of fact, I think it is a serious social problem and the Teaching of it as being OK appalling.

That said, what this young man did was detestable. Far worse than to simply bash a gay for his choices verbally. He invaded his privacy but went Beyond that invasion to make it as hurtful as possible.

Did this cause the young man to commit Suicide? Not likely without far more going on with this individual.

It may have been the proverbial straw but he may have suicided down the road for any number of reasons.

I agree that the individual should bear responsibility for his actions but I am not sure the punishment fits the crime. Basically, the man received a sentence I consider harsh. An example is being made of him because of the suicide which may have happened anyways 6 months down the road.

Is it not obvious to people that the young man was not comfortable with his choice to be Gay and was having trouble dealing with it??

5 years ( 3 years served) would have been i believe more than sufficient to adjust behavior and set a precedent. Drunk drivers who have killed entire families have received less time..

Gah! The kid committed a crime, yes, of invasion of privacy. (And I will add that in my personal opinion, this kid is a miserable little piece of crap for what he did.) But I, as appears to be the case with many others on here, just don't think that his reason for committing the crime matters. Would he have done it if his roommate wasn't gay? Maybe not, maybe. Would a rapist rape women if he didn't hate women? Maybe not, maybe. What difference does it make? What is relevant is whether or not he is a rapist. Not who he did it to, or why he did it. Just my opinion. I strongly support equal rights for all, but I disagree with hate crime laws in general.

This "kid" shouldn't even be here. If he was in India and not allowed to invade our country to use OUR colleges, I would not even be typing this right now. How much did this trial cost????

They are still very much a caste system in India and this ignorant priveledged fool was just beginning his journey into becoming an Ahole. Deport the scum!

If it was a young, foolish prank, and he knew he was wrong, why did he not take the plea deal offered him?

never said he was smart.

and lets leave the immegration crap to another thread where the article pertains to that discussion. I am commenting on this case, trial, and verdict.

Taking the plea deal would have probably exposed him to deportation. And his defense team probably told him not to worry, they had it in the bag.

If his defense team told him "they had it in the bag" he was doomed from the start. I am nonetheless willing to bet he knew the risk of trying the case.

He was wrong and needed to be punished, but 10 years is excessive. I realize that the sentencing may be less, but if Clemente did not commit suicide, what would have been his punishment? He needed to be kicked out of Rutgers and punished criminally. However, 15 counts is beyond the crime and just a way for the D.A. and activists to pound their chest. They have lost perspective. This will not bring back Clemente.

It was a few seconds of kissing! OMG What a nightmare.

Totally agree. The DA went way overboard with the charges.

Jw101 - Clementi killed himself because he didn't want to be exposed to American society as gay. What does that tell you about the Americans?

the bigpicture - I listened to the verdict and they did not find him guilty of all counts.

Actually they did find him guilty on all 15 counts, just not on all the subcharges for each count. But it only takes guilt on one subcharge to be found guilty of that count.

Here's the breakdown on the verdict:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html

jw101--from what I've read, this young man went to high school here in the US. This would suggest that his parents (or, at least, his father) came to the US to work in the tech industry. Our engineers and others in tech are frequently from overseas. It's easy to get a green card (heck, it's easy to get a US citizenship to go along with one's original citizenship) by investing money in the US or by having a degree that is "needed."

It is hardly "invading" a country to come in as a guest worker. There are a ton of US citizens working abroad--especially in China--and they aren't "invading" either. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of the college kids who have gone to China might well be undocumented workers.

If you don't like people coming in from abroad to work in the tech industry--get an engineering degree and have all your friends do the same. I'd be delighted to have only US citizens in our tech industry--but I don't see US citizens lining up for that any more than they line up for jobs harvesting food.

Meh, what a load of crap. Apparently these days if a white straight guy was to punch a black guy for being a douche bag, stealing money, banging his girl,etc he could instantly cry "hate crime" in hopes of getting a stronger more harsh penalty. That shouldn't happen. Minorities are trying to have their own laws with harsher punishments..Separating them. I thought gays wanted to be "equal" eh? This is doing more harm than good. If someone punches you it should be assault and battery of a PERSON. Not it turn into a hate crime for im assuming a harsher punishment..Since people treat a simply assault and battery as a hate crime if its done to a minority. Basically, if you punch a gay guy or a black dude they can cry hate crime.

Douche bags deserve to get punched. Take Perez Hilton for instance..He's gay..but hes also an annoying tool. Theres a million and one reasons why someone would like to punch that guy in the face..Being gay is not on that list. But he could turn around and cry zomg he punched me because im gay. Give me a break. At this point you can't even disagree with a black guy without being considered a racist. Or disagree with a member of the LGBT community without being labeled a homophobe and bigot.

The way things are going white straight males are getting boned everyday now.

Nookies - Give me a break. At this point you can't even disagree with a black guy without being considered a racist. Or disagree with a member of the LGBT community without being labeled a homophobe and bigot.

Yeah.....what's the world coming to when you can't gay bash, string up a black guy or burn a mosque without being called a bigot?

Seems like us straight white Christian males no longer have special privileges.

I think you need to do some research on what "hate crime" means. I have never and will never feel sorry for a straight white man. You've got absolutely nothing to complain about. People like you make me embarrassed to be white.

Spying on a room mate and laughing about it on the internet are not "hate crimes" even though they are tasteless pranks.

"Spying on a room mate and laughing about it on the internet " are invasions of privacy and are illegal.

Cases like this might not be hate crimes if a large portion of the country weren't so determined to deny subgroups equal rights, so the messy solution is to make them a "protected" group. If they don't want to treat the victims equally to begin with why should the perpetrator be treated equally in the application of justice?

motoricker-

The fact that people think that this a prank is tasteless. This was a crime and the jury was 100% correct in their judgement.

Missrn-best post I've read, on spot 100 percent!

Good now he gets to be a prison ho, Justise will be served by passing him around,,,

Motoricker-sounds like your promoring hate crimes here. Am I right???

And if instead of a gay man it had been your daughter, you'd be all right with that?

motoricker - Imagine if this "crime" had been perpetrated against a heterosexual, or a Christian, or anyone other than one of the "favored classes by the Liberal Left"....it would be a total non-issue.

The exact same hate crimes law would apply - sexual orientation and religion are both protected classes. The prosecution simply has to prove that the motive was to target a protected class.

Heterosexual is a sexual orientation, Christianity is a religion. Case closed.

Basically, a White Christian can never have a hate crime committed against them. Only racial minorities or practitioners of aberrant sexual behavior.

There are hate crime laws and protections enumerated for minorities to protect us against people like motoricker.

Basically white Christians, always feel put upon, and as they were putting the rope around the neck of some black man, they knew they were doing God's work, because white Christians are the chosen one's.

When they beat up a gay man, they feel justified, because of his lifestyle.

As they sexually harass a women, she deserved it, because she is a whore! Now I know these are extreme examples but let's not hear the everyone's picking on the white man card.

Um, you guys might want to take a few seconds to verify your opinions on this, before you make an ignorant post.

Just google "hate crime white victim" and the first thing that comes up is a story about Justice Department studies that show the most likely victim of a hate crime in the US to be a young white male.

Angus Fox, , motoricker, hummbird-3359530,

Your assertions are entirely without force. Under New Jersey statutes, bias intimidation is an aggravating factor, not a stand-alone crime. That is, a defendant must first be found guilty of a crime specified in New Jersey statutes; only then can the jury consider whether or not bias intimidation is an aggravating factor.

Also under New Jersey statutes, a charge of bias intimidation can be brought against people who commit crimes against other people because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. So motoricker, if someone secretly recorded you having sex and broadcast that recording to humiliate you because the perpetrator hated white christian men, then the perp would be charged with invasion of privacy *and* bias intimidation.

Angus Fox, just curious: Do you seriously believe that secretly recording people having sex is free speech protected under the First Amendment? That's what you claimed.

Lune

Hate crimes are brought because of crimes against white Christians quite frequently - you're just making that up, motoricker. They apply equally to all people.

And hate crime punishment does "fit the crime" - a crime committed because of bias against the victim's race or gender or sexual orientation is far more pernicious to society than a simple crime of passion. And hate crimes are emphatically NOT just crimes committed against a minority.

I don't really like hate-crimes legislation, and I'm pretty leftwing. What I think should be the deciding factor is malice in general. Let the jury decide if a crime is committed with malice or without it. Many crimes are committed either in the heat of the moment without forethought or without any intention of causing the victim physical or lasting harm. Domestic violence, hate crimes, child abuse - verdicts in these areas should all factor in the level of malice. Your basic purse snatching, for example, does not involve malice. However, when a guy beats up his girlfriend because he's angry about dinner not being on time, there's a level of malice. IMHO, it's less about what you dislike about someone, I think, and more about why you think you have the right to cause another person pain or anguish for any reason.

Nutgrape, do you believe everything you read on the internet? I have this bridge...

Hate crimes are brought because of crimes against white Christians quite frequently...

Oh -- christ on a moldy biscuit! Stop with the "christians are the victims" BS. Christians in the US are the ones BEHIND most of the hate crimes.

Grow up and stop talking like a coward.

Agree 100%!!!

We are beyond the era of "sticks and stones can break my bones..." With the advent and wide impact of the internet and social media bullying and harrasment can no longer be looked at as a school yard problem. If you invade someone's privacy, hold a viewing party to humiliate your victim in person, THEN post it on the internet for all posterity, you are liable for whatever comes about. Escaping your tormentor is no longer as simple as walking away or switching schools. If the victim can't walk away from the damage, why should the perpetrators get to?

Gee, too bad it sets a precedence. Now bullies everywhere will have to think twice about their actions. So, long as you don't go around acting like a complete bully a$$hole you should be okay. I suppose that's going to be harder for some people than others.

This doesn't have anything to do with "being responsible for every other peson's mental state". Ignoring the fact that Tyler was gay - this trial centered around issues of invasion of privacy. Ravi was found guilty and he got exactly what he deserved. He knew his roommate was going to be with someone. He proceeded to record his roommate having this encounter - without his roommate's knowledge or permission. He practically played the role of huckster - informing everybody that he was doing this, so they could watch it if they chose to.

All of these actions are a blatant invasion of someone else's privacy. Then, when he realized he was in trouble, he attempted to destroy evidence, reportedly intimidated his co-conspirator Molly. Are these the actions of some ignorant kid who didn't know what he was doing? NO. Were they the actions of somebody who felt any type of remorse for this sick stunt he pulled? NO. They were the actions of an arrogant waste of space who believed he had done nothing wrong, and didn't feel an ounce of remorse.

And it honestly makes me sick reading these comments - "I feel sorry for him, it was just a prank". You know what that is? It's the age old excuse - just another pathetic way of saying "boys will be boys". I don't care if he is a "boy" - and at his age, he most certainly is NOT a boy - that shouldn't provide anybody with some sort of inbuilt excuse for being able to treat the people around them like crap, pull vicious pranks, and humiliate and demean others.

You never hear anybody use that phrase "boys will be boys" when a boy or a young man does something smart. That's the phrase people love to whip out when the boy or young man in question has done something stupid, immature and / or cruel beyond belief. Frankly, if I were a guy, I'd find that phrase insulting because it implies that - because a person happens to be born with male genitalia - they are apparently too big of an idiot to make any sort of rational decision or behave like a civilized human being. Kind of ironic when you think about it since so many guys I know complain about how guys on tv shows, etc. are portrayed as being complete morons.

Most guys aren't complete morons - but Ravi certainly behaved like one. He behaved like an immature, cruel callous young man, displayed no regard for the feelings of the person he was targeting, violated that young man's privacy, committed a crime - and he received the sentence he deserved.

But this didn't get on the internet. In fact, there is NO tape, so to speak, because the few seconds it aired (of kissing- gasp) were live. Tyler made the irrational choice to kill himself. He even said his mother had rejected him when that was NOT true. What is wrong here? The people who are so anxious to prove they are not bigots or the ones who see another young man's life ruined by militant gay agenda?

This case is a precedent--which means that it will go into appeals, which means it will be adjudicated, which means that it might well be struck. That's the way that cases work.

However, only the hate crimes part (the bias intimidation part) is likely to be struck on the basis that the standard used was too low. The rest of it--tampering with evidence, tampering with witnesses, invading privacy--will stand. The young man could have gotten a slap on the wrist, and chose not to.

No, I don't feel sorry for him, either. He could have walked--and they couldn't have been charging him with bias intimidation with the plea bargain because that's an automatic jail sentence. He chose to risk setting the precedent, and I have no sympathy.

But, if your concern is the precedent--then this is a good case for you. If the crime had been a more heinous one, then it wouldn't have been as likely that the "bias intimidation charge" would be overturned. For all you know, the prosecutors brought the charges because they'd like to see the "bias intimidation" overturned. We'll see what happens--but the good part in the meantime is that people are likely to be a bit more cautious of their behavior and might not bully as much.

Thanks for being the voice of reason, bean. If anyone fails to see the difference between this and something like the lynching of James Bird, dragged to death behind a pickup truck in Texas for being black, then shame on them. IN NO WAY was Ravi in the right, and if we are going to say that one reaches majority at 18 then we cannot then turn and say that criminal actions by someone of that age are a childish prank. But to say that someone's suicide over being "outed" needs to result in a level of punishment similar to actually killing him, which is what some on here seem to be banging the drum for, is a classic prosecutorial overreach that if it becoming an established precedent could have devestating consequences for the future of freedom.

(BTW, advance apologies to all of my fellow grammar Nazis for splitting the infinitive; I saw no other way of expressing what a meant that made my point nearly as well.)

Rlquall exactly who has called for him to be charged with murder? I've read the thread and see that expressed nowhere.

There is not even a death penalty in New Jersey, is there? Long ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the only time death can even be on the table in any state is for cases of first-degree (premeditated) murder, so for that to be the case Ravi would have to have thought, "I'll stream this on the Internet and then when he finds out what I did he'll be sure to kill himself," and then that ridiculous stretch to be proven, which would be even a worse prosecutorial overreach than the one which has already occured here. I think that there seems to be a sentiment that what Ravi did is so wrong, so bad, and so generally heinous that no punishment for him is too great, as the poster did who suggested that he needed to be "passed around" in prision. That sort of thinking has no place amongst those who have any interest in the rule of law.

Tyler's privacy was invaded because he was gay. Ravi certainly never taped any straight men, did he? He singled Tyler out for being gay, then publically humiliated him. He is guilty, and I hope they through the book at him. A human life has ended because of Ravi's actions and his actions were motivated by his bias.

Sean-336944-As a former suicide crisis counselor I can tell you for certain that one "cause" has caused many suicides. Without Ravi's invasion of privacy, Tyler wouldn't have killed himself. Ravi's actions were clearly "proximit cause."

Maybe David Cross can make a movie out of that. Run, Ravi, Run!!

I'm sure that his lawyers have convinced him that he has a good chance on appeal, although I would be slow to listen to them if I were he since they told him to reject the proposed plea bargain. Still, hard to run back home to India with no passport, which I presume that they have taken, and the average college student probably lacks the connections to get a black-market forgery of one, as they are somewhat harder to get than the typical college kid's fake I.D.

Hate crime laws aren't about "thought police" or anything else. It's intened to discourage a dominant group from commiting vicious ACTS, as in actions that have real consequences, againsts groups that don't have otherwise have someone to defend them. A drunk driver is still guilty of vehicular homicide if they kill someone behind the wheel, even though all drivers know there's the potential for a fatal car accident any time you get behind the wheel. No one forces the second driver to buy a car and get a license, but they have no control over other's negligent actions that results in a car accident.

I don't see straight, christian white guys being beaten, tied to a fence and left to freeze to death in the cold. I don't see straight, christian, white guys being strung up in trees. I don't see straight, christian white guys being beaten or "flagged" for further screening because of the cross on their neck. This was a crime and Ravi's biggest motivator in choosing his "victim" was the fact that he was gay. Until people are willing to stand up more openly to individuals and groups attacking other's for being different, convictions like this should stand. Being different is not an invite to being a victim.

Wrong-headed. Ravi took action on his hateful thoughts. Someone died as a result. The punishment is just.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm holding my breath waiting for Eric Holder's task force on hate crimes against white Christians. Maybe once I turn blue, I'll be a "person of color" and then he'll care.

Why should be all be 'sensitive' to gay victims? You imply 'extra sensitive.' Isn't that special rights? Why are people blind to justice when it involves someone gay? This is wrong, wrong, wrong!

I don't know how you were raised, but where I come from you get a heck of a lot worse for peeping at people in private, lying to police and destroying evidence than being told to go home. Any American would be in jail for those things, so why shouldn't his guy be? He's an adult, he had a chance to do community service, and he declined. He rolled the dice, and lost.

This case would be just as terrible if the sexual contact occured between a heterosexual couple, but the fact is this particular perpetrator targeted his victim specifically because he was different and Ravi didn't like it. Ravi wasn't looking to pull a "prank" on just anyone, like could be argued if he filmed indiscrimately in a coed bathroom for example. He specifically targeted his victim because of his differences. This young man was not only vicious in his crime, but he was indignant about the fact that he did anything wrong and refused generous plea bargains instead demonstrating further that he didn't think it was wrong to begin with. He deserves to get the book thrown at him.

At what point ? When you post video of people without their expressed written consent you have crossed the line . Whether or not the subject (or the state) wants to make an issue of your actions is up to them . Had this been a video of someone studying for an exam , the poster could have simply been asked to cease and desist . It is pretty obvious what the intent of Mr. Ravi was . This intent raised the level of the crime to the point that the prosecutor saw the need to get involved .

I lived in a dorm room, and sometimes people had people over for a little nookie, and everyone did it. You ask your roommate, and they either say yes or no. It's not very difficult.

Give me a break. The only ages of those involved that matter is the age of 18. They are adults. I'm so sick of people making excuses for people who are grown enough to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, but when they break the law suddenly they are treated like children. 18 = adult. Also, just because YOU were careless in college doesn't mean that everyone else has to deal with your immaturity.

Raj Nijhon,

Your assertions fail logically. The charges against Ravi were indeed serious (as you point out), but then you assert that "conviction on such serious charges is really a mockery of justice". Stripped bare, you're asserting that, as charges become increasingly serious, we should be less willing to convict. By your (faulty) reasoning, people who commit murder (the most serious charge in our justice system) should never be convicted because "conviction on such serious charges is really a mockery of justice".

Ravi committed seriously illegal acts, the prosecutor brought seriously serious charges against him, and the jury found him seriously guilty. You can try to dismantle this simple causative chain with your little illogical wrenches, but it won't work.

Lune

It truly is a mockery of the justice system. Agreed.

Compound a tragedy??!! Are we supposed to feel sorry for Ravi? That whole, "one life has been ruined, so why ruin another" argument is so completely ridiculous. Based on that logic, anyone who victimizes somebody should be given leniency. I mean, no need for two people to suffer...right?

Yeah, but it has everything to do with Ravi acting like a complete idiot. Nobody forced him to commit all the crimes he committed either. He screwed up, now he has to live with the consequences. The only person responsible for Ravi's actions is Ravi.

Amen!!!!

He is totally responsible for what happened and should be deported and not be a burden on the Amerian people - what a POS.

"GO HOME!" is what you tell the neighbor's kid when he's being a nuisance or has broken a flowerpot, not what you tell a legal adult who has committed a serious offense. Now, I might just as soon be locked up in the USA as on the loose in India, but I'm not Indian. Sorry, not punitive enough.