Dharun Ravi Trial: Hate Crime Or Stupidity?

theodp writes "After a 17-month wait, 20-year-old Dharun Ravi went on trial Friday for using a remote webcam to spy on an encounter between his roommate and another man in their Rutgers dorm room. The roommate, Tyler Clementi, killed himself days later, jumping off the George Washington Bridge and igniting a national conversation on cyberbullying and gay teen suicide. Ravi is charged with multiple counts of bias intimidation as a hate crime, invasion of privacy and hindering apprehension; he faces up to 10 years in prison and deportation. Defense lawyers on Friday argued that Ravi's actions were the mark of an ignorant teenager, not a hateful homophobe. 'He may be stupid at times,' said Ravi's lawyer. 'He's an 18-year-old boy, but he's certainly not a criminal.' The New Yorker recently offered an in-depth look at the case and the questions it raises. BTW, this might be a good time for Microsoft to retire that Hallway commercial ('Jason gets stranded in the hallway when his roommate is 'tutoring' lady friends in their dorm room. Luckily, with Windows 7, his laptop can now work like an HD DVR. So Jason can entertain himself while waiting. And waiting. Aaand waiting some more.')."

Comments

Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

No question that commercial is moronic, but it doesn't have any relevance to the spying via webcam thing. Timothy's trying a bit too hard to find something to bash Microsoft about this time.

Re:Commercial

[the simurgh]

he admits he set up the webcam to record his roommates sexual encounters to prove he was gay and then set out to tell everyone. he's a guilty of a hate crime as if i were him I'd be glad they didn't put a felony charge on there so they could get try and get him on the victim's suicide.

Re:Commercial

[mcgrew]

It's not that "being gay" is a hate crime, but otherwise I'd agree. What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards? It would be exactly the same thing, yet wouldn't be a hate crime.

Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.

Re:Commercial

[countvlad]

Why does this have to be a hate crime?

Isn't the whole point of "equal protection under the law" to give us all the same protections of the justice system? Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed? Shouldn't all of these acts of evil be abhorrent in our society regardless of why they were committed? Isn't it hypocritical to cry for "equal rights" and then write laws which are, by definition, unequal? It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.

Hate crime law, like the Jim Crow laws of the last century, are a backward and draconian implementation of justice and social regulation that are a slap in the face to equality. The sooner we stop drawing distinctions like these, the sooner we'll progress to a society that is open and accepting of so called "alternative lifestyles."

Incidentally, what this man did was a horrendous invasion of privacy and fully deserves to be considered a felony. He should be tried in a court of law and regardless of the outcome should be exported (obviously at the end of his sentence if found guilty).

Re:Commercial

[realityimpaired]

When said invasion of privacy is done with the explicit purpose of humiliating the target, and leads to their suicide days later, then yes, it is an assault (psychological), and should be considered a hate crime. He's lucky he didn't get charged with negligent homicide: he should have known that his actions had consequences, and "not thinking" about those consequences is not an excuse. He's above the age of majority, and can be held legally responsible for his actions, regardless of whether he considered their effect.

Consider: this kid was away from his family, and his parents for the first time. He was just beginning to understand himself as gay, and quite likely had a very conservative family (most gay kids with liberally-minded parents come out long before they go off to University, at least in my experience). His roommate decided to film him having a homosexual encounter for the purpose of outing him, at a time when he was very likely only beginning to understand it himself. Coming out is not a question of waking up one day and saying "dad, I'm gay". First you need to come out to yourself, which can itself be very traumatic, and very difficult, especially if you've lived your whole life being taught that homosexuality is wrong. He was not ready for that kind of realization, and to have it happen in a public forum, on film and quite possibly his first ever, pushed him too far. Left to his own devices, he probably could have come to grips with his homosexuality or discovered a way to deal with it, but he was denied that chance by an act of bigotry. As a reasonable adult, particularly one who is aware of the situation with gay rights in the US, can you possibly tell me straight-faced that this couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the suicide?

Psychological abuse is still abuse, and this was motivated by the fact that he was gay. Whether it was done "for the lulz" or to humiliate him or to cause him actual harm is irrelevant, as the main reason behind it was the fact that he was gay, and that is somehow wrong.

New classification needed

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a new legal category, Asshole. Beyond Guilty or Not Guilty the Asshole standard would be added after guilt or innocence so we could find someone was Not Guilty but still an Asshole.

Re:New classification needed

[NEW22]

If you read the New Yorker story you will see that there was no recording. Also, the 1 viewing through a camera was of 2 guys making out, not sex. There was never a recording posted on the internet. There was a plan to have some people spy on this guy through a web cam, but they didn't work out because the guy turned off the computer. So, yeah, not that the guy being charged didn't do something wrong, but your version of the scenario is adding more and more outrageous details to the event that don't seem to be true.

Re:New classification needed

[517714]

The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime. If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible. Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be. Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts. Thought crime should be reserved for dystopian fiction. Hate crime laws have been passed to pander to special interest groups and do not serve the public in general.

Re:New classification needed

[Curunir_wolf]

Sure, and that's the goal. This whole "cyberbullying" / "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech. The fact that the subject killed himself makes this the perfect storm of a way to promote this idea. And the idea is: "You're not allowed to criticize certain people." Sexual orientation minorities are one of those protected classes that are to get this kind of special dispensation. Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game (as Michelle Obama's campaign has made clear), as are pretty much all white people, and old people, too (ageism is never criticized as hateful or bullying, for instance).

So in spite of the portrayal of anti-bullying (and especially "cyber bullying") campaigns as an effort to end reduce suffering of the young and adolescent, the rather obvious true goal is only to protect certain groups against criticism. Note that criticism of Christian beliefs, and those of Mormons, Catholics, and often even Jews is defended as legitimate and never considered "bullying", no matter how inflammatory and hurtful the rhetoric used against them.

Even politicians and law enforcement have started using the terms, claiming that they are being "bullied" by citizens simply for criticizing their public policy actions and decision, and initiating law suits to stop them. This latest movement, to conflate any criticism of government overreach with "anti-government" anarchists or even "paper terrorists".

This is a truly frightening development, that will lead inevitably to the erosion of free speech to such a degree that the only thing recognized as "free speech" will be a narrowly-defined set of "approved speech".

Re:News For Nerds

[ThorGod]

What does this have to news for nerds whatsoever? I'll tell you the answer: nothing.

Actually, many of us nerds were bullied in school. I, for one, was bullied and appreciate hearing society put some pressure on bullies. This very egregious example of bullying deserves the light of day.

Re:Hate crimes...

[hey!]

The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes. Putting a special label on them is stupid and obtuse.

Actually, "hate crime" is a serious misnomer, and it leads to misunderstandings like this. "Hate crimes" aren't crimes of passion; they're more akin to *treason* because they're crimes against liberty.

Suppose you roll into town for the KKK meeting, and you pick out a black family's house at random for a cross burning. You have nothing in particular against the people living in that house. Although you're a racist, it doesn't even mean you can't have *cordial* relationships with individual blacks *as long as they stay in their place*. So the cross burning isn't particularly directed to the people living in the house. It's a message to *everyone*: *I* get to decide who lives where. *I* get to decide how you worship God. *I* get to decide what opinions you can express.

And anyone who doesn't play by *my* rules had better look out.

This gets complicated because these crimes often mixed with personal hatred; that's the reason for the misnomer. When you lynch a black guy for dating a white woman, you surely have *particular* hatred directed at that man. But you're also saying "*I* get to decide who sleeps with who," and *that's* the part of your act that's crime against liberty. The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.

Fine line... An examination of online culture...

[ewwhite]

I've followed this case with interest mainly because it seemed to be a perfect storm. The timing coincided with highly-publicized teen suicides and increased focus on (cyber) bullying. The initial media reports implied the existence of a "sex tape", an outing and broadcast video. There was a terse suicide status update posted on Facebook. It tapped into people's fears about and unfamiliarity with technology. The mystery surrounding the older hookup, M.B. (that part of the story really didn't seem to be examined) Perhaps the story resonated with me because I remember pranks like this in my college years... It's interesting to see lives ruined today over something I would have potentially done or experienced when I was younger.

Reading through the New Yorker article and other accounts since the incident, it seems that Dharun Ravi's actions and tone were consistent with how kids interact with each other these days. Being jackasses online, boasting to his peers and just juvenile behavior. But isn't that reflected in popular culture (Reality TV, Tosh.0, TMZ, etc.)? He and Tyler did not communicate well, and I think those soft-skills are missing among today's youth. In a world of tweets, Facebook, blogs and other online communities, we also leave quite a trail... Maybe that's the biggest lesson here. Neither of them seemed to have a filter. Unprotected Twitter accounts, posting openly in webcam/porn/sex communities, bringing an older hookup back to the dorm... I think there needs to be more education about maintaining your online identity.

As to the case, it seems as though Tyler was troubled long before college. There was a mention of his fascination with the G.W. Bridge, as well as issues coming from a conservative family life. Maybe Ravi's actions had no influence on Clementi's suicide. There's a bit of immaturity on both sides as well. I think "sexiling" your roommate multiple times so early in the school year, is extremely disrespectful. That goes regardless of sexual orientation. I had roommates in college who brought questionable partners home for hookups. But we at least had an understanding, and it was certainly after we had a chance to get to know one another. But maybe Tyler was experimenting and taking advantage of his relative freedom? There's no harm in that, but it illustrates more about his home and family life than anything else.

The webcam angle also seems overblown. Dharun was most-likely venting about being booted from the room, but relishing the fact that the drama provided a attention/bragging opportunity. He may have also been trying to demonstrate his tech-prowess. But as the New Yorker article referenced, there was "no posting, no observed sex, and no closet."

Homophobic? Hate crime? I don't think so. I just think there was an extreme lack of respect and understanding between the two. But the case has been politicized and we'll have to see how it plays out...

wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues

[SuperBanana]

If the video showed a naked guy with a small penis, or a girl fucking a horrendously ugly guy, that could be every bit as embarrassing for the small-dicked man or the woman in question as this was for the homosexual man.

No, actually, and this goes to show how ignorant you are on GLBT issues.

GLBT individuals don't face "embarrassment." They have to face things like
"being disowned by their family"
"fired from their jobs"
"excommunication from their religious communities", and
"being a target of physical violence."

While we should work towards a society where GLBT people don't have to hide - it's still their choice when they come out and to whom.

You know what this was? This was kid who grew up in a country where being gay is illegal, who found himself living with a gay roommate, was really threatened/offended/bigoted, and decided to "out" the kid to get rid of him. Just spend a few minutes with Google - India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet.

Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues

[Foobar of Borg]

India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet

India's views on inter-racial marriage, hell even marriage within the same race (as it is socially defined) but outside of your own caste is the most hostile on the planet. For that matter, India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile. They make the US look like a bastion of liberal tolerance.

Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues

[general_re]

For that matter, India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile. They make the US look like a bastion of liberal tolerance.

Comparatively speaking, given the state of most countries, the US is a bastion of liberal tolerance.