Rutgers Student Ravi Convicted of Bias Intimidation and Spying

In 2010, Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi used his computer's webcam to spy on the activities of his gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, and commented about it publicly on Twitter. Days later, Clementi committed suicide. Ravi was indicted on 15 charges, going to trial last month. Now, reader doston sends word that the trial has ended, and Ravi has been found guilty on all 15 charges, though the jury returned a not guilty verdict on aspects of certain charges. "After less than three full days of deliberations, the five men and seven women of the jury found Dharun Ravi, 20 years old, guilty of invading the privacy of his 18-year-old roommate, Tyler Clementi, and his dorm-room date. They also found that Ravi was motivated by bias under a New Jersey hate-crime law that had been largely untested so far. ... The jury had been asked to decide Ravi’s motivations when he trained his webcam on Clementi and his date on two separate occasions in September 2010, in a case that set off a national conversation about cyber-bullying and treatment of gay youth. ... Ravi faces up to 10 years in prison on most serious bias intimidation convictions, but is likely to receive a lesser sentence based on sentencing guidelines because he is a first time offender. The India-born Ravi, who has spent most of his life in the U.S. as a permanent resident, faces the possibility of deportation as a result of his criminal conviction. He rejected a plea deal in December that would have kept him out of prison and offered him assistance with immigration authorities."

Comments

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty gay... err, I mean retarded... err, I mean lame, err...

Damn unfortunate

[Stargoat]

It's damn unfortunate for everyone involved. But even worse, Ravi is also going to have his life ruined by a man who decided to end his own. What Ravi did was punch in the nose wrong - not 10 years in prison and deportation. Heck, the stupid stuff we did on our floor in college was just as bad or worse. I'm sure 99% of every man who went to college in the dorms can say the same.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[elrous0]

I think you could make a point without sending someone to prison for ten years on some vague charge of "bias intimidation." It's not like this guy hasn't already had his face plastered all over the news as an epic asshole, and (rightfully) been convicted of invasion of privacy.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[Ihmhi]

I think the entire concept of a "hate crime" is wrong. Isn't stuff like this already covered by "making threats" and "intimidation"?

Here's two similar situations:

1) A man at a bar repeatedly punches another man because he is wearing a t-shirt that shows his endorsement of a rival sports team.

2) A man at a bar repeatedly punches another man because he is wearing a skirt.

The actual crime here is assault and battery, In 1), that's all it would be, but in 2) they would tack on "hate crime", "bias intimidation", and all kinds of other crap. It'd go from a fine and a couple hundred hours of community service (at most) to a community-wide (if not nationwide) spectacle.

Now, I do understand that certain classes of people have had really, really horrible shit happen to them in the past. This is true for every country. They demand equality, they fight for it, and they are getting it - but then they also get a lot of special laws to protect them. I don't really see this as equal - more like swinging the pendulum the other way.

I'm all for equality. I don't think you should discriminate against someone because of their skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, any of that stuff really. If you're hiring them for a job the only thing that should matter is their skills, not their skin color or gender or sexual orientation. But, I do think that hiring someone because of their orientation or skin color or giving them any other special treatment after the fact is just as wrong as the initial discrimination. You can't fix discrimination by being more discriminatory.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[Metabolife]

Next time you wrong someone and they end up killing themselves due to their own unrelated emotional problems, you might just change your mind.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[mcmonkey]

It's damn unfortunate for everyone involved. But even worse, Ravi is also going to have his life ruined by a man who decided to end his own. What Ravi did was punch in the nose wrong - not 10 years in prison and deportation. Heck, the stupid stuff we did on our floor in college was just as bad or worse. I'm sure 99% of every man who went to college in the dorms can say the same.

No, Ravi's life was ruined by Ravi (if at all).

Do I think criminal charges would have been filed if his roommate didn't kill himself? No. But does that mean Ravi is a victim of the roommate's actions? Heck no. If he doesn't realize there are other people in the world who might react to his actions, then he should be locked up.

If he was robbing a bank when a guard pulled a gun, he couldn't shoot the guard and claim self defense. He broke the law and as a result someone is dead. Is it murder? I don't think so. Even man slaughter? That's the jury's job to decide. But to say Ravi had nothing to do with the situation he is in is insane.

I infer from the rejection of the plea deal that this guy still doesn't understand what he did wrong.

As for his life being ruined, I doubt this was front page news in India. He has a better chance of finding a job there anyway.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[wickerprints]

Sure, because as we all know, Tyler Clementi obviously used his gay powers of mind control to subconsciously (a) instruct Ravi to modify his computer to auto-accept remote requests to activate his webcam, (b) point the webcam at Clementi's bed, (c) brag about the experience to his friends over twitter, (d) then try to delete incriminating texts and tweets. Wow those suicidal gays sure are sneaky!!!!

Ravi's life wasn't ruined by Clementi or his suicide. Ravi has himself, and only himself, to blame. You seem to have missed out on a crucial aspect of the chain of causality. Short of spelling it out in crayon for you, the unassailable fact remains that Ravi engaged in a pattern of behavior resulting in the charges he was convicted of.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[roeguard]

I initially felt sort of bad for Ravi, for the same reasons everyone else has stated.

Then I read that he had been offered a plea that would have avoided all jail time and probably avoided any deportation issues. And he turned it down. So he has admitted all the particulars of the "cyber-bullying", but refuses to accept a slap on the wrist and instead decides to take the fight all the way to a jury verdict? Sounds to me like he really thought he hadn't done anything wrong at all -- completely justified in actions.

You have to be some sort of serious bigot to think what Ravi did was completely okay, and so if he thinks himself so justified to deny any wrong doing at all then I have no problem with him rotting in a cell for (up to) 10 years and then being expelled from the country.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[crgrace]

If you steal a stop sign and someone who was also speeding crashes, you are probably guilty of manslaughter.

This poor kid was obviously very troubled, but if you look at the totality of his communications, he was obviously pushed over the edge by this Ravi asshole. If Ravi hadn't have been such a colossal jerk, the kid would still be alive. He only started thinking of suicide AFTER he started getting harassed.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

What in god's name are you talking about? Watching your roommate make out with someone would cause then to murder you? What planet do you live on?!

This was nothing more than college hijinks. Ravi was thrust into an awkward situation where he was asked to leave his own room so his roommate could have sex and he responded in a way that is not unheard of.

The issue here is that the gay kid responded is such an over-the-top, unforseen way. Ravi should not be punished for that. What's next - if you flame someone's slashdot comment and then they kill themselves is it now YOUR fault because you were a big meanie?

Re:Damn unfortunate

[greg_barton]

I know. It's a shame we don't have the freedom in our society to harass people to death. Really. A damn shame.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[EdIII]

The point is going to be ignored and forgotten by the end of next week.

Most people don't understand just how long 10 years really is. That punishment would not nearly fit the crime.

Sure he was an asshole, but I don't think he was actually trying to set out to kill the man, or cause the man to kill himself. Just stupid actions on top of more stupid actions.

Young people can be cruel and callous. However, that is equality. It makes no difference that the young man was gay. Every man, and every woman, has to deal with people like this, and a lot of stupid stunts pulled in high school and college. Yes, some of those stunts can be very invasive and designed to humiliate people. Welcome to college.

While it is sad, that young man made the decision to end his life, there is a larger issue. That real issue here is not that Ravi recorded an intimate moment and broadcast it, it is that the fact this young man was gay and got "caught" engaging in homosexual activity and the loss of privacy caused enough stress upon him that he concluded that the only way out was suicide. That's sad and indicative of the depressing state of affairs in our society.

If society were a little bit different that young man could have just been pissed off that Ravi secretly recorded him with his boyfriend. Pursuing other remedies available to him through the administration and local law enforcement would have been considered long before he ended his own life.

Of course, even that is an assumption. Some people have such a low threshold for stress that it does not take much to make them snap and take other people with them.

This whole situation is a tragedy and nothing really positive is going to come out of putting Ravi in prison for 10 years. The only positive outcome here is increased awareness and tolerance for others. Punishing people with years in prison for bullying is not going to be that effective at preventing young people from doing what they do.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[crgrace]

Are you being serious? Even if you don't buy the "Bias Intimidation" stuff he most certainly did criminal acts.

1. Invasion of Privacy. You honest don't think filming someone having sex and displaying it to other people shouldn't be a crime? How would you like someone filming your parents together and displaying it?

2. Witness tampering. He tried to get witnesses to lie to the police. In what parallel universe do you live in where that is just "being an asshole". Are you in the mob?

Re:Damn unfortunate

[mjeffers]

First, we've already established for a long time that mindset matters. Each of these scenarios is a different crime with different sentencing guidelines

1) Driving a car drunk with your spouse in it and getting into a crash where they die
2) Walking in on your spouse cheating on you and killing them in the heat of the moment
3) Meticulously planning how to kill your spouse over the course of several months

In each case we have the same result (due to your actions, your spouse is dead) but we already recognize that your mindset (drunk, angry in the heat of the moment, systematically planning someone else's death) matters.

Second, hate crimes are added on to other charges because hate crimes are actually a seperate crime. If you were driving drunk with a black friend in the car and crashed it's different than if you went and lynched someone. In the second case, you not only wanted to hurt the person directly involved but you wanted to send a message of intimidation to people like them.

In this particular case, I think the jury did the right thing by rejecting the hate crime charges. It seems as it Ravi was dumb, insensitve and certainly invasive of his roomates privacy but it doesn't seem like this was a crime intended to intimidate the community.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[khallow]

If he was robbing a bank when a guard pulled a gun, he couldn't shoot the guard and claim self defense. He broke the law and as a result someone is dead. Is it murder?

In the case of the robbery, this would be first degree murder. As I understand it, a number of states also consider deaths caused in pursuance of a crime to be "aggravating circumstances" and could subject the person in question to a death sentence. This is very different from the current crime, but I imagine the jury and judge might have treated the suicide as an aggravating circumstance, say with respect to sentencing.

Moving on, I am concerned that Ravi was tried on various "hate crime" related charges. There really isn't a place for these in a democratic society. The social or physical characteristics of the victim shouldn't matter for the most part.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[girlintraining]

I think the entire concept of a "hate crime" is wrong. Isn't stuff like this already covered by "making threats" and "intimidation"?

Yes, it is. But when someone makes a threat based on certain characteristics of a person, such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, they are disgracing the very foundation of this country, as well as any country that would consider itself a democracy: Namely, that all people equal under the law. But that equality doesn't start with the law, rather it is the product of a deeply-held cultural belief, which the law reflects and follows from. Democracy is, at its very core, about creating great people, who can then do great deeds for its own citizens: All the great scientists, engineers, poets, writers, politicians, are a product of this cultural belief. If a person is not able to rise to a point where they reach their full potential, that harms the whole. Within that context, hate crime legislation is specifically a response to the behavior of others which is overtly limiting and damaging to this most central of beliefs.

I'm all for equality. I don't think you should discriminate against someone because of their skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, any of that stuff really.

But you're a man of words, and not of deeds. You stop short of giving your belief any teeth, any hope of implimentation. What you are saying is "discrimination is wrong, but if you do it, you shouldn't be treated any worse for having done so." There is another school of thought: That is, for people who are predatory, people who discriminate overtly and sufficiently to break the law, more severe punishment is called for because they are not as easily deterred as someone who lacks a strong motivation, or had a momentary lapse of judgement.

you're hiring them for a job the only thing that should matter is their skills

Except that nobody hires based only on skills. That's a myth, an illusion -- most people hire other people based on their likeability, which is exactly how it sounds: How much like you the person being interviewed is. That, right there, is the loci of discrimination: a person is either like you, or unlike you. A person like you will naturally receive more favors from you. The law steps in here and says: This is not what makes for a great society. A great society must rise above petty differences.

You can't fix discrimination by being more discriminatory.

Neither can you fix it by ignoring the problem, or not recognizing that people who are motivated to commit crimes on the basis of minority attributes are far more likely to continue to commit similar crimes against those possessing said attributes than a person who exhibits the same behavior, but is not motivated by hatred. A man who hits someone while drunk at a bar might only do that once in his life. A man who hits someone at a bar because he's wearing a skirt is far, far more likely to do it again.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[mariox19]

That real issue here is not that Ravi recorded an intimate moment and broadcast it, it is that the fact this young man was gay and got "caught" engaging in homosexual activity and the loss of privacy caused enough stress upon him that he concluded that the only way out was suicide.

Actually, there is no evidence of this. Moreover, from the New Yorker article on the case, a few weeks back, I learned that Clementi had taken a "tour" of the bridges around the NYC area weeks before leaving for Rutgers. It's reasonable to believe he may have been harboring conflicting thoughts concerning suicide before he ever met Ravi.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[binarstu]

I think you could make a point without sending someone to prison for ten years...

From TFA: "He rejected a plea deal in December that would have kept him out of prison and offered him assistance with immigration authorities."

He clearly could have avoided doing time. Instead, he and his lawyer tried to argue that (from this article): "He hasn't lived long enough to have any experience with homosexuality or gays," attorney Steven Altman said in closing arguments this week. "He doesn't know anything about it. He just graduated high school."

Evidently the jury didn't find it very convincing.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[Ahnteis]

Ravi faces up to 10 years in prison on most serious bias intimidation convictions, but is likely to receive a lesser sentence

Re:Damn unfortunate

[Ronin Developer]

You may wish to read up on wire-tapping laws. At least in the state of Pennsylvania, BOTH parties have to agree to the recording or it is illegal. Period. The exception to the rule is a court-ordered wire-tap.

About ten years ago, an acquaintance of a friend of mine was arrested for illegal wire-tapping his EX-girlfriend's phones and placing surveillance equipment in her bedroom. This wasn't video and it wasn't meant as bias-intimidation...but, he WAS stalking her. He did jail time also.

What Ravi did is not about a troubled man committing suicide It's about illegally invading the privacy of an individual when they had every right to privacy. And, that invasion was done to intimidate and harass that young man. The victim was obviously troubled. However, it is clear that Ravi's actions most likely contributed to the Clementi's decision to take his own life - the harassment, intimidation and embarrassment of his "outing" pushed him over the edge. Was this Ravi's intent? Not likely. He was not charged in the death. He was charged with invasion of privacy, harassement and bias intimidation because he targeted a gay man - the bias intimidation made it a hate crime.

Gay or not, everyone is entitled to live a life without some asshole making your life a living hell. If your spouse videotapes their spouse while they are with their adulteress/adulterer (let's not imply it's always the guy who cheats, okay) in their bedroom and broadcasts it to the world ... we might feel it was justified. Despite the fact that what the spouse was doing was hurtful to the other, videotaping and sharing it with the public without their knowledge is illegal - the marriage certificate does not change that fact nor does it give them such rights. Instead, it should be used in a divorce court to make one's case of the infidelity. Hit the bugger in their wallet. That will get the message across.

Ravi will get what is coming to him - hopefully a ten year sentence (he'll serve three at most) and then deport his butt out of this country to India. His parents, will have to live with the knowledge they raised a criminal, miscreant and despicable human being. Their honor has been lost. Sucks to be him.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[Translation Error]

The concept of hate crimes is that the offense is greater than an attack on an individual--that the act was intended to be a threat against an entire class of people. For example, lynchings during the Civil Rights Movement were committed to terrorize people who spoke out (or were considering speaking out) against the status quo. Similarly, vandalism of churches/temples are messages to all the followers of a faith.

The laws aren't designed to be harsher because the poor minority members have already suffered so much and need to be compensated. The laws are harsh because in addition to the actual assault, the offender is attempting to terrorize a large number of people, resulting in additional penalties.

Obviously, every offense against members of groups who are often targeted isn't done for such reasons, and it's the job of the legal system to determine when bias charges should be applied, but some acts really are greater offenses than violence against the direct victim.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[elrous0]

The very term "bias intimidation" itself is crazy vague. And you're crossing pretty far into free speech territory there without a guide. Does it include insulting someone? Calling them a derogatory name? And who decides what's derogatory or not, or what is an insult or not?

Re:Damn unfortunate

[arth1]

"Others do it too" is not a valid defence.
There is always enough blame to go around - it doesn't get diluted by the number of perpetrators.
If three people rob a bank for a maximum sentence of 15 years, they don't get 5 years each because they were only partially responsible, even if they couldn't have pulled it off without the getaway driver.

So the answer is yes, he should take the full blame for his crimes.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[serano]

Hate crime laws exist to address the fact that certain attacks are a type of terrorism that affect an entire community. If a man kills his wife, that is horrible, but it doesn't cause everyone other wife to have reasonable fear that they will likewise be attacked. If a random guy walking down the street in a gay neighborhood is gaybashed, that pointedly does strike terror in an entire community. It deserves an additional deterrent.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[AthanasiusKircher]

That real issue here is not that Ravi recorded an intimate moment and broadcast it,

Can we clear up one thing that was repeated all over the internet and is still being repeated here:

There was no "broadcast."

Ravi and one friend viewed something through a webcam for a few seconds. After that, on a subsequent evening when Ravi was asked to stay out of the room, he tweeted that he was going to set up a public viewing. For various reasons that I've read in conflicting accounts, this more public viewing never happened. (I believe Ravi claims he decided not to do it long before the time came.)

So, the "invasion of privacy" seems to be based on two people across the hall spying through a webcam for less than a minute. This was certainly a jerk thing to do, but is it much different from two people across the hall quietly opening the door and peaking in? How many college students do this to spy on a roommate?

I'm not speaking about possible bias or motivation or whatever, but the invasion of privacy did NOT involve a recording or broadcast, at least according to reliable news sources I've read.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[slimjim8094]

Ravi might be a douchebucket, but he is not responsible for clementi's choice to take his life.

Looks like the prosecutor and the courts agreed with you. He isn't being charged with the kid's death.

Re:Damn unfortunate

[squiggleslash]

Well, with hate crimes, I think it's one of the few times the T word might actually be appropriate - at least, for those involving violence (arguably not this one.)

Look, if a random person is beat up for their shoes, most people tut tut and go on with their lives. They might avoid that area of town after dark, but they don't feel the attack was made at them, and do not feel especially at risk. They do not feel like they have to hide some aspect of themselves or get protection from others who are not like them.

If someone is beaten up because they are gay (or black, or a woman, or whatever), then that does change the formula somewhat. Gay (or black, or female) people are suddenly aware that there's a group out there that hates them and is willing to single them out for violence if it happens. Those who are committing the act are causing terror.

And there's a reason why we single out certain groups for protection (such as homosexuals, Jews, etc) rather than all identifiable groups (nerds, redheads, rich white men, etc) - because those groups have a history of being targeted by hate groups, and of having violence against them, and those groups lack the power and organization to protect themselves. That combination of knowing that an act of violence against a member of a group that includes you means something serious, and that you have little options in terms of defense, is why it crosses the line from "Some people are assholes" to "I have legitimate reasons to be terrified."

Motives don't always matter, but there's at least a legitimate reason for distinguishing between a drunk flailing at a passer-by and a burning cross on someone's lawn.

Mindcrimes

[XxtraLarGe]

I think what Ravi did was wrong, and had tragic consequences, but I have a problem with the term "hate crimes," and giving certain segments of society special protections over other segments of society. There should be other crimes that he could be charged with (invasion of privacy laws, etc.), but to charge someone having a particular belief system is wrong. I don't have a problem with considering intent when it comes to sentencing, but it seems entirely improper to consider it as a crime in and of itself.

Re:Mindcrimes

[crgrace]

The theory of "Hate Crime" was introduced to combat people with a shared belief system looking the other way. It was very hard to fight the KKK during the 20s because so much of the local police forces were members. The feds needed new tools to take them down.

Certain segments of society have special protections over other segments of society because, historically, certain segments of society have special animosity coupled with power over other segments of society.

Re:Mindcrimes

[bws111]

Hate crimes do not "give certain segments .. special protection". They protect everyone from crimes committed against them because of their race, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. There is no 'special protection' for blacks, or women, or gays, or anyone else you think is getting special protection. Everyone has a race, color, gender, etc.

Re:Mindcrimes

[XxtraLarGe]

First off, they don't protect anyone from anything. They punish people after the fact. Secondly, if person in group A murders/rapes/batters person in group B because that person is in group B, we already have laws to cover murder, rape and battery. That is what the person should be charged with. They should not be charged for the fact that they are in group A and the other person is in group B.

"Bias Intimidation"?!?

[elrous0]

Yeah, he definitely was guilty of invasion of privacy and most certainly was an asshole of extraordinary magnitude. But am I the only one kind of creeped out by the idea that something as vague as "bias intimidation" can get you ten years in prison? I mean, what the hell even *is* that?

Re:Well good!

[Stargoat]

SmallFurryCreature, you're a right asshole. No one, not prisoners, not women, not anyone, deserves to be raped. People should not be placed into prison to be raped. If prison is not enough punishment, then punishment should be changed. But to expect, or in your evil case, demand that someone be raped in prison is wrong wrong wrong.

Ask yourself you conservative 'not a bleeding heart anymore' nutjob, what would Jesus have you do? Answer: Certainly not have a prisoner raped.

SmallFurryCreature, you should beg your creator for forgiveness and help for being more compassionate. Shame on you.

Deportation is not an fit "punishment"

[rsborg]

If I have a choice, I don't want him in my country.

You know, this isn't just your country. If I had a choice, I would reject plenty of folks from my country. Your judgement about deportation being a punishment should be weighed on every crime.

This kid did something stupid and he might get deported to a country he didn't grow up in, and might not know at all. Other kids do stupid stuff like this all the time (even resulting in injury or death), and if they get punished at all, don't get sent to an effectively unknown country.. maybe they spend some time doing rehabilitation or restitution, or perhaps some incarceration (very unlikely 10 years).

Re:Ding, ding, "hate speech" should not be crimina

[squiggleslash]

You'll notice the GP didn't say anything about a right not to be offended. He was talking about intimidation.

Hate crimes are not simply crimes where someone has said "I think gays are bad". Nobody has outlawed that. They're crimes where someone's said "I'm going to beat you up, or kill you, because you're gay."

This is about violence being used to, or with the effect of, intimidate a group of real people who have done nothing wrong. Sometimes motives matter. This is one of those cases. If it doesn't matter, if violence and killing is no worse if the intent is to intimidate a group of people, then convict Bin Laden for manslaughter and have him do community service.

I am sorta torn on this, but overall it's good...

[seebs]

I dislike the concept of hate crimes laws.

But I dislike a lot of things, and one thing that hanging around with gay and trans people has taught me is: We appear to need these laws, in that in their absence, people get away with a lot of crap.

Here's the thing. Someone said this was "punch in the nose" wrong behavior. Well, think of what happens if people decide that punching people like you in the nose is okay, or possibly morally obligatory. So it's not that some guy punches you in the nose once; it's that everywhere you go, about 10% of the time when you walk into a public place, someone punches you in the nose.

The cumulative effect is wildly different from what you'd expect if you just looked at the severity of a single offense and multiplied by the number of times it happens. It turns out that there is a big difference between "sometimes people are a jerk to you, it happens, you deal", and "people are systematically and consistently a jerk to you and anyone like you no matter what you personally have or haven't done."

I really don't see a problem with this outcome. You bully a lot of people, especially people that you know to already be subject to excessive harassment, and sometimes things go very wrong. Solution: Don't bully people, and especially don't bully people you know to be members of groups that are systematically bullied by lots of other people. If you do, you take the risk that the bullying will go horribly wrong and people will blame you for it. Possibly because, if you hadn't done it, that wouldn't have happened.

Basically, what the comments here do is illustrate, to me, why hate crime laws are a necessary thing; because the world is full of people who, never having been the subject of systematic harassment, are quick to dismiss it as no big deal and think it's funny when it happens to people they look down on. So we do need a way to clarify that, yes, this really is a big deal, and really is a problem. Congratulations! The reason we need hate crime laws is that a significant number people, some of them slashdot commenters, have not yet reached the level of empathic response to other peoples' circumstances that we would typically expect from an autistic teenager.

(... And I know, because I was an autistic teenager, and I was a little better than what I'm seeing here. Not much better, though.)