Slashdot Mirror
Rutger's Student Dharun Ravi Sentenced To 30-Day Jail Time
parallel_prankster writes "New York Times reports that a judge in New Jersey has sentenced Dharun Ravi to 30 days in jail Monday for using a webcam to spy on his Rutgers University roommate having sex with a man, in a case that galvanized concern about suicide among gay teenagers but also prompted debate about the use of laws against hate crimes. The case drew wide attention because his roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge in September 2010, a few days after learning of the spying. A jury convicted Mr. Ravi in March of all 15 counts against him, which included invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. The relatively light sentence — he faced up to 10 years in prison — surprised many who were watching the hearing, as it came after the judge spent several minutes criticizing Mr. Ravi's behavior."
Because if I hurt your feelings so bad you kill yourself, it's really your fault for having a glass jaw. I mean, what if this comment I'm typing right now made you kill yourself? Am I then guilty of killing you?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The invasion of privacy angle I can see. How many times have we had stories of guys taping unwilling sex partners or roommates taping roommates? I just didn't think there was enough meat to the story to push it into the realm of hate crimes.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Secretly filming your roommate having gay sex is a little worse than just saying something random and mean on slashdot.
I don't know about wrongful death, but I think it's pretty fucking awful... assuming he intended to do some kind of emotional harm with the video.
If he was just going to wank to it later, then well, 30 days in the pen might just work out for him.
Because wrongful death is a civil matter. The roommate's family is well within their rights to try and sue him for wrongful death. They might even win.
But, yeah, for something to be criminal, you have to be grossly negligent and directly cause the death, or be doing something with the direct purpose of causing a death.
(But the real answer is: he was never charge with causing any death. Because such charges wouldn't stick. Because that's not how legal causality works.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
So I can get a year in prison for having a joint on my person, but I can invade someone's privacy and become the cause of their death and just suffer a month? Interesting how that works.
Seems like a reasonable sentence to me. As stupid, and intolerant, as what he did was and as severe as the consequences were there's nothing gained by excessive punishment. Would a longer prison sentence really act as a deterrent to similar behaviour? Isn't a criminal record, the court process he's been through, a month in prison and having to live with the consequences of his actions enough for doing something stupid and not considering how bad the consequences might be?
Some poor bastard has already lost his life. Another has pretty much ruined his. Sticking someone in prison longer doesn't make any of that better; it's just an expensive way to cause more suffering.
It's no different than secretly filming your roommate having straight sex. The only difference is that one is frowned upon more, and that is society's fault, not the individual who recorded him's fault. And reacting to something society disapproves of via suicide is a lack of proper coping skills. Did the guy even seek help? Probably not. Cowardly. Of course people are mad. This is sad. But it's not direct action. It's a bunch of shitty shit that happened.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
because if you secretly record straight sex, it's invasion of privacy, but if you secretly record gay sex, it's a hate crime?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
On the other hand, thirty days in jail is not the whole sentence. From the article:
In addition to jail, Judge Berman sentenced Mr. Ravi to three years’ probation, 300 hours of community service, counseling about cyberbullying and alternate lifestyles, and a $10,000 probation fee, to be used to help victims of bias crimes.
I'd make some remark about how I feel about the appropriateness of the sentence, but I don't know squat about anyone involved here. I'll presume that the judge, who was much better informed than I, knew what he was doing.
I think "a little worse" was meant to be sarcastic. It's a lot worse.
Here is a more complete listing of it's legality in different countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation
In the US it used to be illegal in many states, but not so much anymore.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
There were tons of mitigating circumstances including the parents of the dead boy publicly saying they didn't want the young man to suffer a harsh sentence or extended jail time. One life lost was enough. A sentence of over a year would have almost certainly meant deportation for a young man who has never known a home other than the United States. He also has to receive counseling and pay $10,000 towards a program to prevent hate crimes.
Of course lawyers on both sides are unhappy, one side wanting exoneration, the other wanting public human sacrifice. This is a tough one. The kid did something terrible and it had an impact that can never fully be reconciled. That said, it was a stupid, childish, thoughtless action for a kid, and if we crushed every young person who committed such an action we'd have about 12 Stepford Children walking around to send cards to the rest of our children in permanent detention. I know I did some rather profoundly stupid things when I was his age and I hurt some innocent people's feelings. Thank goodness, the harm wasn't permanent, and I could clean up the mess I made. I don't have a clue how I'd deal with what he's facing.
Pretty certain if I was video taping two people having sex that'd put me on the sex offender registry
LOL that would put a hell of a lot of professional cameramen from the pr0n industry in prison. Also a lot of CCTV watching security guards. I think you meant to add "without their permission in a private space".. Is it wrong to record people without their permission when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy?(admittedly banging away in front of a laptop, for anyone aware of their surroundings and born after 1950 or so, that's not very reasonable anymore, is it?) Coincidentally, looking at the charges...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The whole idea of "hate crime" is pretty ridiculous anyway.
If you assault someone because you hate gays/minorities/etc, why is that worse than assaulting someone because you hate them individually? It just reinforces the idea that we should treat certain groups of people differently. Is that really the best way to address prejudice in society?
Does anyone really think some dumb asshole bigot is going to think "there are hate crime laws I better not commit this crime"?
You are talking about things you don't know nothing about. There is a major difference between secretly filming gay sex and straight sex between someone. Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.
And don't start talking about coping skills. These people aren't the ones without coping skills, it's the ones around them. How do I know? Because I am currently dating a shemale. I really cute and loving one, mind you. But I cannot tell this to my parents. Hell, I cannot even think how it would be if I was in the position to tell my parents that I wanted to be other gender.
These issues are real, especially in western countries. I had to move around the world because I cannot be what I am in where I was born. So stop the bullshit about 'coping skills'.
My best friend spent 90 days in jail for DUI, but his drinking and driving never caused anyone's death. Seems like 30 days in jail for causing someone to commit suicide is pretty light in comparison.
You seem to be living in the fantasy world that everyone is strong and should be able to take punishment.
People are weak. They don't know how to cope. But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected. We should be outraged that this poor gay kid was driven to suicide.
This case is different that secretly filming your roommate having straight sex for exactly those reasons. Dharum Ravi exploited Tyler Clementi when he spied on him. He exploited his fears and insecurities.
Don't consider crimes like black boxes. The entire circumstances matter. The motives matter. Society had a role, no doubt. Tyler Clementi lamented that people on Ravi's twitter feed were disgusted by Clementi's relationship but not one of them called out Ravi and said that what he was doing was wrong. More than anything else, this is probably what drove him to suicide. He saw people unanimously disgusted by him with no defenders or anyone who opposed his privacy being violated. He had no faith that even if he changed roommates that conditions would get better. Think about that before you call him a coward again you fucking asshole.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Prior to 2003, he would have been reporting a crime in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, or Virginia.
Depends on intent. If you recorded the former with intent to jack off to it later, that's invasion of privacy. If you did so with the intent to blackmail a subset of the participants, that's, well, blackmail. If you recorded gay sex with the intent to out a subset of the participants as being gay, intending further to mock them, discriminate against them, or whatever else in an atmosphere where such proclivities are frowned upon, that's a hate crime.
I once tried to crash at a large new year's party in a room where there was also a girl present. She would not sleep in the same room because I might "try something" (which was ridiculous, but she was a christian). So anyway, if she had said, "That means I need to watch my pussy", does that mean she's heterophobic and it's a bias statement?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Sometimes the victims didn't handle it well.
Am I bad for being a tiny little bit happy when I hear these stories? Just tiny bit not a lot? Like some chick got teased on the internet so she hung herself and I'm thinking, luckily for me, because 10 years later I'd probably dump her or steal "her" parking spot or not hold the door open for her like a gentleman should or decline to purchase a drink for her at the local watering hole and then being obviously ridiculously unstable she'd blame me and blow her brains out and I'd have to feel guilty for the rest of my life about it, even though what I did wasn't really all that awful (come on chick, find another parking spot?), so if there is a tiny silver lining to this at least someone other than me is feeling guilty? Almost like they did a community service?
Like this dude, OK he did some other dude, didn't want people to know, despite the fact that most civilized people don't really care and in this modern era you don't have to care about the uncivilized people who do care, so now he's dead. If this didn't happen, I can just imagine this dude got a job working with me, and some day in a staff meeting in front of everyone I'm all like "dude, you totally made a picket fence error in your for loop making it crash when it hits an uninitialized array element" and then, being about as stable as a plutonium atom fattened up with an extra neutron or two, dude walks into his cube, blames me for ruining his life (so he claims, anyway) and blows his head off, and then I've gotta go thru the rest of my life feeling guilty for calling out a dude for having the wrong end condition in a for loop. I can totally see this happening, and I just don't personally want to deal with unstable people blowing up, its just not my thing.
Its kinda like when you hear about a suicide where somebody jumps in front of a car, and you're like "sucks to be that guy, but at least they didn't jump in front of my car, because that would really suck for me".
I don't feel any ill will toward the guy who offed himself for no good reason, other then him being a remarkably amazingly poor role model for other kids dealing with bad feelings. I'm just glad he's not around so I could get blamed for him offing himself. Unstable means its gonna blow up sooner or later and murphy's law its gonna happen around me, so...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
A white gang and a black gang killing each other isn't a hate crime, but a white man killing blacks for being blacks or a black man killing whites for being white is. Hate crime and terrorism have a lot in common, in both cases it's not just about your direct victims but about all the people you intimidate. It's not just one murder, it's a message that the next black person that shows up will suffer the same. It's a message that the next gay person will suffer the same. It's a message that the next person who gets up and uses his freedom of speech will get a bullet to the brain. That more than puts a little cramp in your freedoms.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
..and you seem to be defending a world where everyone should shed their protective layers and bond in some kind of emotional orgy.. That's the trend in culture nowadays and it's bad for us in the long run. it's what breeds this kind of extreme behavior in the first place, from suicide, to columbine. People have become vats of nitroglycerine, ready to go off at the smallest jab. People NEED to handle this better.. and, no, talking about your feelings and 'expressing your feminine side' doesn't work very well for guys, but, of course, everything is judged by feminine ideals nowadays...
people are weak. they should strive to be stronger than that and the culture should support this.. they don't know how to cope because we make sure we beat the spine out of 'em by the time they enter 6th grade, under the guise of 'preventing violence,' and promoting 'tolerance.' All it really does is is breed passive aggressive behavior, in both bullies and the bullied. this has a major role in both ravi's and clementi's behavior.
if you want privacy, don't have sex in a shared dorm room. I do'nt know what else to say.. This is just pragmatic, tactical logic. seriously, if there's a camera or a computer in the room, make sure it's off.
You are talking about things you don't know nothing about. There is a major difference between secretly filming gay sex and straight sex between someone. Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.
The only way to have a society without discrimination is to treat everyone indiscriminately. That applies to the law, as well.
i still don't see how it is more severe cause he was gay. if the fact that he was gay somehow was left out of the article, the majority of you would be like "yep, thats college. now does he get straight a's cause his roommate died?"
How do I know? Because I am currently dating a shemale. I really cute and loving one, mind you.
And I'm sure that she just loves being called a shemale, too! Never mind that every transgendered person I've ever met has generally considered the term to be pretty damn derogatory.
Secretly videotaping interracial sex is just as bad. How do I know? Because I'm currently dating a nigger. I really cute and loving one, mind you.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
The sticks and stones thing works up until you introduce the video. It is not hard to imagine how a video like this could be used for blackmail and even the idea of it being leaked could be devastating to just about anyway. Idk about you, but I would not just shrug off the idea of a video of me in that sort of compromised situation being seen by everyone on my dorm room floor (much less parents, etc.).
Secretly filming your roommate having gay sex is a little worse than just saying something random and mean on slashdot.
If I were to overreact like that, I would have been dead by now, several times over. Somehow I don't think that I would want anyone to be punished for my own instability, though.
That is a weaselly statement. Ravi isn't being punished for Tyler Clementi's instability. He is being punished for spying on him, trying to destroy evidence, and trying to coordinate statements with a witness. He is guilty as sin for all of those crimes.
But even if he were being punished for causing Clementi's suicide, he had to have known that he was selecting an extremely vulnerable victim. He knew that Clementi was a loner and semi-closeted and was afraid of being open about it--and then he exploited him. If he were to be charged with the hypothetical crime of pushing this poor gay kid to suicide, then he wouldn't be punished for Clementi's instability. He would instead be punished for exploiting it.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Hate crimes were invented during the civil rights era, both out of recognition that certain kinds of crimes were very much intended as attacks against whole communities and, at least so far as Federal legislation goes, to give Federal authorities some ability to prosecute such crimes where state authorities were frequently much less willing to pursue such criminals.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's also pretty weird that for some reason or another colleges don't give their students privacy. I know this is the case in China because students are dirt poor (or used to be). However, in the US I would have thought the situation to be a bit better. We had a national debate in The Netherlands about forcing two prisoners in a cell (bad idea btw). Forcing students to give up their privacy for years seems... 3rd worldish. Or was this done specifically to make sure there's no privacy and thus no sex amongst students? Does anyone need insight in how stupid that would be?
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected.
.....and the government is going to be the one to do that, huh?
Maybe I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS being spent to "protect" a weakling, by punishing the strong.
If we continue to coddle weak mindedness in our society, the only possible outcome will be our eventual downfall, and enslavement to a society which chose another path.
Bullshit. Picking on gay kids makes society weak. Our society will be much stronger when that type of behavior is minimized.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
If I killed a guy with 10 kids, I affected his whole family by removing their main source of income. ...you still want to travel down that rabbit hole?
If I killed the only oncologist in a small city, I affected everyone in that city who has cancer.
If I killed a guy who would have otherwise invented cheap FTL space travel had he lived, I affected the whole frickin' human race.
Long story short - it does not work that way. Otherwise, you place one behavior or characteristic as being more valuable than any other.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No. The prosecution offered a plea deal of no jail time and recommending against deportation that was rejected by Dharun Ravi because he refused to accept guilt.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Maybe I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS being spent to "protect" a weakling, by punishing the strong. If we continue to coddle weak mindedness in our society, the only possible outcome will be our eventual downfall, and enslavement to a society which chose another path.
So protecting minorities like Alan Turing (homosexual) or Einstein (Jew) from persecution would result in no benefits to our society?
I read the entire article you linked to, and he did far more than what you write. He was a bigot and he tried to cover up what he did to Clementi, only because of Clementi's homosexuality.
The bastard should have gotten more jail time than he did. Bigotry should be unacceptable in this day and time, and things are slowly changing, but when someone does what Ravi did, [b]they deserve to pay[/b]. He may not have been directly responsible for Clementi's death, but he sure pushed him much closer towards the edge.
If he had "turned on his webcam, saw his roommate kissing [a girl], turned it off", do you think things would have happened the way they did? Do you think Clementi would be dead today?
FC Closer
I'm pretty sure only the warrior caste needs to be strong.
Off-handedly, are you a Cardassian?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Fight hate the way the Southern Poverty Law Center does it: through civil law. Imposing huge monetary fines and loss of assets actually does a whole lot more to bring down hatred than incarceration. Look at the decimation of some racist and militia-style hate groups where their assets were seized and turned over to the victim. Without a hate pulpit to preach from, these groups dissolve and disband. Anti-hate laws do little to curb the behavior - you have to hit'em in the wallet to stop it.
No. That is stupid solution to the problem. Our culture should support acceptance (when not hurting others) and not tolerate maljustice and abuse.
I don't think you have ever seen a person who had the grace, courage, and understanding to accept persecution without any kind of emotional reaction. It makes the bully look stupid and embarasses them thoroughly. It creates a contrast between real strength versus the insecurity the bully is trying to cover up by acting tough. Whereas if you fall into the emotional trap laid by the bully, his way works and you look weak while he looks dominant.
If you have never seen this, or better if you have never demonstrated it yourself, you really have no clue how powerful it is. It is not the simple "just take it" and it is not the simple "ignore him hoping he goes away" type of doormat behavior you might be imagining. It's more like being able to walk up to the bully and tell him right to his face how pathetic he is, calmly, and watch him back down with his tail between his legs even if he's much bigger than you.
The bully depends on your reaction to get the energy he needs. Deprive him of that and he's like an engine with no fuel. Believing me on this is not good enough and you'll probably end up in a fistfight if you do it without understanding. You have to see it yourself.
The solution is to lock up people who wish to harm others.
Who wish to harm others? Sir, you are advocating that we prosecute thoughtcrimes. I don't really need to explain why that's a bad idea, do I?
I am sorry that you're so thoroughly identified with being some kind of "outcast" that you cannot separate a rational look at the situation from your emotional knee-jerking and desire for vengence against someone who probably has a lot in common with those who have tormented you. It's like you're still reliving what you went through instead of overcoming it and being better for having endured it. That's too bad.
That also means you're unfit to form a solid, well-founded opinion about this until you stop feeling like a victim and identifying with people who are victims. There are good reasons why judges and other professionals are expected to recuse themselves from cases to which they have emotional attachments. As I like to say, if you want to throw someone a rope you must first make sure you're standing on higher ground. That's why identifying with them will never help them. All you could ever do with that method is teach them to be "better" victims (i.e. become more so).
If every single transgendered person were pesecuted ruthlessly with grave cruelty, that would still do less harm to society than implementing thoughcrimes. You're trying to cure the disease by shooting the patient in the face. That's not so good for the patient. If you care so much about transgendered people, gay people, or any other people, you don't want them to live under the thumb of an Orwellian government.
People in general tend to act nicely towards others.
If by that you mean a phony sort of "niceness" that is not real kindness, okay, but what good is it? Most people are only "nice" because they want to obligate you to like them and make them feel like good people. If they were truly good people they wouldn't need you to feel that way. They'd treat you with kindness and dignity whether or not you appreciated it because it would come from who they are, not who you are.
Instead, every chance they get, most people find opportunity to do something thoughtless, inconsiderate, careless, or something irritating that needles you. Or they'll take some liberty to push you and see if you'll stand up to them -- if you don't they assert a false superiority, and if you do they act hurt.
These kinds of constant, childish games where the object of the game is to puff up with pride and look down your nose at other people is what most human
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If he had some reason to suspect the victim would take it badly, then YES. It speaks to the level of malice. And in this case, he would have to be a drooling moron to not realize it could go badly.
or is it whenever i see "legal" analysis on slashdot i see tons of posts by people who don't consider the notion of intent
is it a psychological thing?
that is, the relationship between aspergers syndrome and technological inclination is well-established, this is a tech site, aspergers renders one unable to appreciate and take into account other minds at work out there outside of your own. and just because you aren't clinically diagnosed with aspergers doesn't mean you aren't somewhere along the spectrum of a mild inability to have a decreased capacity to have a good working model of "theory of mind" going on in your head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
anyway, this is just a long-winded way of saying: INTENT. understand it, please
if you judge other's actions, or develop an opinion of other's actions without applying or appreciating the concept of intent, at least understand that the rest of the world will consider your opinion invalid, if you can't understand yourself why intent is important
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hate crimes have a very real distinction. They're intended to intimidate a subset of your community, that's why they're elevated. If that doesn't make sense to you, consider that we have at least 4 standards for the fundamentally same crime of taking a life; accidental death(?), manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, and 1st degree murder.
And, contrary to popular belief, a hate crime doesn't mean killing a minority. It's a very difficult legal bar to reach.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Did I run your dog over because I hate you, or because it ran into the street and I couldn't react?
Did you film someone having sex as a prank, or because you wanted to fuck up their entire life by exposing their sexual proclivities?
The only difference that the law should make is whether the act was intentional or not; the precise motive behind the intent is not relevant. Just like murder vs manslaughter. So whether you wanted to film it as a prank or to "out" doesn't matter - so long as you filmed with intent to causing harm by publishing it, that's the crime; it shouldn't matter whether the person so filmed is gay or not.
Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.
Indeed, but it's worth remembering that there are plenty of places in the world where the social stigma of being filmed having heterosexual sex would likely lead one of the partners to suicide.
Antiguan Girl Attempts Suicide After Sex Tape Leak
Yang Qi Han Attempts Suicide For Sex Video
Officer videoed having sex on duty attempt suicide
It just reinforces the idea that we should treat certain groups of people differently.
I'm having serious issues wrapping my head around this backwards logic.
You haven't even really made an argument at all and blindly asserting a claim is not the same as supporting it.
Why don't you tell us why assault based on gender/sexual orientation/race is not worse than regular old violence
Perhaps you just don't understand the history of civil right and hate crime laws?
The law has always been neutral toward crime, but enforcement of the law was not.
Minorities were being murdered, justice was not being done, and tension would build.
Communities became embroiled in violence, leading to retaliation, leading to more violence.
There are strong reasons behind enhancing the punishment for certain crimes over others.
Maybe some day we won't need those laws, but America is still struggling with basic things like equality for all.
Is that really the best way to address prejudice in society?
I can't say for sure that we've come up with the best way to address prejudice in society,
but nothing else we've tried has worked and I don't see you putting forward any alternatives.
Does anyone really think some dumb asshole bigot is going to think "there are hate crime laws I better not commit this crime"?
Not really but it sends a message that, as a society, we will not tolerate such odious behavior in our midst.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
There is nothing "strong" about what this guy did.
It is like the way American black people often call each other "nigga". A black person saying it is assumed not to have racist intent. If a white guy goes up to a black stranger and says "wassup nigga!" that really might be perceived as racist.
This is true but shouldn't be. It's either OK or not. It shouldn't matter what race says it. If you determine whether it's OK or not by the color of the persons skin, then that's being racist.
Well yeah. We didn't eliminate institutionalized racism. We just made it politically useful.
Elections these days demand isolated groups who feel persecuted by the other groups, so they demand protection that politicians are only too happy to provide. That's how one wing does it. The other wing demands fearful people who feel threatened by a foreign enemy with unpronouncable names and unknown languages, so they demand protection that politicians are ony too happy to provide.
The professional manipulators who engineer elections depend on one thing: that you will be a sucker for one of these tactics or the other. They really don't like people who can see through both of them. Those people must be marginalized. They must never be given media time or any other solid representation. They are a threat to the status quo.
This is statecraft. Please stop celebrating it and pretending like it's noble. I know that makes some feel patriotic, like some of that nobility transfers to them because they approve of it, but it's a lie. Find your own identity.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The penalty shouldn't be higher just because the victim happens to be gay, but because the guy did it specifically because the victim was gay.
What he did was wrong...but c'mon....everyone does stupid shit when they are in HS and college...and hell, even well into your 20's...especially men.
Just because someone is so fragile, that they can't handle some embarrassment...and decides to off themselves, should in no way constitute a lengthy and harsh penalty for this young man.
What he did, probably necessitates a fine,and some community services....I'm guessing he broke some sort of law for illegal video (I know that wasn't even against the law till not that long ago in the state of LA)...but that gay kids death is not on his hands at all.
Embarrassing? Yes. Possibly open to civil suits (if said kid hadn't killed himself), Yes. But prison? No way.
If this kid was so unstable that this act put him over the edge...who's to say what else could have done it...or what else was in addition to this that pushed him over the edge.
Some people are weak, and prone to that type of behavior. That's life, but no reason to ruin this young man's life over nothing more than a bad choice of pranks gone wrong.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your logic would re-legalize all kinds of discrimination.
On the contrary, it would make all kinds of discrimination equally illegal.
The intent behind refusing to seat someone in your restaurant would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to allow someone to attend your school would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to rent someone an apartment would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to loan a family money to buy a house in a certain neighborhood would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to employ someone would not be relevant.
Note that none of these is illegal unless the intent is to deny members of protected classes.
Which is a problem. If that kind of discrimination is still a real problem in US (is it?), then it should be plainly illegal to deny this kind of thing to anyone without a good reason, regardless of whether they belong to a "protected class" or not.
Frankly, the very term "protected class" is a slap in the face of equality. The moment you start drawing arbitrary lines between individuals and segregate them into "classes" of any kind, any pretense of equality goes out of the window. There's no such thing as "positive discrimination" - when someone gets preferential treatment, that's just a politically correct way of saying that others get less. The notion that classes should get "the same baseline of opportunity" is ridiculous on its face; it's people who should get that, and the only way you can do it is by refusing to categorize them into classes in the first place, and treating any case of unwarranted discrimination equally.
If someone gets beat to shit because they are an asshole, I can avoid the same fate by not being an asshole.
If someone is beat to shit because of their skin color, I cannot change my skin color to avoid the same fate.
Oh look. A clueless fucktard heterosexual. HOW SURPRISING.
Did anyone force him to be gay? YES. It's a genetic predisposition. Nobody chooses to be the target of frat-boys and jock-boys. Nobody chooses to be the target of screaming maniacs who justify their hate in the name of Jesus. Nobody chooses to play the role that Jews played in the 30's (complete with people like Ravi who intend only misery and death to their targets).
People like you, who obviously believe that gays are their personal punching bags and rightful targets of ridicule, are why these laws exist. You think it's okay to abuse others over their orientation. The law says it's not (though this 30-day sentence makes me think that dealing with people like Ravi with a noose rather than a judge is much more appropriate... if the courts won't defend gays, then gays must defend themselves by any means necessary). It's people like you who are the reason I carry a gun.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Maybe the person was really lynching the guy wearing flip flops, who just happened to be black!
That's a pretty lame example, but sure, in some fantasy world in which people lynch people for wearing flip flops, then yes, that would be a hate crime. No one should have to live in fear of wearing certain footwear. If someone grabs you in the parking lot and starts stomping the shit out of you while screaming about your bad fashion sense, that person is committing a hate crime.
Should a completely secular serial killer be let off easy, simply because "hey, at least he/she didn't target a specific group"?
They're not being let off easy, they're just not getting an additional penalty heaped on top. It's just like there's an extra penalty for using a handgun in the commission of a felony. If someone commits murder with a knife, you don't say they're getting off easy.
Do the police not protect black people? Do the courts refuse to take on cases against black people?
They do, and hate crime laws are a part of that protection. And guess what, hate crime laws protect white, straight men as well! You'd never know it, getting your world view exclusively from Rupert Murdoch, but people do get charged with hate crimes for targeting white people. I recall a case around Seattle a few years back where some guy got beat up, burned with cigarettes, and left in an alley by a couple of black guys who were calling him a cracker and all that. They got charged with a hate crime. So drop the "white men are the most victimized group" crap. Rush just says all that to stroke your ego.
It seems to me to be the opposite.
Look at similar cases. A guy in Ohio videotapes a woman in the shower in his own house, and he gets 7 years and has to register as a sex offender.
This guy videotapes gays and gets 30 days.
If there was favoritism towards gays, this guy would have gotten more than 30 days...
A man died as a direct result of this douche bag's actions.
There are a lot of things wrong with what he did, but calling it a "direct result" is misleading.
A man died as a direct result of this douche bag's actions.
There are a lot of things wrong with what he did, but calling it a "direct result" is misleading.
Misleading? - It's plain wrong!
There are countless suicides every year linking to direct bullying, and it's beyond rare that someone actually gets prosecuted for it. There was no bullying or blackmail involved here as far as I know. There was just a recording of a sexual act. There's no direct link to the suicide so I'd have acquitted the guy completely for the suicide but of course convicted for the invasion of privacy.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
+1. "Hate crime" is a very media-tinged description of the law. The actual laws are not based on the "emotion" of hate at all - they are called "bias intimidation". They are meant to address the crimes that are meant to intimidate a large group of people through a smaller crime. The classic example is a burning cross in a yard - a crime which is similar to TP-ing (toilet papering) a person's yard in terms of property damage, but has implications and damage to a community well beyond the personal property damage of the victim.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.