<p>There’s also the fact that Clementi’s family would likely have a very good case against the two in civil court.</p>
<p>And the fact that whenever they apply for jobs, this story’s gonna come up when an employer searches their name.</p>
<p>They make me sick. They deserve everything they get. Nice people do not belittle other people.
In many situations, all it takes to stop bullying is for one person to stand up. While Molly is </p>
<h2>not “as close” to the crime, what if she had just said no? That is what a “nice” person would do. ~oldbate</h2>
<p>I believe they should get what they deserve, but what some people are saying they deserve is insane. </p>
<p>We don’t prosecute people for not being nice…if so, all of us would be in jail at some point in our lives.</p>
<p>This same prank could have been pulled on a guy making out with his girlfriend and no one would have said anything about it.</p>
<p>Apparently the prosecutor is trying to tack on bias discrimination to the charges:</p>
<p>[Tyler</a> Clementi’s Family Hopes Death Will Be Call for Compassion - ABC News](<a href=“Tyler Clementi's Family Hopes Son's Death Will Serve as Call for Compassion - ABC News”>Tyler Clementi's Family Hopes Son's Death Will Serve as Call for Compassion - ABC News)</p>
<p>I think this will probably be like the Phoebe Prince case <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Phoebe_Prince[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Phoebe_Prince</a> in that while they can’t pin manslaughter charges on the accused, they’ll go for the strongest punishments for the crimes they can most definitely pin.</p>
<p>“Not really Tiff. People have an expectation of privacy, especially in their own dwelling. It’s like if you were getting changed (naked) and your roommate broadcasted your image to friends.”</p>
<p>I guess you are not familiar with constitutional law. The “right to privacy” is a penumbra of enumerated rights, and was created in several cases, most notably Griswold and Roe v Wade. Constitutional rights are protected by the courts against the governments. That is common knowledge. Just because something is “expected” does not mean it’s a right (welfare and health care come to mind). The point I am making is they shared a room. Sharing a room means you do not have a full expectation of privacy, period. Yeah, what he did was wrong. I am not arguing that. The point I am making is constitutional rights are protected against the government, not individuals. </p>
<p>Actually, I was never naked in my room. I always changed in common spaces because my roommate was strange. I had no expectation of privacy when dwelling with another person.</p>
<p>I understand what the issue is, he was taped unknowingly. However, I think the fact that he agreed to share a room with another person lowers the level of privacy. Regardless, rights are related to the government, and protections you have against the government. The right to privacy people are referring to has no bearing on the issue at hand. It was a right created by the courts. Laws may forbid violations or privacy, but that is another issue entirely.</p>
<p>^ This is a state law issue.</p>
<p>Privacy laws vary from state to state and it’s pretty clear this is a violation of state law.</p>
<p>Remember, you need special warrants just to tap someones phone to record a vocal conversation, let alone video tape them unknowingly in their own dwelling, then broadcasting it publicly.</p>
<p>If the deceased would have been making out with his bf in a public area, it would be different. He would then have no expectation of privacy, but in his own dwelling, this is certainly a violation.</p>
<p>Just because you share a room doesn’t change that. He was alone, in his own dwelling and that alone grants him the proper expectation not to be recorded.</p>
<p>This is a modern day version of Peeping-Tom issues.</p>
<p>People on here were misguided in their belief in a right to privacy. Obviously some people on here do not know the origins of the “right.” </p>
<p>Yeah, he is wrong, but he will not face any serious legal issues other than maybe expulsion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>are you trying to put the blame on tyler??? and are you comparing daily sins with 3rd degree murder??? even if tyler were still alive, does that make Molly a good person??? are you freaking kidding me?</p>
<p>Also, I’m going to assume that Tyler probably believed that his roommate and Molly were his friends. It’s one thing to get punk’d by some d1ck you don’t know. It’s an entirely different thing if you get betrayed by people you thought were your friends!</p>
<p>People on here were misguided in their belief in a right to privacy. Obviously some people on here do not know the origins of the “right.” </p>
<h2>Yeah, he is wrong, but he will not face any serious legal issues other than maybe expulsion. ~ Tiff90</h2>
<p>Look up New Jersey’s State law regarding privacy laws. </p>
<p>You are wrong…this isn’t a constitutional issue, it’s a state law issue, and in this case it was violated.</p>
<p>[Invasion</a> of Privacy - New Jersey Criminal Laws - Samuel Sachs, Esq.](<a href=“http://www.samsachs.com/crimlaws/2c_14-9.shtml]Invasion”>http://www.samsachs.com/crimlaws/2c_14-9.shtml)</p>
<p>2C:14-9. Invasion of Privacy, Degree of Crime, Defenses, Privileges. </p>
<ol>
<li>a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.</li>
</ol>
<p>b.An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.</p>
<p>c.An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, “disclose” means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.</p>
<p>Good luck arguing that a reasonable person would expect to be observed by a 3rd party while alone in their own dwelling.</p>
<p>I agree that the punishment may be less than what some people are calling for, but your notions of privacy is ridiculous. You’d be laughed out of every court room in America with your arguments.</p>
<p>in some states, the cause of another’s suicide is considered 3rd degree murder.</p>
<p>Dharun didn’t tape it. It was livestream. The legal question is the state laws only prohibited recording, and not live streaming.</p>
<p>True ISUClub. That’s what worries me. Molly admitted her involvement in the case and went to the police herself, thus she gained “recognizance” ATM. On the other hand I believe Dharun was arrested by the polices.</p>
<p>What worries me is that Molly might face addiitonal charges. She is a very bright girl and very considerate. I suppose college life makes her think she can do stupid thing. </p>
<p>This is not the first incident we are reading. A few years ago a very young girl (I believe she was 13, 14) also committed suicide because her friends posted her naked pictures on the net.</p>
<h2>Dharun didn’t tape it. It was livestream. The legal question is the state laws only prohibited recording, and not live streaming. ~ Jwxie</h2>
<p>It doesn’t need specifically state streaming, however, streaming is still in fact recording…as a persons image is being recorded and sent via a feed. The fact that the image isn’t being saved is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Also, if you read below, you will see the nuts and bolts of the law is meant to prevent the distribution of an image, which clearly happened here. </p>
<p>If you want to argue that a stream isn’t a recording, fine. You won’t get far with it, but go ahead, because it doesn’t matter. If you read the last line below it clearly says, “Or any other reproduction of the image of another person.”</p>
<p>“c.An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person”, which a stream obviously falls under.</p>
<p>If you read through the law, I’m pretty sure this falls under a crime of the fourth degree.</p>
<p>From what I know, no nudity was shown (could be wrong), but a reasonable person would believe that it MAY HAPPEN, which is cited 1.a.</p>
<p>However, if the prosecutors decide that making out is a sexual act, they could be looking at a third degree.</p>
<p>Especially when you combine it with the fact that the image was reproduced - to a crowd no less on the internet.</p>
<p>Honestly, given the pressure that the accused kids are facing, I wouldn’t be surprised if they too committed suicide down the road…</p>
<p>Even the governor of New Jersey remarked yesterday how he wonders those two can sleep at night, given the circumstances they are under.</p>
<p>I urge for clemency, on part of Tyler’s family, and the general public. Spewing more vitriol or tacking on more charges isn’t going to help matters. However, punishments must still be netted out. I propose the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>The perpetrators should be expelled from Rutgers.</li>
<li>They should be tried and given suspended sentences. (No, I don’t think they should go to jail.)</li>
<li>As part of their punishment, they should attend anti-discrimination workshops and do plenty of community service. </li>
<li>They should be allowed to matriculate to another university and be re-integrated into society after the three conditions above are satisfied. </li>
</ol>
<p>We’ve already lost one young man. Why toss another two into the gutter with him?</p>
<p>I agree Geast. The bottom line is how much information can the prosecutors gather. If I am correct there is no way that these live-streaming images can be found anywhere now.</p>
<p>If it was indeed streaming - and no evidences of recording has been found, they cannot be charged for that matter.
Correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>@XX55XX
They both definitely can’t stay in Rutgers, since the whole student body will not welcome them to come back, except their own best friends.</p>
<p>I think Dhaurn really should be held for criminal charges, where Molly, should not. Although she’s my friend, I believe what she did was absolutely unacceptable. But given how humans are - we always make mistakes, she should not be charged. She, however, will continue to suffer in guilt.</p>
<p>I am curious as to the nature of Tyler’s “guest”. The media hasn’t revealed this man’s name yet, and it doesn’t seem likely that they would investigate who Tyler’s lover was. I hope the authorities interview this person properly and evaluate his role in Tyler’s death. </p>
<p>I’ve been reading Tyler’s last forum posts. They do not seem to be the product of a person who’s about to commit suicide… in fact… they appeared to be the product of a very lucid and rational mind…</p>
<p>I theorize that the “spying” is not the root cause of Tyler’s suicide, though it did play a significant factor. I suspect that his lover may have left Tyler after realizing that he and Tyler were being taped when they were having sex. Tyler was probably upset by such a breakup and committed suicide because of it. </p>
<p>However, even with this theory at play, Dharun and Molly are still responsible for what they did.</p>
<p>I agree Geast. The bottom line is how much information can the prosecutors gather. If I am correct there is no way that these live-streaming images can be found anywhere now.</p>
<p>If it was indeed streaming - and no evidences of recording has been found, they cannot be charged for that matter.</p>
<h2>Correct me if I am wrong. ~ Jwxie</h2>
<p>OK, you are wrong.</p>
<p>First, it doesn’t matter if the images can now be found. It has been admitted by the suspects and other viewers that it happened, so reproducing them is meaningless. It’s not in dispute wether or not they existed.</p>
<p>Also, your notion that “no evidence of the recording can be found” is incredibly naive.</p>
<p>Computer forensics can easily analyze the computers hard drive and show when the webcam was turned on, how long it recorded, and when the feed was terminated. They could also do the same with every computer that viewed the cam. </p>
<p>So besides the admissions from the suspects and the other viewers, there will be plenty of evidence to show that the webcam was transmitting. Lets not forget that the main suspect also tweeted publicly that the images were being shown, and invited others to watch.</p>
<p>I will again paste the law, for you to re-read.</p>
<p>“An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person”</p>
<p>The suspect took a reproduction of the deceased image (via webcam) and then disclosed it to a third party without authorization, while the person was in the privacy of their own dwelling, which provides an expectation of privacy. </p>
<p>Then add the fact that the deceased was involved in an intimate act (sexual act) and you can see how blatantly the law was violated.</p>
<p>Note: Please don’t start a flame war/thread jack/use offensive language due to what Im about to say but, as someone possibly studying sociology, I must ask, how do you think the fact that the 2 accused are Indian and Chinese, respectively? </p>
<p>Also, I haven’t really brushed up on the case and Im curious as to what exactly Wei is being charged with. I know Ravi videotaped and streamed the incident, but Im not clear as to what Wei did as an accomplice. Also, I do believe hate crime charges are warranted in this case.</p>
<p>Uhm I don’t really think much of it. If they were black and white or arab and hispanic I would still find it reprehensible.</p>
<p>@XX they’ll definitely be able to matriculate to another school. It’ll probably be a community college and then a four-year nobody’s heard of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that they are Indian and Chinese have no bearing on my opinions of this case. I don’t think race will play much of an issue here. Gay rights will.</p>