<p>I don’t know what to think about this verdict. I think we do need some settled case law about privacy and electronic media, for sure. But it might be better to get that settled case law on a less controversial trial?</p>
<p>I also think we used to say “boys will be boys” when young men had fights and now we call that assault and you can do jail time for that. So, our standards of acceptable treatment have changed over the years, and you have to allow for the fact that bullying is increasingly being seen for the crime it really is, and this is a good thing. I mean, there was a time when people believed boys could not be made to stop fighting on the playground, and now a fistfight on the playground would be kind of strange.</p>
<p>So, things can change.</p>
<p>I think this kid acted out at an intersection of gay rights/electronic privacy/bullying point which made him the author of his own demise. I also think the sentence is too harsh. Depression is a dangerous illness, unfortunately.</p>
<p>limabeans01:
Still wrong, as your tone implies, but wrong at a different level. Criminal charges are not only about the ultimate action but about the degrees of intent and harm. There is a difference of degree between 2 people viewing a 3 minute “feed” from a live webcam of 2 guys kissing with shirts off and posting a graphic sex tape on youtube. They may be gradations on a continuum but they are not the same thing. This story was reported as if the crime was the latter through confused semantics around “recording” and “posting”.</p>
<p>Until I read a more detailed account I believed it was the latter.</p>
<p>@rsingh13 You would expect any kid to do that?! Wow, glad to hear you think so highly of my generation.</p>
<p>I would NEVER think to do anything of the sort.</p>
<p>And that darn Tyler! How rude of him to kill himself solely so that his roommate would get in trouble! He should be more considerate next time he feels the need to off himself!</p>
<p>Also, even gay rights activists think this sentence is too harsh. </p>
<p>I’m very opposed to bullying and very much believe it should be treated in the same way assualt is treated. </p>
<p>But… I’m not sure this verdict is “right” when people convicted of harsher crimes get less time.</p>
<p>Certainly no one is claiming Ravi caused this suicide? Or is that the claim?</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of a parent put in prison for a child killing themselves, even if they were harsh with that same child that very day? This would be a new take on this, by far.</p>
<p>“What he did is what I would expect any other kid to do.” </p>
<p>this sort of mentality is just so sad beyond words…if we really believe that “kids will be kids”, even at 18, and they prove to us over and over and over again that they are not mature enough to make “adult” decisions (even at 18), perhaps it’s time to accept this, and stop the farce of treating them like adults once they turn 18, both with respect to how they are treated by the legal system and to the “adult” privileges they receive, especially given that science has shown that the brain does not fully mature until the early to mid-20s.</p>
<p>And perhaps it’s time to - literally - pull the plug on their acess to technology and the internet until they are at least in their 20s…“a few bad apples ruin it for the rest” and all that. Unfortunately there are apparently far too many bad apples and the consequences are more and more frequently far too serious.</p>
<p>(this is meant as sarcasm although, sadly, half serious too ;))</p>
<p>While I agree that Ravi should be punished for invasion of privacy, I don’t think there was any proof of “intimidation” or “bias intimidation”</p>
<p>Even the jury were confused by the terminology.</p>
<p>They acquitted Ravi of deliberately trying to intimidate Tyler Clementi, “because of” his sexual orientation on September 19, 2010, but found that Ravi invaded his roommate’s privacy “under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation.” </p>
<p>So really, they came to an inferred conclusion about Clementi’s state of mind</p>
<p>Saintfan. Believe what you want. So sad you do not see the inherent evil in what was done. So sad you don’t feel that setting up a webcam and then viewing what the victim thought was private is just what people do. Posting what he saw on twitter was no big deal. Attempting to set up a bigger group to watch 2 days later, again child’s play.</p>
<p>Guess the jury sided with my position. Rhavi wasn’t just a stupid teenager but a bully.</p>
<p>“So really, they came to an inferred conclusion about Clementi’s state of mind” </p>
<p>But juries are allowed to make such inferences under our legal system, if they are reasonable and based on the evidence. The success of an appeal may of course depend on whether there was sufficient factual evidence to reasonably lead to this inference…</p>
<p>Could one also reasonably infer that, even though Clementi was able to successfully “pull the plug” on the intended second webcab, at some point between then and that final moment on the bridge, he came to the realization that he would have to spend the rest of his life pulling out similar plugs, so to speak, and that this realization became unbearable for him. And perhaps he was right.</p>
<p>I think the punishment is too much myself. Clementi knew of the video taping and he should of stop having sex or initimate contact in the room. He should have waited for a new room. Both roommates have a right to safety and privacy.</p>
<p>This is no punishment yet, so I don’t know what folks are referring to.</p>
<p>He was found guilty of witness tampering, usually an aggravated felony. On that one alone, I think he should be deported. (I’d prefer they’d do that now, and save on the prison expense.) Non-citizens are often deported for much, much less.</p>
<p>Quote from limabean: “Saintfan. Believe what you want. So sad you do not see the inherent evil in what was done. So sad you don’t feel that setting up a webcam and then viewing what the victim thought was private is just what people do. Posting what he saw on twitter was no big deal. Attempting to set up a bigger group to watch 2 days later, again child’s play.”</p>
<p>Guess the jury sided with my position. Rhavi wasn’t just a stupid teenager but a bully.</p>
<hr>
<p>Nowhere in my comments have I stated or implied that Ravi’s actions were no big deal, just what people do or “child’s play.” I would hope that this is not “what people do” with reference to all the behavior in this case.</p>
<p>OK then, you can’t RECORD or otherwise DIGITALLY WATCH someone having having sex without their permission. Do you seriously not understand that? Because limabeans is right, this is really basic.</p>
<p>yes, there is no “punishment” yet since the sentencing is not until May. The jury was not allowed to consider what the punishment would/could be in reaching their verdict, just whether Ravi broke the law as it was explained to them by the court and as demonstrated through the evidence they were given of what actually happened. Ravi should have done a LOT of things differently but it is a little too late for would have/could have/should have’s.</p>
<p>If we do not like the “punishments” that exist for those who break our laws, it is up to us, the public, to bring about better legislation. NJ apparently feels that even the laws they already had were not enough since they passed further cyberbullying laws as a result of this case.</p>
<p>Again, I understand that the watching is also wrong and illegal and an invasion of privacy - recording or no recording - posting or no posting. My point is and has been that while both wrong they are still different. Posting implies that it was widely available on youtube or some other public outlet for everyone, anywhere to see. When the story was reported in the media the implication was the Ravi had recorded and posted the content so that it was widely available on a permanent basis. Opinions were formed based on that assumption.</p>
<p>One could also argue that because Clememti knew of the webcam and continued to engage in the behavior he was giving implied consent. I am not arguing this but there are shades to this scenario that are not captured in the common narrative.</p>
<p>""
He was found guilty of witness tampering, usually an aggravated felony""</p>
<p>Aggravated felony only exist in the world of immigration. Witness tampering is most definitely an offense that triggers an automatic deportation. There is no grey area in the reach of IIRIRA. </p>
<p>To escape deportation, the student would have needed a misdemeanor plea bargain. A real tragedy all around.</p>
<p>He unplugged the computer when he found out it was going to happen a second time, just a few days later. Does not sound like consent anymore, implied or otherwise, in fact it sounds like just the opposite, like someone saying, “enough is enough, this crosses the line.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, had Ravi just said “no” when Clementi asked IF IT WAS OK WITH RAVI if Clementi had someone over (which, arguably, is what most people or a “reasonable person” would have done), perhaps none of this would have happened and Clementi would still be alive. Ravi had all the control here to insure his own safety and privacy and chose to do something else. I suspect that this might be part of what troubled the jury.</p>
<p>On another note (literally), I thought there was something in one of the articles (perhaps the New Yorker one?) about a note that Clementi left in his backpack that was not revealed to his parents by the police at the time; was the contents of that note ever revealed during the trial?</p>
<p>"“Again, had Ravi just said “no” when Clementi asked IF IT WAS OK WITH RAVI if Clementi had someone over (which, arguably, is what most people or a “reasonable person” would have done), perhaps none of this would have happened and Clementi would still be alive. Ravi had all the control here to insure his own safety and privacy and chose to do something else. I suspect that this might be part of what troubled the jury.”"</p>
<p>While it is entirely speculative to think Clementi would not have committed suicide for other reasons, it is certain that Ravi should have sought different measures to bar his roommate from allowing access to unauthorized visitors to the dorm and sought to obtain better protection from the school. A school that seems to have been wrong on every count in this case.</p>