Rutgers student gets 30-day jail sentence in hate crime case

usamamasan1

Defense attorneys must love this judge. 30 days is a slap on the wrist, no?




A New Jersey judge sentenced a former Rutgers student to 30 days in jail for using a webcam to spy on his roommate kissing another man.

Dharun Ravi, 20, was convicted on two second-degree bias intimidation charges in a case that garnered national headlines because his roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide after the spying.

Clementi, 18, jumped from the George Washington Bridge three days after learning that a September 2010 encounter with an older man was seen by a computer-mounted camera Ravi had set up in their dorm room. The case highlighted the issues of gay bullying and teen suicide.

A jury in March convicted Ravi of hate crimes for spying on the encounter through a webcam, and for trying to get others to do the same when the man visited again. Ravi was not charged with causing Clementi's death.

Tyler Clementi's family asked the judge today to sentence Dharun Ravi to prison time.

The Associated Press reported that Clementi's father, Joseph Clementi, told the judge during the sentencing hearing, "One of Tyler's last actions was to check Ravi's Twitter page" and noted that his son checked his roommate's Twitter page 37 times before leaving the Rutgers campus and driving to the bridge where he jumped to his death.

Ravi did not speak during today's sentencing hearing.

The lead prosecutor in the case had asked for "a period of imprisonment" in her sentencing brief but according to Reuters did not seek the maximum 10-year sentence. The prosecution team wrote that Ravi "has failed to accept any degree of responsibility for the numerous criminal acts he committed, and shows no remorse for the same, despite significant evidence pointing directly at him."

Ravi's defense attorneys sought probation for Ravi, noting that he has no previous criminal record. The defense team also is appealing the verdict and seeking a new trial.

Before the sentencing, Ravi's parents and Clementi's parents each made appeals.

Ravi's parents attended a rally recently at New Jersey's State House in Trenton of several hundred supporters, many of them Indian or Indian-American, the Associated Press reported. The protesters said that Ravi, an Ultimate Frisbee player and computer whiz, should not have been convicted of hate crimes because he does not hate gay people and that prison is too harsh a punishment for someone who did not mean to hurt anyone, according to the AP.

His mother, Sabitha Ravi, aimed her words at journalists at the rally, saying that those who covered the trial should speak up against her son being sent to prison. "You were quiet there. Why don't you wake up now and bring some justice for Dharun?" she asked in the AP story.

The AP report said Clementi's parents have communicated mostly through written statements or by reading prepared statements after court proceedings. In one, they said they wanted Ravi to be held accountable but that he need not be subject to a "harsh" punishment.

They also told the AP they have started a foundation to honor their son and have talked about how he had come out as gay to them days before he started at Rutgers University

keeponrockin

I don't know how I feel about this case. The kid is a piece of shit, no doubt, but should the student's suicide be taken into consideration when sentencing? I guess where you fall on that issue decides what you think of the sentence. I don't really know where I stand on it, because if we start punishing individuals for others reaction to them, we set a very dangerous prescedent.

Still, the kid who filmed his room-mate is an absolute piece of garbage, I'm just not sure LEGALLY what can be done.

Jason P

Judging from the info provided from the trial, I'm surprised he was found guilty in the first place (especially in light of the casey anthony trial ... but i guess this aint florida). I'll spare the details, but go check it out if you want ... it differs a lot from the version the media initially provided (lied) to us.

This guy was judged by America via media that was more concerned with getting the first break on any new information instead of fact-checking.

The case highlights the dangers of social media and technology. We all judge, but I'm sure that if we were deep in a hole, there is probably a text or tweet that could be used by prosecution to paint an unfair picture of us. That said, in this case they couldn't find much to support this Ravi was a bigot or hate-monger.

I'm just glad that when I went to school the biggest social tech device around was the Super Nintendo in the dorm lobby.

catefrances

Jason P wrote:

...We all judge, but I'm sure that if we were deep in a hole, there is probably a text or tweet that could be used by prosecution to paint an unfair picture of us. ...

im not a saint... however there is neither a txt nor a tweet that exists in this world or the virtual world that would paint an unfair picture of me. anyone who doesnt understand that once they press send they lose all control of what they sent, is a fool... or at least naive.

Jason P

catefrances wrote:

Jason P wrote:

...We all judge, but I'm sure that if we were deep in a hole, there is probably a text or tweet that could be used by prosecution to paint an unfair picture of us. ...

im not a saint... however there is neither a txt nor a tweet that exists in this world or the virtual world that would paint an unfair picture of me. anyone who doesnt understand that once they press send they lose all control of what they sent, is a fool... or at least naive.

Me either ... but I've never tweeted and I've sent less then 100 texts in my life.

vduboise

I'm surprised that he got only 30 days. He'll be out in a couple weeks for good behavior or overcrowding. He may have not pushed Clementi off the bridge, but he helped make that decision for him by what he did. He should have gotten at least 90 days- especially since he's shown no remorse for his actions.

catefrances

vduboise wrote:

I'm surprised that he got only 30 days. He'll be out in a couple weeks for good behavior or overcrowding. He may have not pushed Clementi off the bridge, but he helped make that decision for him by what he did. He should have gotten at least 90 days- especially since he's shown no remorse for his actions.

unfortunately being a douche isnt a crime.

vduboise

catefrances wrote:

vduboise wrote:

I'm surprised that he got only 30 days. He'll be out in a couple weeks for good behavior or overcrowding. He may have not pushed Clementi off the bridge, but he helped make that decision for him by what he did. He should have gotten at least 90 days- especially since he's shown no remorse for his actions.

unfortunately being a douche isnt a crime.

true that. He's going to be in some minimum security jail and once its over he'll go back and live his life as if this phase was a blip in the road. If he had admitted and taken some responsibility for what he did, then I would see the 30 days. But, he got what he got- hopefully he gains some insight while he's in jail

gimmesometruth27

vduboise wrote:

I'm surprised that he got only 30 days. He'll be out in a couple weeks for good behavior or overcrowding. He may have not pushed Clementi off the bridge, but he helped make that decision for him by what he did. He should have gotten at least 90 days- especially since he's shown no remorse for his actions.

i agree here. i would have given him 6 months only because he shows no remorse. he did not push him off of the bridge, but his actions definitely contributed to what happened. i read today that clementii checked his room mate's twitter page 37 times before leaving campus to jump.

JOEJOEJOE

and now for the civil suit.....that should be an interesting one!

catefrances

vduboise wrote:

catefrances wrote:

vduboise wrote:

I'm surprised that he got only 30 days. He'll be out in a couple weeks for good behavior or overcrowding. He may have not pushed Clementi off the bridge, but he helped make that decision for him by what he did. He should have gotten at least 90 days- especially since he's shown no remorse for his actions.

unfortunately being a douche isnt a crime.

true that. He's going to be in some minimum security jail and once its over he'll go back and live his life as if this phase was a blip in the road. If he had admitted and taken some responsibility for what he did, then I would see the 30 days. But, he got what he got- hopefully he gains some insight while he's in jail

and then maybe one day he can run for the republican presidential nomination.

know1

First of all, I have never agreed with the concept of a hate crime. Criminal acts shouldn't be punished more harshly just because the victim belongs to a certain group. That seems like discrimination to me.

Would a 30-day sentence be too little, too much, or OK if he'd spied on a heterosexual couple. I'm guessing less and that nobody would care.

I feel like 30 days in jail seems a bit much for voyeurism.

know1

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

and now for the civil suit.....that should be an interesting one!

Yep - that is where this really belongs.

pandora

Our privacy is a basic right, this intruder should have received a much harsher penalty.

And what about a sense of decency towards others,
knowing what is right and wrong and caring if you embarrass or hurt ...

are these lost concepts?

catefrances

pandora wrote:

Our privacy is a basic right, this intruder should have received a much harsher penalty.

And what about a sense of decency towards others,
knowing what is right and wrong and caring if you embarrass or hurt ...

are these lost concepts?

while they may well be lost concepts they are also irrelevent in a court of law where only encoded laws matter.

for example... its neither wrong nor right to wear a seatbelt yet not doing so is against the law... and you will be punished. but youre not being punished for something along the right/wrong dynamic but rather the legal/illegal one. but i agree with you.. just cause we can doesnt mean we should. i guess it comes down to whether or not one can live with their actions or find some way of justifying what they did... or maybe they just dont care about the implications of their actions.

brianlux

know1 wrote:

First of all, I have never agreed with the concept of a hate crime. Criminal acts shouldn't be punished more harshly just because the victim belongs to a certain group. That seems like discrimination to me.

Would a 30-day sentence be too little, too much, or OK if he'd spied on a heterosexual couple. I'm guessing less and that nobody would care.

I feel like 30 days in jail seems a bit much for voyeurism.

I believe it was spying, not voyeurism. For spying, no, I don't think 30 days is enough.

pandora

It was more than spying he turned it loose for all to see ...

he did the unthinkable to this young man, removed his privacy, dignity, control
over the most private moments in his young life ... his discovery of himself
and his most intimate moments.

He didn't just spy he humiliated and betrayed.
His actions caused this young man to take his life, put it all in motion.
30 days is ridiculous and teaches nothing about what is not acceptable in
our new social media world. What he did was wrong, very very wrong.

Who Princess

know1 wrote:

First of all, I have never agreed with the concept of a hate crime. Criminal acts shouldn't be punished more harshly just because the victim belongs to a certain group. That seems like discrimination to me.

Probably the subject for another thread, but I endorse the concept of hate crimes, mostly because I belong to a group that is frequently victimized solely because of who we are--women.

mickeyrat

brianlux wrote:

know1 wrote:

First of all, I have never agreed with the concept of a hate crime. Criminal acts shouldn't be punished more harshly just because the victim belongs to a certain group. That seems like discrimination to me.

Would a 30-day sentence be too little, too much, or OK if he'd spied on a heterosexual couple. I'm guessing less and that nobody would care.

I feel like 30 days in jail seems a bit much for voyeurism.

I believe it was spying, not voyeurism. For spying, no, I don't think 30 days is enough.

he took the images he secretly taped and repeatedly showed them to others.

Jason P

mickeyrat wrote:

he took the images he secretly taped and repeatedly showed them to others.

That isn't what happened. That's what the media told us at the onset.

Per evidence from the trial, he didn't tape it. He didn't show it to others. It was just him and the girl looking in at a live feed for about five seconds and then he tweeted about it.

know1

I want to ask the question again: If it was a college student spying on his heterosexual roommate and partner, would 30 days seem like not enough, just right, or too much?