softwareNerd Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Has anyone been following the "hate crime" case of a Rutgers student that ended with a 10 year sentence? Obviously it ought to be illegal to spy on someone and to share the recording with others. However, if that was all that happened, and the victim (say) got mad about it and went to the cops, it is almost certain the sentence would have been really short. So, the whole case appears to be based on the reaction of the victim. Early in the case, the prosecutors did not seem to think they had a strong case, because CNN reported that they had offered the accused a plea-bargain where he would plead guilty, do community service and he was also told the government would not recommend his deportation! Even now, it is possible that this case could go all the way to the SCOTUS, with New Jersey's law ending up being deemed unconstitutional in the way it says that mens rea is not required, but that something can become criminal, based on state of mind of the victim rather than the perpetrator. Does anyone know if there were some other significantly things this accused did vis-a-vis the victim? For instance, did he make some type of threat? Any other thought on this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker This link has a lot of information about the whole case. Rhavi (the accused) didn't threaten Clementi (the supposed victim), but Clementi commited suicide a few days after one incident. Rhavi wasn't a nice guy, to be sure, but he did not seem to provoke Clementi in the sense of harassment. The two of them were roommates, and Rhavi spied by using his own webcam on his own computer to watch Clementi have sex with another man, and according to his own claims, not for very long. I'm pretty doubtful the case was brought to court because of any threats. It seems to be treated as a case where invasion of privacy (is it really if you're spying on someone in a shared room?) caused someone to kill themself (how can you even establish causality in suicide absent threats/severe bullying?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Even if one shares a room, the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If one knowingly records that person in such a context, that is spying. Sharing the recording with others, adds to that offense. Being a jerk is bad too, but that ought not to be a crime in and of itself. Edit: Changed "ought to be" to "ought not to be". Edited March 17, 2012 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 I assume you meant "ought not be a crime in and of itself". In any case, I'm unsure what to make about expectations of privacy. Questions of privacy aside, in terms of legality, can a person be blamed for causing a suicide? Is there much precedent in that regard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 This guy acted like an asshole, but it is barely criminal behavior, and the story posted above Eiuol made me doubt that the breaching of privacy was the primary cause of the suicide. I can't believe this went to trial at all actually. What a waist of time and money. They should have given him community serviec and just left it at that. "Judge Glenn Berman announced that he was denying the defense’s request to see various documents in the possession of the state, including a handwritten document—conceivably, a suicide note—found among Clementi’s things at Rutgers." Also, isn't the above unconstitutional? I was under the impression (given to me by television dramas) that the defense had the right to the state's evidence/case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 I assume you meant "ought not be a crime in and of itself".Oops, yes. Questions of privacy aside, in terms of legality, can a person be blamed for causing a suicide?Common law has this concept called "reasonable person". If one does some act which a "reasonable person" could predict would cause someone else to commit suicide, then a jury can say that you have intent to make the person commit suicide. This does not mean that one should be liable, but intent ought to be a basic requirement for criminality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) I read that he will be sentenced on May 21st, and that the 10 years is the maximum he could get. But he might not go to prison at all. Also, he was found guilty of invasion of privacy, obstruction of justice and the more serious two counts of a hate crime (anti-gay intimidation), not anything related to the suicide. I don't entirely disagree with the idea of hate crimes (crimes meant to intimidate a group of people), but I disagree with the way they work in the US. They seem to consider any crime committed with the purpose of intimidating a person belonging to "protected group" a hate crime, even if is a personal attack against the victim, not the group. But a crime against a gay man, that is meant to intimidate him or discourage him from engaging in sex, is not different than a similar crime against a straight man. And it would be unimaginable to see a verdict that carries a ten year sentence, for someone invading the privacy of a straight roommate, to try and make him stop having sex in a shared space. It's an awful, biased verdict. I just hope the judge sees it that way, and is lenient. Edited March 18, 2012 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I don't entirely disagree with the idea of hate crimes (crimes meant to intimidate a group of people), but I disagree with the way they work in the US. They seem to consider any crime committed with the purpose of intimidating a person belonging to "protected group" a hate crime, even if is a personal attack against the victim, not the group. What is the idea of 'hate crimes'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 What is the idea of 'hate crimes'? He specified it in the parenthetical immediately after the words "hate crimes." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 The judge handed down a 30-day sentence, plus community-service, plus $10,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.