Sensible Erection | Rutgers Webcam-Spying Defendant Sentenced to 30-Day Jail Term

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Rutgers Webcam-Spying Defendant Sentenced to 30-Day Jail Term

quote [ NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — A judge here sentenced Dharun Ravi to 30 days in jail on 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. ]

Another article about the sentencing: http://www.gardenstateequality.org/2012/05/dharun-ravi-is-sentenced/

About his roommate, Tyler Clementi: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/tyler_clementi/index.html?inline=nyt-per

[by mechanical contrivance@12:36amGMT] [+5]

Comments

GordonGuano said @ 1:02am GMT on 22nd May [Score:1 Funny]
It's all fun and games until somebody jumps off a bridge.

mechanical contrivance said @ 1:06am GMT on 22nd May [Score:2]
I say let the punishment fit the crime. Record him having sex with a man and post it on the internet.

As I've said before, it's a good thing I'm not in charge.

mister said @ 1:34am GMT on 22nd May [Score:1 Informative]
Agreed. It's a good thing that you are not in charge.

rjm said @ 9:54am GMT on 22nd May
Recording gay sex scenes and posting it on the internet isn't a crime ... it's a business!

sanepride said @ 9:51pm GMT on 22nd May
Just to set the record straight:

There was no recording, no public internet posting, and no spying on any actual sex (just some making out). There was also no real intimidation, blackmail, public outing, bullying or harassment. It's really very interesting how the public and the press continue to have a completely skewed interpretation of what actually occurred in that Rutgers dorm.

iosef said @ 8:41am GMT on 23rd May
re: no public outing: he did actually post on his twitter account about his gay roommate (in roughly those terms). that was before the two of them had met in person. He was essentially using Clementi as an opportunity to score points with his internet buddies. Clementi may not have been technically 'closeted' but he wasn't broadcasting his sexuality willy nilly.

sanepride said @ 5:06pm GMT on 23rd May
That may be, but the popular perception is that Clementi was 'outed' by the webcam incidents, which was not the case. The tweets were not intended as an outing or harassment.

madpride said @ 7:37pm GMT on 23rd May
" A ButtFuck for a ButtFuck makes the whole Worlds Asses Sore, this is Good, the way of the white amero Jesus, more fucking, less talking." -GWB

sanepride said @ 2:21am GMT on 22nd May [Score:2 Underrated]
Previous posts, for background:

http://sensibleerection.com/entry.php/85964

http://sensibleerection.com/entry.php/86102

It has been well established that Ravi is a douchebag, but that in itself is not a crime. What has not been established is exactly why Tyler Clementi chose to jump, or what if any role Ravi's actions had in his decision.
All things considered, IMO this was a fair sentence.

Kat said @ 5:15am GMT on 22nd May
“I heard this jury say guilty 288 times — 24 questions, 12 jurors, that’s the multiplication,” the judge told Mr. Ravi, recalling the questionnaire jurors filled out in arriving at the verdict. “And I haven’t heard you apologize once.”

1 guilty = 2.5 hours

chold_numa said @ 11:52am GMT on 22nd May
He didn't kill his roommate. Screaming for blood won't do anything for the victim or his family. The punishment hopefully, will rehabilitate him in some way and he'll re-enter society a reformed man.

An precedent is set that says his behaviour is unacceptable in civilised society. His lack of contrition is disturbing though.

theolypse said @ 12:25pm GMT on 22nd May [Score:2 Underrated]
Screaming for blood will, however, sate the volcano god and keep our crops safe another year.

chold_numa said @ 10:04pm GMT on 22nd May
You've got it too easy. The last volcano god I dealt with demanded no less than half a dozen nubile virgins. Given the crash in the agricultural commodities market at the time (and the general shortage of virgins), the village decided it was cheaper to change religion and move to the next island over.

They worship a giant frog now.

foobar said @ 6:52pm GMT on 22nd May
It would give the next douchebag pause, though. A slap on the wrist won't do that.

This precedent says that we consider hounding a man to suicide about as unacceptable as violating a court order.

Nor will Ravi get much rehabilitation with such a light sentence. We've effectively said that he should forget about it.

sanepride said @ 9:44pm GMT on 22nd May
Once again, there is no evidence that Ravi's actions had any role in Clementi's suicide. Tyler Clementi was a socially isolated, troubled individual who had just come out to his religious parents (they did not take it well). Communications with his friends indicate that he was not particularly upset by the webcam spying incidents. There is definitely no indication that he was 'hounded' or otherwise 'bullied' by Ravi or anyone else.

chold_numa said @ 10:10pm GMT on 22nd May
There's also 3 years of probation, and anyone looking him up on the Internet will know what he did. Which would probably not be looked upon kindly by future employers.

If you were a bastard and felt that the sentence was too light, just keep the news up on the first page of search results. It's an unfortunate and largely unasked for second sentence there, but the publicity of the case will likely hurt him far more than the judicially mandated punishment.

sanepride said @ 10:32pm GMT on 22nd May
And this alone is perhaps the harshest, and most fitting punishment for his actual crime. The problem is that people are determined to make Ravi out to be responsible for Clementi's death, when in all probability the spying and the suicide are two largely unrelated events.

foobar said @ 11:06pm GMT on 22nd May
He was found guilty of bias intimidation. He should have been put away for a few years to think about that.

sanepride said @ 11:22pm GMT on 22nd May
They had to find him guilty of something. This is a fairly loosely defined crime. Ravi wasn't particularly fond of his roommate (they actually had almost no real contact during their brief cohabitation) but there was no actual 'intimidation', and very questionable bias - at least toward Clementi's orientation.

foobar said @ 11:26pm GMT on 22nd May
They could have just found him guilty of the privacy violation charges. They chose to also convict him of bias intimidation.

I don't see how a 30 day sentence will either be enough to rehabilitate Ravi or serve as a deterrent to future douchebags.

sanepride said @ 11:36pm GMT on 22nd May
Since when does any prison sentence, no matter how long, rehabilitate anyone? Or serve as a deterrent? What you are pitching here is revenge - retribution for a death that in all likelihood Ravi had nothing to do with.
You don't lock people up just for being douchebags. Are our prisons not full enough already?

foobar said @ 12:09am GMT on 23rd May
There are four generally accepted justifications for punishment in law: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and, yes, retribution.

If you don't feel American prisons are rehabilitative enough, I'll tend to agree with you, but the solution is not to give up on criminal justice entirely. If you feel that they aren't enough of a deterrent, I'll object; they're rather hellish already.

Ravi was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Given that, he should be given a relevant sentence. That didn't happen.

sanepride said @ 12:26am GMT on 23rd May
Well relevant is all a matter of interpretation. Rendering a verdict is one thing, rendering a punishment fitting the crime is another. Based on what I know of the case, the punishment rendered here is if anything more than just. The world is full of douchebags of varying degrees...in this area Ravi does not really stand out. He simply had the misfortune of crossing paths with someone with suicidal inclinations, that he got blamed for when they were acted on. One would hope that this experience alone would be enough to make him a better, more considerate person. Certainly there's no guarantee of that, but what does a harsh sentence accomplish exactly? Do you really think that will make him a better person, or somehow benefit society as a whole?

foobar said @ 12:43am GMT on 23rd May
I'm not suggesting a harsh sentence. He caused the death of another human being. That warrants a few years time out.

It seems that you're letting your disagreement with the jury's verdict colour your assessment of the sentence.

sanepride said @ 1:31am GMT on 23rd May
Once again, there is no evidence whatsoever, from anyone that knew Ravi or Clementi, that the webcam spying incidents had anything at all to do with Clementi's suicide.

It seems you're letting your lack of information about the actual case color your assessment of the sentence.

foobar said @ 1:41am GMT on 23rd May
The jury, obviously, disagrees.

blibblob said @ 1:55am GMT on 23rd May
Juries are incredibly important. They're also never wrong.

Only one of those statements is false.

foobar said @ 2:42am GMT on 23rd May
We've decided that they (almost) never are when it comes to verdicts.

sanepride said @ 2:15am GMT on 23rd May
Juries are not infallible, especially to public sentiment. No doubt they were aware of the sensational publicity around this case. Despite their verdict, the facts of the case still stand. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them instead of just joining the mob and calling for Ravi's head.
This is a good place to start.

foobar said @ 2:34am GMT on 23rd May
Nevertheless, they have come to their decision. Any appeal now would have to be based on the facts, which I do not believe were in dispute.

sanepride said @ 3:00am GMT on 23rd May
OK obviously this is pointless, you are a brick wall of ignorance of both this case and the legal system that tried it. You're convinced that Ravi is responsible for Clementi's death, fine. You're probably in the majority, and majorities locked in their convictions make excellent mobs.

foobar said @ 3:05am GMT on 23rd May [Score:1 Insightful]
It is possible for reasonable people to disagree reasonably.

sanepride said @ 5:00pm GMT on 23rd May
And it is also possible for reasonable people to come to conclusions based on inaccurate or insufficient information.

Kat said @ 7:00pm GMT on 23rd May
I have proof that it's possible for people to take a comment on math and turn it into a heated debate about crime and punishment.

mechanical contrivance said @ 12:16am GMT on 24th May [Score:1 Funny]
That's just what a Nazi would say.

Kat said @ 5:27am GMT on 24th May
Math Nazi.

Moleculor said @ 3:47am GMT on 23rd May
The jury didn't make any decisions or declarations about whether he was responsible for someone's death.

They said he was guilty of witness tampering and invasion of privacy, motivated by hate. Invasion of privacy is not murder.

foobar said @ 4:10am GMT on 23rd May
And bias intimidation.

Moleculor said @ 2:01pm GMT on 23rd May
That was the whole 'motivated by hate' bit I said. Not obvious, I suppose. Regardless, "bias intimidation" is not murder. The jury had no say or comment on whether he was responsible for someone's death.

Essentially, the guilty verdict is unconnected to and unrelated to the suicide, the suicide has no bearing on the discussion, and he would have been convicted of all those same things if he had gone to trial and the guy were still alive.

sanepride said @ 5:08pm GMT on 23rd May
If the guy were still alive, there probably wouldn't have been a trial at all. Ravi may have faced academic discipline, perhaps even expulsion, and it probably would have ended there.

foobar said @ 6:45pm GMT on 23rd May
Bias intimidation usually carries a sentence of at least a few years, from what I can google. Yes, the verdict is unconnected to the suicide, but the sentence should not be.

sanepride said @ 8:40pm GMT on 23rd May
You seem completely convinced that Ravi is responsible for Clementi's suicide. Without rehashing our previous debate, may I ask how exactly you have reached this conclusion?

foobar said @ 8:58pm GMT on 23rd May
I don't see the point. We'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't see how you can possibly hold a reasonable belief that his actions were not a significant contributory factor.

Look at it this way: if I threw the peel of my lunchtime banana on the sidewalk every day for a year and one day someone slipped on it and died, should I get the minimum or maximum sentence for littering?

sanepride said @ 10:42pm GMT on 23rd May
I've given plenty of factual explanation and references here and in two previous posts. My view is based on a fairly thorough reading of the case and the accounts of people who knew both Clementi and Ravi. You seem to be more swayed by 'belief'.
A more appropriate version of your analogy would be: If someone slipped and died for some undetermined reason, should you get the maximum sentence for littering because you happened to throw down a banana peel several days before?

foobar said @ 10:58pm GMT on 23rd May
No, you have not.

It seems there are two possible points of contention here: whether or not Ravi's actions contributed to Clementi's suicide, and whether or not that fact should be taken into account of the crime for which he has been convicted.

On the former, you continually imply that they did not, with out explicitly making an argument because you know it to be absurd on it's face.

On the latter you re-argue the verdict, rather than the sentencing. The facts are that Ravi was convicted of an offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and that the offence in question led, at least in part, to the death of Clementi.

sanepride said @ 3:15am GMT on 24th May
Once again, I would simply, respectfully ask how you reached this conclusion. Since you don't have any answer, all you've got is your own opinion. The fact is we will probably never know what exactly drove Tyler Clementi to jump off the GW Bridge, but what we do know, from his communications with friends, is that he was not particularly upset about the webcam spying incident. It was only at his friend's urging that he decided to pursue a resolution through the university and get a new roommate. You can argue otherwise till you're blue in the face, but the record simply doesn't support your interpretation of cause and effect here.

foobar said @ 3:36am GMT on 24th May
I feel that you're shifting the burden of proof.

If Ravi had physically beat Clementi and he suffered a heart attack and died later, you wouldn't questing that Ravi had contributed to the death even if Clementi had a pre-existing heart condition.

Clementi was mentally ill. Ravi aggravated that condition through a serious criminal act, and ultimately Clementi died from it. That should be taken into account at sentencing, as should his utter lack of remorse.

Moleculor said @ 5:15am GMT on 24th May
Sorry, but I think you're wrong here too. If someone is beaten, and then has a heart attack, the beating can not be linked to the heart attack, ESPECIALLY if they have a pre-existing heart condition.

For all you know, that heart attack was going to happen, regardless.

Ditto the suicide. Like you said, the guy was mentally ill. You have no way of proving that the only reason he committed suicide was because of the invasion of privacy, etc, and yes, the burden of proof *is* on you, the prosecution, whatever. That's how it works.

Moleculor said @ 10:17pm GMT on 23rd May
So if I have a 5 MPH fender bender with someone who's having the shittiest day of their life, and they don't even bother getting out of the car, they just reach over, pull out a gun, and go suicidal/homicidal, my punishment should reflect the fact that the guy decided to get violent?

The *guy* in this case chose suicide for *himself*. He had a shitty life. The punishment should only be connected to the crime itself, not the aftermath, and certainly not someone else's decisions afterwards.

foobar said @ 10:42pm GMT on 23rd May
False analogy.

1) A fender bender is not a criminal act, nor is it one that is going to significantly influence someone.

2) Suicide is not considered a choice, since the person in question is by definition not of sound mind.

Let's find something with comparable sentencing to what Ravi was charged and convicted of... Here we go: aggravated assault inflicting serious bodily injury

If you beat someone up and they have a heart attack and die, shouldn't that be considered at sentencing? It's no more your fault that they suffer from heart disease than it is Ravi's that Clementi suffered from mental illness, but the fact remains that the result of the crime was someone dying.

zarathustra said @ 11:46pm GMT on 23rd May
Let me see if I have this right. You are arguing that his punishment should be enhanced ( beyond what the judge thought was just) because of something outside the scope of the things for which he was found guilty. That is, even though he wasn't convicted of contributing to the death in anyway, you want him to be punished as though he had contributed to the death?

foobar said @ 12:07am GMT on 24th May
The consequences of an act are not outside its scope.

Consider the following section of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines:

If a victim or victims suffered psychological injury much more serious than that normally resulting from commission of the offense, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range. The extent of the increase ordinarily should depend on the severity of the psychological injury and the extent to which the injury was intended or knowingly risked.
Normally, psychological injury would be sufficiently severe to warrant application of this adjustment only when there is a substantial impairment of the intellectual, psychological, emotional, or behavioral functioning of a victim, when the impairment is likely to be of an extended or continuous duration, and when the impairment manifests itself by physical or psychological symptoms or by changes in behavior patterns. The court should consider the extent to which such harm was likely, given the nature of the defendant’s conduct.

zarathustra said @ 12:44am GMT on 24th May
If this was a federal case, the federal sentencing guidelines might be relevant. In this case all that matters is New Jersey law. Even if it was a federal case there was no finding by the jury that the defendant caused physiological injury to the dead guy. The judge can't just decide that he did and enhance the sentence on the basis of it.

foobar said @ 2:07am GMT on 24th May
That's exactly what the judge does. I don't imagine that the New Jersey guidelines would be that much different from the federal ones.

zarathustra said @ 2:10am GMT on 24th May
I don't understand what you mean "that is exactly what the judge does."

foobar said @ 2:24am GMT on 24th May
Juries decide on charges (and sometimes ancillary questions of fact).

Sentencing guidelines are for judges rendering verdicts after that has happened.

foobar said @ 2:24am GMT on 24th May
Deciding sentences, rather.

zarathustra said @ 2:40am GMT on 24th May
Sometimes ancillary questions of fact? In a jury trial the jury is the trier of fact. The judge can not, in a criminal case, find a fact that the jury does not find. While he can decide on upward departures from the guild lines, the basis of those departures must also be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the Judge were to decide factual matters it would nullify the right to jury trial. The role of a judge in a criminal jury trial to to rule on the law, not to decide the fact. ( he does both and a bench trial and has more leeway in a civil trial.)

foobar said @ 2:46am GMT on 24th May
Not for sentencing. For example, he does not need to ask the jury if the defendant has shown remorse - he can make that determination himself. Nor does he need the jury to review past convictions, in fact they may even be barred from knowing about them.

zarathustra said @ 3:11am GMT on 24th May
The Supreme Court explicitly rejected that argument in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) "the judge's authority to sentence derives wholly from the jury's verdict. Without that restriction, the jury would not exercise the control that the Framers intended."

"When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts “which the law makes essential to the punishment,” Bishop, supra, §87, at 55, and the judge exceeds his proper authority."

Those who would reject Apprendi ( the decision that formed the basis of this ruling) are resigned to one of two alternatives. The first is that the jury need only find whatever facts the legislature chooses to label elements of the crime, and that those it labels sentencing factors–no matter how much they may increase the punishment–may be found by the judge. This would mean, for example, that a judge could sentence a man for committing murder even if the jury convicted him only of illegally possessing the firearm used to commit it–or of making an illegal lane change while fleeing the death scene. - The jury could not function as circuitbreaker in the State’s machinery of justice if it were relegated to making a determination that the defendant at some point did something wrong, a mere preliminary to a judicial inquisition into the facts of the crime the State actually seeks to punish

foobar said @ 3:51am GMT on 24th May
That's an interesting deviation in American law, but it's not relevant. In the cited case, the judge sentenced the defendant in excess of the maximum penalty for reasons not explicitly found by the jury. In Ravi's case the jury did find that Clementi was psychologically injured by Ravi's action, so the judge could consider that even with that precedent.

zarathustra said @ 4:32am GMT on 24th May
Were do you find that they ruled he was psychologically injured. I see that he was intimidated, but that is an essential element of the crime he was convicted off. You can't use that a sentencing enhancement when it is already part of the underlying crime. Was there a finding of psychological injury beyond intimidation?

yasha said @ 4:23pm GMT on 23rd May
if the jury disagreed, wouldn't they have found him guilty of murder or manslaughter or depraved indifference?

instead they found him guilty of some sort of "hate-crime light" law. so how do you put someone in jail for very long just for saying "haha, look at the faggot"?

foobar said @ 6:46pm GMT on 23rd May
1) That wasn't one of the charges available to him and 2) because that is the usual sentence for the charge they did convict him of.

foobar said @ 12:52am GMT on 23rd May
It looks like the prosecution has a good chance of appealing the sentence.

sanepride said @ 1:37am GMT on 23rd May
Prosecutors of course, as elected officials, do have a vested interest in satisfying the public sentiment, right or wrong.
I liked the closing observation of this article:

One law professor commended Berman on the sentence.

Mark Poirier of Seton Hall University said he was "very impressed" with the judge’s decision and says it won’t be overturned on appeal.

"I’m not sure these facts support bias," Poirier said. "Berman did his homework."

foobar said @ 1:40am GMT on 23rd May
That's rather my point; both you and he are arguing the verdict not the sentence. The fact is that 30 days is extraordinarily lenient for the charge Ravi was convicted of.

sanepride said @ 2:07am GMT on 23rd May
And this is the reason judges have some latitude in determining sentencing. Judge Berman fully understood the disparity between the conviction and the actual severity of the crime.

foobar said @ 2:33am GMT on 23rd May
To put it in perspective, New Jersey law calls for a 30 day sentence for leaving the scene of an accident.

yasha said @ 4:25pm GMT on 23rd May
leaving the scene of an accident seems worse to me than "bias intimidation" and on par with perjury.

foobar said @ 6:47pm GMT on 23rd May
That's a rather awful position to take.

Kat said @ 9:36am GMT on 23rd May
Actually, I am not trying to comment on how just/unjust the sentence was or how much he was to blame for the suicide.

The judge stated that the amount of times that the defendant was found guilty was equal to each the charges multiplied by the amount of jury members. I am simply taking the math a step further.

Hours of sentence / amount of guilty verdicts = 2.5

I just find that interesting.

Kat said @ 6:57pm GMT on 23rd May
Commenting on the judge's use of multiplication and using that to determine how much time each guilty is worth is not "screaming for blood".

It's math.

If: Number of convictions = (12 jury members) x (24 questions)

Then: Hours per conviction = ((30 days) x (24 hours)) / (Number of convictions)

The only opinions expressed in my above comment are those of the judge (which I almost omitted, but would involve altering the quote...a practice I dislike).

sua_sponte said @ 6:46am GMT on 22nd May [Score:2 Funny]
Now he won't need a webcam to see gay sex close up.

KingPellinore said @ 12:39pm GMT on 22nd May
Haha! Rape is funny!

mechanical contrivance said @ 1:55pm GMT on 22nd May
Rape is always funny.

GordonGuano said @ 2:18pm GMT on 22nd May
Except when it's a clown being raped, as the movie Vulgar proved.

Avid said @ 4:24pm GMT on 22nd May
I had that movie recommended to me by a Blockbuster employee. This must have been like their version of the Netflix rating system. Looking back on it, it is kind of funny, so does that make Vulgar kind of funny?

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:15pm GMT on 22nd May
I didn't think Vulgar was funny.