http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/23/new.jersey.rutgers.suicide/

Quote :

Roommate of Rutgers student who committed suicide pleads not guilty
By Nina Golgowski, CNN
May 23, 2011 3:22 p.m. EDT


New York (CNN) -- Defense attorneys entered a not guilty plea Monday for the roommate of the Rutgers University student who committed suicide following a candid online broadcast of his sexual encounter with another man, prosecutors say.

Dharun Ravi, 19, is charged with streaming the footage of his roommate, Tyler Clementi, 18, engaging in a physical relationship with another man in their shared dormitory last September.

According to prosecutors, the video was allegedly accessed from another room and advertised on Twitter, providing "others an opportunity to view the encounter," Middlesex County (New Jersey) Prosecutor Bruce J. Kaplan said in a statement.

Clementi later killed himself, jumping from the George Washington Bridge between New York and New Jersey.

Ravi faces a 15-count indictment of hate crime charges involving invasion of privacy and evidence tampering after prosecutors say he tried to stage a cover-up, deleting the previous Twitter post and replacing it with another intended to mislead investigators as well as asking witnesses not to testify against him. Defense attorney Steve Altman was not immediately available for comment.

A second student charged, Molly Wei, 19, pled not guilty earlier this month in two counts of invasion of privacy. She reached a plea deal agreeing to testify against Ravi, who allegedly set up the room's camera. Should Wei complete a three-year program on cyberbullying and alternate and cultural lifestyles, as well as 300 hours of community services without any additional legal troubles, the invasion of privacy charges for allegedly watching the video will be dropped, the prosecutors office said.

The case exposed the issue of bullying on school campuses and has fed anti-bullying efforts across the nation.

In October, less than a month after Clementi's suicide, President Barack Obama released a taped video message condemning such acts. "You are not alone," the president said. "You did not do anything wrong.

"You didn't do anything to deserve being bullied and there is a whole world waiting for you filled with possibilities," Obama said.

In November, Clementi's family consented to the use of his name on federal anti-harassment legislation called the "Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act." The proposed law would require schools that receive federal student aid "to create policies prohibiting the harassment of any student," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey.

Whatever he gets he deserves, hope its not just a slap on the wrist.

Not surprised. I hope he's buried alive.

Rightfully so. He didn't commit a 'hate' crime.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Rightfully so. He didn't commit a 'hate' crime.

Sure he did!

Hate Crime (definition):
A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. (USLegal.com)

He invaded Clementi's privacy by streaming video of his private sexual encounter over the internet with motive and intent to humiliate Clementi on the basis of his sexual orientation. That is a clear case of harassment of the worst kind and there is no doubt that the acts committed by Dharun Ravi fits the textbook definition of hate crime in that jurisdiction. He didn't appear to exhibit any remorse whatsoever for the death of Clementi and then tried to cover up his involvement. I concur with the previous comments in that he deserves everything he gets!

I hope they really go after him and nail him to the wall, rather than pat him on the head and tell him to be a good little boy. Seems that we have a legal system, but not a justice system, and bastards like this walk away with a tap on the wrist.

Nystyle709 wrote:

When does wanting to embarrass someone constitute a hate crime?

1) When it crosses over into the realm of harassment
2) when it involves illegal activity
3) when it is motivated by opposition towards the persons sexuality
4) when said victim kills themself as a result of such harassment

When you do the math it all adds up to "hate crime".

Nystyle709 wrote:

So you mean to tell me if I assaulted someone I didn't like that happened to be gay and that I knew was gay, I should be charged with a hate crime?

No. I'm trying to tell you that if you assaulted a person who was gay BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY, then you should be charged with a hate crime. Tyler Clementi's sexuality isn't what is relevant. The motive of the actual crime is!

Nystyle709 wrote:

One of, if not the, characteristic of harassment is repetitiveness. So if you're going to say he harassed him, then you need to provide a clear cut history of harassment. A one time incident that resulted in a one time tragedy doesn't do it.

Actually IT DOES. Your argument is illogical and your statement actually answers itself. "History of harassment" implies that harassment happened at least once before. There is no history of ANYTHING until it happens ONCE. Then there is! If harassment happened once, it was still harassment the first time. And if I sexually harass a co-worker, I can be charged with sexual harassment whether I've done it ONCE or a hundred times. It doesn't take multiple offenses for it to equal harassment.

Harassment (Definition):
Harassment is any behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and that a reasonable person should have known would be unwelcome. It includes actions (e.g. touching, pushing), comments (e.g. jokes, name-calling), or displays (e.g. posters, cartoons). - USLegal.com

Nystyle709 wrote:

Now, bringing my personal feelings into this....I really don't care if he goes to jail for a hate crime or not. He shouldn't have done it. However, I don't think hate crime is a correct charge.

Somehow I doubt Tyler Clementi's mother would agree with you! And fortunately, neither does the prosecution in this case.

Nystyle709 wrote:

When does wanting to embarrass someone constitute a hate crime?
1) When it crosses over into the realm of harassment

That can be argued and that is not easy to prove.

2) when it involves illegal activity

Then just about every crime could be considered a 'hate' crime.

3) when it is motivated by opposition towards the persons sexuality

As I've said....it was motivated by humiliation. You've already acknowledged this.

4) when said victim kills themself as a result of such harassment

So you don't think Tyler Clementi should shoulder any responsibility for his death? Not even a fraction?

You seem to be mixing up two different arguments as well as misunderstanding the point that I am making.

First of all, I am not saying that any ONE of those things alone makes a hate crime. I'm saying that the combination of all of them together makes a hate crime (which is why I said when you add everything up). And yes, itcan be "argued" and ultimately must be "proven" in a court of law. That's exactly what the prosecution is attempting to do. The charge stands! Whether or not it holds up has to do with how well the prosecutions argument is and how good the defense is. But saying that he shouldn't have been charged with a hate crime when he did all of those things seems rather short-sighted given the legal definition of the term.

Secondly, whether or not I feel that Clementi should shoulder some responsibility for his death or not is irrelevant. The discussion is about whether or not Dharun Ravi committed a hate crime. Even if Tyler Clementi shouldered 99.9 percent of responsibility for his death, that doesn't absolve Ravi of the charges or suggest that he should get off scott free. The fact is, Clementi killed himself as a direct result of the crime that Ravi committed against him.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Which wasn't prejudice. By the definition YOU provided, a hate crime has to be motivated by prejudice. He wasn't targeted for being gay. His streaming of that video wasn't intended to provoke or put fear in or intimidate the gay community. It was a juvenile prank that resulted in tragedy

And how exactly do you know that? Have you personally interviewed Mr. Ravi? According to the reports, Ravi specifically called out Clementi's sexuality in a tweet ('Found out my roomate is gay') then subsequently proceeded to stream video of his sexual encounter. "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay," That strikes me as a crime specifically motivated by prejudice of his sexual orientation. There is no indication that he had any other motive to embarrass him OTHER than concerning his sexuality. So YES that is still a hate crime because it was based on prejudiced (unless the defense can prove otherwise, which I doubt).

Nystyle709 wrote:

If harassment happened once, it was still harassment the first time. And if I sexually harass a co-worker, I can be charged with sexual harassment whether I've done it ONCE or a hundred times. It doesn't take multiple offenses for it to equal harassment.

Fair enough. But repetitiveness is still a main characteristic. How do you think the majority of the population identifies harassment? My argument is not illogical. You just don't agree.

Your argument concerning the necessity of repetitiveness is illogical given the context. From a legal standpoint, harassment is not defined by frequency, but by act. And that is what Mr. Ravi is being charged with. One need NOT "provide a clear cut history of harassment" in this case because ONE case of harassment is satisfactory to achive a charge of harassement.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Now, bringing my personal feelings into this....I really don't care if he goes to jail for a hate crime or not. He shouldn't have done it. However, I don't think hate crime is a correct charge.
Somehow I doubt Tyler Clementi's mother would agree with you!

I doubt she would either. One of the benefits of being an individual.

And fortunately, neither does the prosecution in this case.

LOL. Prosecutors typically don't have a good reputation anyway, so it doesn't matter. Better hope Ravi doesn't have Johnnie Cochran the second on his defense team.

I don't HOPE anything concerning Mr. Ravi. If he is found guilty then he deserves whatever punishment he gets. If he is found innocent of all charges (which I don't think will happen, but just for shits and giggles), then I'll accept that. You win some, you lose some and at the end of the day our legal process is still the best in the world. I have no significant emotional investment in Mr. Ravi. I'm simply trying to explain to WHY charging him with a hate crime is legally correct according to the definition. Now, you are free to state your opinion of course (which you've done) and you don't have to AGREE with me. However when you choose to disagree with "legal facts" and "legal definitions", then your argument becomes illogical and doesn't have much substance.

The way I see it, none of this would have happened on Ravi's end if Clementi were straight. Ravi made a big fuss over Clementi's being gay on twitter. He laughed at and mocked him over it and its documented. From that I say there is the motive to prove he targeted him for being gay and that this is a hate crime. A hate crime doesnt have to be violent.