Now there are two victims. Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi. The former paid with his life. The latter will pay with his future.
With the jury's guilty verdict in the so-called Rutgers University webcam spying case, Ravi, it appears, has been turned into the proverbial sacrificial lamb for society's collective guilt about its own bias intimidation against homosexuals, a condition that probably drove Clementi to commit suicide.
Sure, the jury upheld the law, but was justice served? Didn't Ravi deserve even the kind of leniency that was shown to Lori Drew, the 49-year-old Los Angeles woman charged in the first federal cyber bullying case in 2008 pertaining to the suicide of a 13-year-old girl? Drew, who allegedly obtained unauthorized access to MySpace by creating a fake profile for a nonexistent 16-year-old boy and bullied the 13-year-old to suicide, was cleared of all but three misdemeanors. And to think that Ravi faces 10 years in prison even without being accused of causing or abetting Clementi's suicide.
Now, all of us, along with the judge and the jury, will have to delude ourselves into believing that the Rutgers case has been only about the invasion of privacy and Ravi's prejudice against homosexuality that drove him to intimidate Clementi and his older and anonymous mate (apparently a victim as well).
If the verdict is anything to go by, we all have to believe that this case had nothing to do with the tragedy of Clementi's suicide -- just as the prosecution had dexterously excluded any such linkage. It will remain a mystery in legal annals how someone can be held accountable for intimidation, but not its tragic consequences. One can only wonder if the jury deliberated whether there would have been a court case against Ravi had Clementi not committed suicide.
But there is a reason why all parties, including the defense, shied away from examining the gorilla in the room, as it were. Obviously, linking Clementi's suicide with Ravi's actions would have implicated us all -- the whole society, whose prejudice and contempt toward homosexuality is what created the intimidating conditions that pushed Clementi to his death plunge from the George Washington Bridge.
Moreover, if Clementi's suicide would have been (rightly) the focus of the prosecution's case, the first person to be implicated would have, or should have, been Clementi's own mother who, by Clementi's recorded confession, could not bring herself to accept his sexual orientation, causing the kind of distress that would not be comparable to anything that he may have felt at some comments tweeted by his reckless and insensitive roommate.
By making Ravi the sole criminal in this case we have absolved ourselves of any involvement in the psychological makeup of Clementi -- the shame and intimidation he felt at being exposed. And, of course, we don't need to ponder if Clementi would have felt the same way and been driven to suicide had he been exposed kissing a girl instead.
If the answer to that question is no, that Clementi wouldn't have ended his life if he were exposed for indulging in a heterosexual act, then it has to be assumed that he was driven to suicide because he felt intimidated at being exposed to an unforgiving society, and not because Ravi did what any reckless and stupid teenager (at the time of events) with access to an array of gadgets and social networking tools would be tempted to do.
There had to be deeper reasons why Clementi was driven to end his life, because if he felt intimidated by Ravi, he wouldn't have asked him to leave the room a second time so he could be alone with his male friend. And that is the reason why one would have thought Ravi had no role in Clementi's shame or intimidation or suicide. But that was not to be.
And here one might add that Ravi would have quite likely played a similar prank even if Clementi had a girl over in his room, considering that Ravi is both arrogant and prudish thanks to his nouveau riche upbringing -- peculiar to many Asian immigrant families -- and Indian cultural values with all their misconceptions about and limitations concerning any kind of premarital sex.
But in the end, perhaps, Ravi's life is a small price to pay for political correctness of our times, even if it means Atticus Finch loses and Anderson Cooper wins.
Follow Sunil Adam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SunilAdam
Michelangelo Signorile: Tyler Clementi and the Dharun Ravi Trial: Why the Verdict Is Just
A technical appeal on jury's plain/harmful error at the State Appellate Division or getting certiorari/discretionary review at Federal Appeals Court or US Supreme Court to appeal against the enhanced sentencing hate crime statute is difficult owing to unanimous Supreme Court precedent from 1993, Wisconsin v Mitchell.
Judge is obligated to mandatory minimum sentencing on May 21st, even if concurrently.
Upon sentencing defendant is likely to receive a Notice to Appear from the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, since he is not a US citizen.
It appears pretty cut and dry.
COUNT 8
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of 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: GUILTY
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html
Wonderful-I am sure Casey is enjoying her freedom after killing her child.
It is this indignant, self-righteous attitude from the Indian American community that has refused to accept collective responsibility and instead unsuccessfully shielded this immature youngster and his despicable conduct from legitimate condemnation that is most responsible for the sorry plight he finds himself in today.
As for "collective responsibility", the only thing worse than an unfair treatment of one person is an unfair treatment of a whole group of people based on a single feature they have in common. I see absolutely no reason for several million people in the Indian American community to "accept collective responsibility" for the actions of one immature, arrogant teenager. If we proceed down that path, there will be no end to blame and mutual recriminations, because each of us, in one way or another, belong to a category that has or had some bad apples.
Answer? No.
Minimum justice is not a standard. By this argument, if one person were given only a year for manslaughter, all killers should be given only a year for manslaughter. Or if one DA and jury bungled a case and exonerated the guilty, then every person guilty should be exonerated.
Somewhere, at some time, bullying, invasion of privacy, and hate crimes have to be taken seriously.
So, is "society" to blame? Perhaps. But in order to change, we have to make the behavior unacceptable to those who would otherwise do it. If we gave Ravi a slap on the wrist, others would continue to find it acceptable to do such things.
To the larger question -- are there difficulties with societal balance and the law? Absolutely. They need to be addressed. But that does not mean that a serious crime was not committed, nor does it excuse the bias, the sarcasm, and the implied tolerance to bullying of the author.
It is not joke or harmless "prank", as some seek to make of it.
It is clear invasion of privacy backed by bias intimidation that the jury unanimously found Mr Ravi guilty of beyond reasonable doubt after dispassionately examining all relevant evidence during deliberations. Bias intimidation is a state hate crime, and it carries enhanced sentencing provisions.
That is all that the judge should be looking at while sentencing, assuming he follows the letter of the law and is sworn to uphold the dignity and responsibility of his office.
Judge is obligated to sentence him at least to minimum mandated on May 21st.
I feel intimidated reading some of the replies to my comments on this site.... I think I am going to complain at my local Prosecutors office and see if they can file some hate crime charges for me. I am sure they will win my case hands down. Oh and someone please remind me to jump of the GW bridge just so my case will garner National headlines in the media. Too bad I am not gay but I still qualify I am a minority protected class.
You could've just said, "I don't understand how hate crimes laws apply" too. That would've been shorter and more to the point.
I've been saying it, but very few seem to get it. The enhanced sentencing statute on state bias crimes has been upheld on Constitutionality, and doesn't to the best of my knowledge, infringe upon either the First or Fourteenth Amendment.
Judge is obligated to mandated minimum sentencing on the bias count, and ICE is obligated to start deportation proceedings post-sentencing.
NJ Prosecutors and GLBT will NOT use Dharun to further their adgendas for Gay rights. In the last couple of years with cameras everywhere, it is difficult to tell what is and what is not breaking the law. Why does NJ not write clearer laws and make them available for all teenagers. I am positive Dharun is not the only teen to record someone without their consent.... it is done all the time.
Clementi knew there were cameras in the room and that they were on most of the time, despite that he brought his haggardly looking person he picked up of the internet there for sex three times in one week. Clementi clearly had mental issues - which ultimately resulted in him taking his life. Those are the facts and GLBT/NJ prosecutors will not see them because they are looking for a scapegoat to further their agendas. It is pathetic.
How much are you willing to wager that it won't quite be "done all the time" any longer in the future after the severe verdict in this trial?
This trial has put the fear of God into everyone over invasion of privacy and bias intimidation, and it's about time something did.
Clementi was an immature teen as well and that lead to his suicide. Had he confronted Ravi instead of taking his life and pointed out how immature Ravi was maybe he would still be around.
Somehow I doubt all the people who think what he did is so forgiveable would make the same arguments if Ravi had gotten drunk and killed someone while driving. Lots of immature teens do that. But as a society, we've finally decided drunk driving isn't okay. Obviously we don't have the same consensus when it comes to tormenting gay people.