Posted on 03/16/2012 9:10:02 AM PDT by Williams
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) — A former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate's love life was convicted of all counts Friday in a case that exploded into the headlines when the victim of the snooping committed suicide by throwing himself off a bridge.
*******************
More at the link: http://news.yahoo.com/former-rutgers-student-convicted-webcam-case-155436220.html
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Not that I support homosexuality, but absolutely humiliating somebody like that was absolutely uncalled for and I support the conviction.
The student faces up to ten years in prison. IMHO this is one of the best examples of the over reach possible with bias crime laws.
I watched a good amount of this trial. The defendant student did spy on his roomate and invade his privacy. He never expressed any dislike or hatred of gays whatsoever. He may have been motivated by additional curiousity of a snickering kind because the roommate was meeting older men for gay sex.
But 10 years in prison for spying on your roommate just because the roommate was gay? A terrible miscarriage of justice.
By illustration, if your kid is spyed on having sex but they aren’t gay, this level of “protection” is not afforded them. Nor does the “spy” face ten years in prison.
Yes he definitely deserved the invasion of privacy conviction. It is the long sentence because the victim was gay that is unfair on many levels. IMO
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
“Not that I support homosexuality, but absolutely humiliating somebody like that was absolutely uncalled for and I support the conviction.”
I am in total agreement. If he did not want a gay room mate why did he not speak up to the RA instead of setting up a web cam?
" [pause] Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorence on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time."
“Not that I support homosexuality, but absolutely humiliating somebody like that was absolutely uncalled for and I support the conviction.”
I am in total agreement. If he did not want a gay room mate why did he not speak up to the RA instead of setting up a web cam?
We all know that if the roommate were a heterosexual football player, this wouldn’t have even made it into the news. It would have rather been a campus joke.
homosexuals are indeed a protected class in the eyes of the law.
Are there any parallel cases where someone posted vids online of a heterosexual pair?
I think there have been pervs caught wiring a bathroom or bedroom with a cam and putting videos of girls changing online, but I don’t know what the sentences have been.
None I can think of where the victim suicided. That plus it was a homosexual is what makes this case exceptional.
Even if you disregard the bias-related charges, he’s guilty of tampering with witnesses and evidence. Those merit jail time.
There may be Freepers who disagree with you but I am not one of them. A reasonable expectation of privacy is just that, reasonable. No one should be humiliated like this.
The sentence should reflect the harm done tempered by how likely and foreseeable the outcome of the suicide was. It’s difficult for me to decide, I hope there is a good judge on this case.
Sad all around.
The ‘spying’ part is wrong; but that’s not the main part that he did. He used a web-cam, and then publically broadcast the act, onto the web.
Peeping-Tom is one thing.
Taping it, and distributing it with intent to inflict pain, and humilation is something entirely different. This was done with intent, planning and malice - to inflice as much misery as possible upon an unsuspecting victim.
I think the sentence is about right.
I think Ravi’s defense team dropped the ball here. They should certainly have come back with statistics about the extremely common use of high-tech gear in people of this age group, as well as freedom of speech claims AND references to his Hindu culture and upbringing, etc.
Also, they should now sue the university, which has not only fostered the dubious practice of dorm rooms being used for sex and the “sexiling” of roommates for this purpose; but also has belatedly recognized that throwing gay roomates in with same-sex straights causes distress to both parties.
I hope he gets sentenced to time served; but he will probably be made an example.
I agree. Ten years is far too long and it should have been handled internally with the university.
The more appropriate punishment is being thrown out of the university and have it on his record.
I don’t have a big problem with the sentence, though it might be a bit too severe. I DO have a problem with the fact that if the victims had been a heterosexual couple, the sentence would have been far shorter.
why wasn’t he charged with some video voyeurism type offense?
Erin Andrews was secretly taped naked and put it on internet that guy got close to 3 years. I think there should be stricter video voyeur laws in every state.
http://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/newcomputers.php The security system Ravi had set up was as recommended by the university. This opens the school’s deep pockets for Clementi’s parents. They may get back their violin lessons.
Because he would have prima facie been accused of homophobic bias right there. He was in a no-win position due to being assigned with a gay roommate in the first place. Now, the university has changed its policy; he should sue the university for emotional distress and damages.
The RA would have probably sent him to sensitivity and diversity training.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.