Skip to comments.Former Rutgers student gets 30-day jail sentence in hate crime case
Posted on 05/21/2012 10:10:23 AM PDT by newzjunkey
A New Jersey judge sentenced a former Rutgers student to 30 days in jail for using a webcam to spy on his roommate...
Dharun Ravi, 20, was convicted on two second-degree bias intimidation charges in a case that garnered national headlines because his roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide after the spying...
The lead prosecutor in the case had asked for "a period of imprisonment" in her sentencing brief but according to Reuters did not seek the maximum 10-year sentence. The prosecution team wrote that Ravi "has failed to accept any degree of responsibility for the numerous criminal acts he committed, and shows no remorse for the same, despite significant evidence pointing directly at him."...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
No matter what you think of the deceased and his life, this sentence is a joke.
the schools and the leftists teach these kids that sex is sex is sex and it don’t matter if its heterosexual, homosexual or bestiality, its all sex.
Pornographers spy on heterosexuals and film their sex - why is this case any different and why is it a hate crime?
I agree...., the guy in the Erin Andrews case got 2.5 years.
Because pornographers don’t spy on heterosexuals, they film them with their consent after having signed contracts.
That said, this shouldn’t be a “hate crime” at all.
Filming someone without their consent in a setting where they have an expectation of privacy should be (is in most places?) illegal.
The idea that the guy might not have liked gays is the crime rather than the act of invading someone’s privacy is absolute lunacy.
I can only imagine what other 'benefits' we can expect for allowing this person to stay in our country.
In my opinion, this character will enjoy 30 days in the cooler. He’s as big a three dollar bill as his “roommate” was.
The guy in Erin’s case wasn’t her roommate.
I think all “hate crimes” are crap - it is punishing thoughts not acts. But this punk should be punished for invading someone’s privacy - I don’t care whether he was watching a gay roommate or a herterosexual one.
At most this would be wiretapping but not a hate crime.
I read an article that said the Indian man recorded this because his roommate was bringing men into the room and not letting him in at the same time. The Indian man was worried his stuff would/was getting stolen so he turned on the webcam. He had a valid worry there. I have lived in the dorm and know how roomies can be. Is why I always paid extra to have own room!
Well the Indian man turned on webcam to “maybe” catch a thief and caught this. He should have been adult about it and erased it not Beavis and Butthead about it and showed it to his friends.
All “hate crimes” are jokes.
If this conviction is appealed, it will be tossed out. With such a light sentence that really means he might spend no more than a week I’m jail, how much is it really worth to appeal.
Suicide was the real hate crime.
it seems to me that the University bears some responsiblity for knowingly placing a sodomist with a straight guy.
The progressives are working hard to normalize deviant behavior within society, IMO.
This was the media doing the same thing that they are doing to George Zimmerman. Most of it was made up. The facts in the case do not support a conviction, but the homosexuals are a protected class, so the suicide had to be someone else's fault.
Maybe he didn’t like the smell in his shared dorm room after Clementi shat himself every time while getting cornholed.
I’d throw the roommate off a bridge if I came home and found that disgusting scene and odor.
Was he “white Indian”?
Dunno, but if he actually watched the webcam he’s probably diversified.
It wasn’t a “hate crime” it was a bias crime, meaning he acted out of some bias in invading the other guy’s privacy. That’s true, he did seem interested, whatever you want to call it, in the fact the guy was in his room with another guy.
The judge, however, said the legislature meant for bias crimes to apply to assault type crimes, and so he didn’t order imprisonment there. The prison time is for lying to police, witness tampering, etc.
In the end the judge was tough but fair in that he did not sentence based on the subsequent suicide, which this defendant didn’t intend and wasn’t charged with.
Exactly what proof do you have for your assertion that Ravi is homosexual?
It's appalling men and women have died for far less to defend our freedom.
"Hate" is NOT a criminal act!
One night after a fraternity party at the end of the semester years ago, I walked up to my room on the second floor of the fraternity house and found the door locked. I knocked and my roommate, an arrogant little ba$tard, refused to unlock the door because he had his girlfriend in there with him. I was pi$$ed because I had to find a sofa to sleep on, and was doubly pi$$ed the next day when I found that they had used MY bed and left it a mess. My roommate flunked out that semester and I didn’t have to put up with his behavior any more.
Perhaps what Ravi was worried about was the two gays using his bed.
As I just said it wasn’t a hate crime, it was a bias crime and the judge noted the distinction.
I think both are bad ideas, hate and bias crimes. The conduct itself should be criminal but not the individual bias or hate.
In this case invasion of privacy. Why should a hetero kid who is spied on not have the identical legal protections? Seems fair to me.
Right. I was referring to the Title and the bigger issue this case revolves around.
Right, all hate crime legislation needs to be repealed.
It creates different penalties for the same offense base on who the victim is.
This is a cornerstone of the sodomite agenda, to go beyond legalizing sodomy and establish themselves as a protected class.
The video in this case merely shined the light of day on the sodomites acts, causing him shame and guilt.
If the visitor in the room videotaped having sex with the roomate was a woman, undoubtedly there would have been no case as this would have been considered simply a college prank with unintended consequences.
If the roomate subsequently jumped off a bridge after a sex video of him with a woman was circulated, everyone, IMHO even his family, would simply have questioned his mental state. For a man to be driven to suicide by a video of a tryst with a woman would be extremely odd; I’ve never heard of such a case and I’d be curious to know if there ever has been a case of an unmarried man committing suicide over being spied on when having sexual relations with an unmarried woman where both people were unattached in any relationship and were both consenting in the act.
This entire case reeks of the putrid stench of the lawyers, politicians and lobbyists of America imposing state-enforced perversion on all American citizens.
While Ravi’s circulating of the video was in poor taste, and he should simply have refused to room with this man (since whatever difficulties that brought to him would have been far less then those he finds himself mired in now), he clearly is being hung out to dry by the sodomite lobby and the complicit NJ judicial system.
Rutgers have failed at every step in this sad charade.
No matter what you think of the deceased and his life, this sentence is a joke.
A joke? No, what is a joke is that this farce even went to trial at all. If Ravi had taped his roomie with a girl, do you think this would have made national news?
It’s too bad Ravi was convicted. He was victimized by an idiot prosecutor like the Duke boys were and George Zimmerman currently is.
With hate crimes the State can declare this story “irrelevant” and charge you with a hate crime because that’s not what they believe you were thinking!
...requiring you to prove innocence.
The consensus on this board is that the guy is a persecuted martyr because everybody (including me) thinks that “hate crime” legislation in BS.
Maybe so, but something is off here.
According to the article Ravi was convicted on two second-degree bias intimidation charges. I don’t even know what that is, but, as I perceive it being enforced, it arguably violates the equal protection clause.
One of many things that irritate me (in addition to the “hate crime” BS) is that the cops can, and do, lie to suspects all the time, but it’s illegal to lie to them. The lesson here is clear: Never talk to the cops w/o your attorney present.
He didnt RECORD anything.
There was NO VIDEO OR RECORDING MADE. It was LIVE webcam for like ten seconds and was turned off. NOTHING was recorded.
So if he did not record it was he at another location watching it in real time?
I stand corrected on that detail, I’ll take your word for it, I have not followed the story much at all.
So he did not “record”, he captured the video stream with a webcam and viewed it live.
I believe he had talked to some other people and they all caught a glimpse of it live, right ?
That would be the “publish” part, having people other than himself view the video stream.
Since I think that a sexworker who was not closeted about his homosexuality was not stable enough for us to guess why he offed himself, yeah, this sentence was a joke.
It was a political conviction made to pander to the gay lobby, and they should have just let it go.
The decedent was running a gay porn internet webcam business from a shared dormroom, and the university refused to grant Ravi a room mate who wasn’t displaying his dorm room as a sex setting.
Sorry the kid is dead, but I blame his upbringing and the university more than Ravi, and the kid’s johns more than either.
For anyone interested in the specifics of the case I would recommend reading the following:
It is long, but balanced, informative and reflective. I actually might remove The New Yorker from my “Double Secret Probation” list for a couple of weeks.
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.