Rutgers freshman suicide after roommate broadcast gay sexual encounter online?

[jAZ]

Wow. Prank gone waaay wrong.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...gers_post.html

Rutgers freshman is presumed dead in suicide after roommate broadcast gay sexual encounter online

Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 5:42 PM
Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger



PISCATAWAY — A Rutgers University freshman appears to have killed himself by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate broadcast live images of the 18-year-old having a sexual encounter with another man on the internet, according to campus and law enforcement sources.

Tyler Clementi, 18, of Ridgewood, is presumed dead after his car, cell phone and computer were found near the George Washington Bridge last week, law enforcement sources said. His wallet was found on the walkway adjacent to the New York-bound lanes. In a statement released this afternoon, Clementi’s family confirmed the suicide and said his body has not been found.

Dharun Ravi, 18, of Plainsboro, and Molly Wei, 18, of Princeton, were charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy for setting up a camera in a dorm room on Sept. 19 and using it to view and transmit a live sex scene, said Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan.

Paul Mainardi of Woodbury, the Clementi family's attorney, said Ravi and Clementi were roommates at Rutgers.

Ravi's Twitter feed on that date referred to seeing his roommate have sex with another man in their room on the Piscataway campus, classmates said.

"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," Ravi said on his Twitter page in a Sept. 19 entry posted at 6:17 p.m.

Two days later, Ravi posted another entry directing his nearly 150 Twitter followers to iChat, an internet messaging service with a live video feed.

"Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again," Ravi wrote in the Sept. 21 post.

Ravi's Twitter feed has since been taken down. But the entries survived in a cached version of the page still available through Google's search engine this afternoon.

Prosecutors said Ravi and Wei set up a camera on Sept. 19 and broadcast live images of Clementi having a "sexual encounter." Ravi is also accused of trying unsuccessfully to broadcast a second sex scene Sept. 21.

The Clementi family released a statement this afternoon. "Tyler was a fine young man, and a distinguished musician. The family is heartbroken beyond words. They respectfully request that they be given time to grieve their great loss and that their privacy at this painful time be respected by all," it said.

"The family and their representatives are cooperating fully with the ongoing criminal investigations of two Rutgers University students," the statement said.

Clementi was an accomplished violinist who had received a college scholarship from the Ridgewood Symphony Orchestra for his musicianship and leadership.
The violinist left a lasting impression with some in the Bergen County town, said Hiro Kagei, 17, who played in the orchestra with the teenager. A solo Clementi played in a concert last year "blew the audience away," he said.

"Now that he’ dead, it’s sad to think we won’t hear something like that anymore," Kagei said.

On the Rutgers campus, classmates described Clementi as quiet. At a mandatory dorm meeting called the day he was reported missing, only three students said they had spoken to Clementi since they moved into the dorm last month, according to students who were at the meeting.

Ravi and Wei — who were classmates at West Windsor-Plainsboro High School North before enrolling at Rutgers this fall — did not respond to e-mail requests to comment Tuesday. Steve Altman, Ravi’s attorney, also declined to comment.

Ravi surrendered to Rutgers police Tuesday and was released on $25,000 bail, the prosecutor’s office said. Wei surrendered to the campus police Monday and was released on her own recognizance.

Under New Jersey’s invasion-of-privacy laws, it is a fourth degree crime to collect or view images depicting nudity or sexual contact involving another individual without that person’s consent, the prosecutor said. It is a third degree crime to transmit or distribute the images.

If the students are convicted on a third degree offense they could face up to five years in prison each under state law. Conviction on a fourth-degree crime could lead to probation or up to 18 months in prison.

[Pioli Zombie]

If this was two chicks everyone involved would be a hero.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The issue I have with you and the other members of the pitchfork-wielding mob isn't so much whether this is a violation of law as it is with the appropriate level of punishment.

Exactly. No way in hell a judge or jury effectively ends these two kid's lives for a prank gone wrong. No way in hell.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

If this was two chicks everyone involved would be a hero.

But it's a whole different issue if it happens in a bar in Daytona.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

By your standard there is no possiblity to issue a sentence other than the maximum.

We all have our opinions. My opinion is that there is no way in hell these two young, bright kids get anywhere near 5 years in prison. Nor do they deserve 5 years in prison. Any defense attorney worth his salt will see to it they are sentenced accordingly.

The previous example that somebody tossed out there.

You're drunk/horny or something to that effect. You get home and you see your buddy's girlfriend asleep with her shirt off and a tit hanging out from under the sheets. You grab a polaroid real quick and snap a picture.

She sees the picture somehow, goes to the local magistrate and presses charges.

That's a momentary lapse in judgment with no intention of humiliating someone.

These kids enacted a plan built around subterfuge and intended to do nothing, absolutely nothing, but torment a kid with a known sensitivity.

C'mon - how much worse could they have been here? How much more brazenly could they have flaunted this law. What more could they have done to invade this kid's privacy.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The previous example that somebody tossed out there.

You're drunk/horny or something to that effect. You get home and you see your buddy's girlfriend asleep with her shirt off and a tit hanging out from under the sheets. You grab a polaroid real quick and snap a picture.

She sees the picture somehow, goes to the local magistrate and presses charges.

That's a momentary lapse in judgment with no intention of humiliating someone.

These kids enacted a plan built around subterfuge and intended to do nothing, absolutely nothing, but torment a kid with a known sensitivity.

C'mon - how much worse could they have been here? How much more brazenly could they have flaunted this law. What more could they have done to invade this kid's privacy.

Do you have the specific statute(s) handy?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I have no idea of the law on this, but I think a reasonable and expected outcome of their actions would not be suicide. Therefore, I don't think it should be a stiff sentence. I'd lean more toward throwing the book at them on the privacy charges or whatever else was involved other than the death, but the death is the kid's own decision.

EXACTLY.

That's what I keep saying here. They're not being prosecuted for the death.

Throwing the book at them on the invasion of privacy charges is a 5 year sentence under the applicable sentencing guidelines.

You don't have to consider the consequences to give them that sentence, only their intent in invading the privacy and the pre-meditation involved.

As for the hate crime thing, I'm trying to even keep that out of the discussion.

From a straight up analysis of the statute involved and the statutory scheme surrounding it, I dunno how you don't hit them as hard as this statute will allow.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Do you have access to the applicable statute(s)?

Originally Posted by vailpass

Do you have the specific statute(s) handy?

Admittedly I do not. I'm going by the prosecutor's statements in the article.

I suppose I could hunt them up, but I'm not terribly inclined to do so right now. I may go poking around later on.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

If this was two chicks everyone involved would be a hero.

Two chicks good
Two dicks BAD

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Admittedly I do not. I'm going by the prosecutor's statements in the article.

I suppose I could hunt them up, but I'm not terribly inclined to do so right now. I may go poking around later on.

I only ask because you continue to refer to the need to prosecute to the fullest according to the dictates of the statute. Not having read the statutes I'm not able to comment on specifics. Barring that all we have are generalities and personal opinions.
My opinion is that society's best interest is not served by giving these two young people five years in jail when they could be in college instead. Once course leads to educated, productive citizens and the other is a path to ruin.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Correct. And these kids won't be prosecuted for murder.

It shouldn't cause the sentence for the privacy violation to be enhanced either.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But ask if you can come up with a more egregious violation of privacy? That's what he's being charged with and if there's a 5 year max on that, well he came pretty close to getting to the top of that scale.

Sure, that's easy. How about a 35 year old teacher (instead of a college freshman, barely out of high school) using a hidden camera in the girl's locker room of his school (instead of his own dorm room) to record video for his kiddie porn site (instead of as a moronic, immature prank)?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The issue I have with you and the other members of the pitchfork-wielding mob isn't so much whether this is a violation of law as it is with the appropriate level of punishment.

Okay, so I'll ask again - how much worse can an invasion of privacy be?

I've tried to subtract the results from this. I've tried to focus solely on the conduct and apply it to the law.

If a crime is punishable by up to 5 years and a party violates that crime both in a pre-meditated fashion and in a manner designed expressly to create the type of harm that the statute seeks to avoid, how can you avoid giving the maximum sentence?

I cannot come up with a more brazen, mean-spirited, pre-meditate, intentional violation of an invasion of privacy law than this one, apart from involving minors (which would be under a different scheme) or the threat of violence (which would be punishable under a separate count).

No pitchforks, no mob mentality. This was a textbook and severe violation of a statute punishable by 5 years. How do you not give it to them apart from using your emotion. While accusing others of getting overly emotional in this, you're ignoring the fact that it's your emotion and concern over seeing a young kid ruin his life that has you seeking the lesser penalty.

If this was a 60 year old homeless guy, I doubt you'd defend him so vociferously.

It's an emotionally charged issue. But if you take emotion out of it on both sides and look at it from a purely technical standpoint, the guy earned the maximum penalty allowed by law.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Brock

They didn't push him to do anything. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that if they thought he'd kill himself over it, they wouldn't have done what they did. If the guy offed several people in a shooting rampage instead of killing himself, it's still on him.

It would be interesting to see how different the reaction to this would be under that circumstance.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It shouldn't cause the sentence for the privacy violation to be enhanced either.



Sure, that's easy. How about a 35 year old teacher (instead of a college freshman, barely out of high school) using a hidden camera in the girl's locker room of his school (instead of his own dorm room) to record video for his kiddie porn site (instead of as a moronic, immature prank)?

Spot on. How does 2 college kids involved in a prank gone bad compare to a child predator?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It shouldn't cause the sentence for the privacy violation to be enhanced either.



Sure, that's easy. How about a 35 year old teacher (instead of a college freshman, barely out of high school) using a hidden camera in the girl's locker room of his school (instead of his own dorm room) to record video for his kiddie porn site (instead of as a moronic, immature prank)?

A) The sentence isn't being enhanced.

B) Most of the 2nd part has been addressed.

Addressing the age thing is you introducing your emotion to the topic by saying that the 35 year old doesn't have as much to live for and thus shouldn't be punished as harshly as the 18 year old.

Putting it in a girls locker room where you know they'll get undressed is no worse than putting it in your own dorm room where you know your gay roommate is going to be engaging in sexual congress of some sort (because he told you so, mind you). That's where you have to consider the pre-meditation aspect of it.

I think I mentioned the 'roommate' aspect of it in here somewhere and if I didn't, it was an oversight. It's the only thing this kid has going for him. At least he didn't drill a hole into some random kid's room and do this. At the same time, when you consider the fact that he essentially set the kid up by lying to him, he loses rooommate credit

And let's set aside this 'prank' jargon. This wasn't a prank - that's putting icy hot in a jockstrap. This was an emotional assault designed to torment a weakling. It wasn't immaturity, it was petty cruelty.

You can move about within the margins, but this is way high on the invasion of privacy scale.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Spot on. How does 2 college kids involved in a prank gone bad compare to a child predator?

Once again - child predator is subject to a different statutory scheme.