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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by vailpass

College kids pulling a prank that went severely wrong because the prankee was emotionally unstable.

The self-inflicted death of the young man is a tragedy. It would serve no good purpose to society to compound that tragedy by ruining the lives of two more young people with prison time when they have already been, and will continue to be, subjected to a much more severe punishment from the highest of courts: the court of public opinion. Additonally these two young students will suffer the consequences of potentially having to leave their school, one of the finest schools in the nation.

The guilt and sorrow these two young scholars will carry with them as a result of the young man's decision to kill himself will exceed 5 years, in fact they are already carrying a life sentence.

While that's well and good, same probably goes for a drunk driver who kills somebody. That doesn't change the way the law should be prosecuted. These guys seem to have pretty clearly broken some privacy laws. And for that, they should be prosecuted and yes, hopefully the suicide doesn't change the way the law is interpreted.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

While that's well and good, same probably goes for a drunk driver who kills somebody. That doesn't change the way the law should be prosecuted. These guys seem to have pretty clearly broken some privacy laws. And for that, they should be prosecuted and yes, hopefully the suicide doesn't change the way the law is interpreted.

Drunk driving and the victim impact is an entirely different offense than the one in question here; there is no comparison.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

College kids pulling a prank that went severely wrong because the prankee was emotionally unstable.

The self-inflicted death of the young man is a tragedy. It would serve no good purpose to society to compound that tragedy by ruining the lives of two more young people with prison time when they have already been, and will continue to be, subjected to a much more severe punishment from the highest of courts: the court of public opinion. Additonally these two young students will suffer the consequences of potentially having to leave their school, one of the finest schools in the nation.

The guilt and sorrow these two young scholars will carry with them as a result of the young man's decision to kill himself will exceed 5 years, in fact they are already carrying a life sentence.

Okay, set aside the consequences.

Invasion and publication of privacy is a crime punishable by up to 5 years.

Can you come up with a more brazen invasion and publication of privacy than this? Even if you look at something like the Erin Andrews national exposure - Erin Andrews is a public figure. For some college kid, posting it on DrudgeReport or some other national source isn't going to be much more damaging that merely circulating it amongst the local populace.

If any kind of conduct is punishable by the full 5 years allowed under the statute, this is it. I see no mitigating factors here. It was pre-meditated, it was done via false pretense (he told the kid that he would leave the room) and it was done with the clear intent of humiliating the kid. There's no silver lining to this, there's no justifiable influence.

This is precisely the kind of behavior this statute was designed to address.

Ignore whether or not the kid killed himself and ask just how much more egregious an invasion of privacy can get.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Okay, set aside the consequences.

Invasion and publication of privacy is a crime punishable by up to 5 years.

Can you come up with a more brazen invasion and publication of privacy than this? Even if you look at something like the Erin Andrews national exposure - Erin Andrews is a public figure. For some college kid, posting it on DrudgeReport or some other national source isn't going to be much more damaging that merely circulating it amongst the local populace.

If any kind of conduct is punishable by the full 5 years allowed under the statute, this is it. I see no mitigating factors here. It was pre-meditated, it was done via false pretense (he told the kid that he would leave the room) and it was done with the clear intent of humiliating the kid. There's no silver lining to this, there's no justifiable influence.

This is precisely the kind of behavior this statute was designed to address.

Ignore whether or not the kid killed himself and ask just how much more egregious an invasion of privacy can get.

A college prank gone wrong. Tell the jury these two young people should go sit in prison for 5 years. There was 0 premeditation. The kid was unstable and killed himself, a reasonably prudent person could not have forseen that consequence.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Drunk driving and the victim impact is an entirely different offense than the one in question here; there is no comparison.

Indeed, and drunk driving is subject to entirely different sentencing guidelines.

But if the evening starts and I announce to my friends that I am going to get drunk and drive home, for the express purpose of drunk driving, then I should probably get the maximum allowed punishment for drunk driving if I get nabbed at a checkpoint.

I didn't kill anyone, so I shouldn't be punished for vehicular manslaughter in the same way these kids shouldn't be punished for murder.

At the same time, everything I did in the commission of my DUI was pre-meditated and done with the absolute intent of bringing about a violation of the law in the most brazen manner possible.

If you don't want to consider the end result of the conduct and you don't want to consider the mind-set of the person that committed the criminal act, just exactly what should be considered during sentencing?

I just don't see a way around giving these kids the maximum allowable punishment.

[Zaiko]

Originally Posted by vailpass

A college prank gone wrong. Tell the jury these two young people should go sit in prison for 5 years. There was 0 premeditation 0 intent.

0 premeditation and 0 intent? Do you know what those words mean? Not trying to be a dick, I just don't see how in the world you came up with that.

There is OBVIOUS premeditation, and intent is there as well.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Zaiko

0 premeditation and 0 intent? Do you know what those words mean? Not trying to be a dick, I just don't see how in the world you came up with that.

There is OBVIOUS premeditation, and intent is there as well.

To have the kid kill himself?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Indeed, and drunk driving is subject to entirely different sentencing guidelines.

But if the evening starts and I announce to my friends that I am going to get drunk and drive home, for the express purpose of drunk driving, then I should probably get the maximum allowed punishment for drunk driving if I get nabbed at a checkpoint.

I didn't kill anyone, so I shouldn't be punished for vehicular manslaughter in the same way these kids shouldn't be punished for murder.

At the same time, everything I did in the commission of my DUI was pre-meditated and done with the absolute intent of bringing about a violation of the law in the most brazen manner possible.

If you don't want to consider the end result of the conduct and you don't want to consider the mind-set of the person that committed the criminal act, just exactly what should be considered during sentencing?

I just don't see a way around giving these kids the maximum allowable punishment.

Then you don't live in reality. Let's see what the results of the trial are, if there even is a trial. Wouldn't surprise me to see a plea deal with 0 time served.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

A college prank gone wrong. Tell the jury these two young people should go sit in prison for 5 years. There was 0 premeditation. The kid was unstable and killed himself, a reasonably prudent person could not have forseen that consequence.

Wait a minute now. We're disregarding the consequences, remember?

There was no premeditation for the death, but we're not talking about the death, just the invasion of privacy.

The invasion of privacy was absolutely, 100% premeditated and designed to humiliate. As far as the invasion of privacy itself is concerned, there was all the intent and all the pre-meditation that there could possibly be. And it's the invasion of privacy that's being prosecuted.

If a crime which is premeditated and designed to foster just the type of reaction that the statute was enacted to avoid, yet that crime isn't punishable to the fullest extent allowed by the statute, just exactly what would be?

If you don't like the statutory scheme, contact your local congressman. But I see no way this kid can't get the maximum penalty allowed under the statute. There's just no justification for this invasion of privacy and every factor introduced is an aggravating, rather than mitigating factor. Every additional fact surrounding the invasion of privacy serves to make the invasion worse.

It's a different approach to reviewing a 'proper' sentence, but in my mind the result comes out the same.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Wait a minute now. We're disregarding the consequences, remember?

There was no premeditation for the death, but we're not talking about the death, just the invasion of privacy.

The invasion of privacy was absolutely, 100% premeditated and designed to humiliate.

If a crime which is premeditated and designed to foster just the type of reaction that the statute was enacted to avoid, yet that crime isn't punishable to the fullest extent allowed by the statute, just exactly what would be?

If you don't like the statutory scheme, contact your local congressman. But I see no way this kid can't get the maximum penalty allowed under the statute. There's just no justification for this invasion of privacy and every factor introduced is an aggravating, rather than mitigating factor. Every additional fact surrounding the invasion of privacy serves to make the invasion worse.

It's a different approach to reviewing a 'proper' sentence, but in my mind the result comes out the same.

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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Can you publicly broadcast that, without them knowing?

Without who knowing? You could do the same thing these kids did and tweet the heads up to your circle of friends. Or you could email them a link to the video file.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Then you don't live in reality. Let's see what the results of the trial are, if there even is a trial. Wouldn't surprise me to see a plea deal with 0 time served.

The verdict would be guilty and usually the judge himself determines the years served.

Jurors are merely finders of fact. They rarely dole out the punishment as that is not their role within our legal system. Their role is to determine if the facts, as alleged, are true and if so, what crime has been committed based on the jury instructions they are given.

It's then generally the judge's discretion to determine how the law is then applied to the facts as determined by the jury.

Yeah, there are plenty of judges that would give this kid 5 years.

And like I said, if I were a judge I could not possibly come up with a more brazen violation of an invasion of privacy statute. I'd give them the maximum amount allowed by law unless I found that Congress had acted unreasonably. With the psychological damage that can arise from an invasion of privacy (as has been witnessed), I'm disinclined to understate the degree of damage that can be done through an invasion of privacy and would therefore not determine 5 years to be unreasonable.

Bailiff, take the defendant into custody...

[Rain Man]

The tough thing about this is that all of you are right. Clearly, the kids didn't expect this kid to kill himself, but they did apparently undertake the activity with malicious intent, and he did kill himself as a result.

I wonder to what extent the intent comes in, though. If I'm at an intersection and give some bicyclist the finger for running a stop sign and then he kills himself and puts me down as the reason (damn those identifying license plates), then should I get the same penalty as a guy who killed that bicyclist while driving drunk? I would sure hope not.

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.

The other interesting question to me is whether this would be considered a hate crime. It sounds like they did it because he was gay, so I bet they're hosed on that account.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

She'll have a license to enter the premises.

That license will be for a particular purpose - for cleaning.

If she goes beyond the purpose of the license, she has no expecation.

If, however, she's the lessor of the premises, she has a full expectation of privacy. If she's given a license to both clean and **** on the coffee table (presumably this would need to be an express license as I can't imagine any scenario where one would be implied), she would then have an expectation of privacy as to the ****ing, but not as to making meth in the basement.

This is very very very very VERY simple and folks are coming up with really stupid hypotheticals in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

This area of law is so well settled that its comical. This kid has an expectation of privacy and it was clearly invaded.

It's like trying to teach math to a monkey.

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.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The verdict would be guilty and usually the judge himself determines the years served.

Jurors are merely finders of fact. They rarely dole out the punishment as that is not their role within our legal system. Their role is to determine if the facts, as alleged, are true and if so, what crime has been committed based on the jury instructions they are given.

It's then generally the judge's discretion to determine how the law is then applied to the facts as determined by the jury.

Yeah, there are plenty of judges that would give this kid 5 years.

And like I said, if I were a judge I could not possibly come up with a more brazen violation of an invasion of privacy statute. I'd give them the maximum amount allowed by law unless I found that Congress had acted unreasonably. With the psychological damage that can arise from an invasion of privacy (as has been witnessed), I'm disinclined to understate the degree of damage that can be done through an invasion of privacy and would therefore not determine 5 years to be unreasonable.

Bailiff, take the defendant into custody...

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