Rutgers freshman suicide after roommate broadcast gay sexual encounter online?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Pioli Zombie]

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

[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.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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

or two cheerleaders in a bathroom.

Yes, there is a hypocritical nature to this. It is what it is.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

or two cheerleaders in a bathroom.

Yes, there is a hypocritical nature to this. It is what it is.

Sue the **** out them for invasion of privacy.

I don't know much about this but it appears that's the case.

I'm cool with that.

I'm also cool with pointing out that the guy decided to off himself, and if he doesn't believe he's worth fighting for....well......I probably shouldn't either.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

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

Two chicks good
Two dicks BAD

[Hug it Out Dan]

This happens in frat house ALL across the country.

I think gay is an issue on this.

If a guy was straight and hooking up w/ a chick, more than likely he "may" be embarassed, then would get over it in a few hours, a day etc.

BUT......since he was gay, Oh no!!!! Now people know im gay!!! There's hard evidence of it. That obviuosly scared him because of it.

[Zaiko]

Originally Posted by Laces Out Dan

This happens in frat house ALL across the country.

I think gay is an issue on this.

If a guy was straight and hooking up w/ a chick, more than likely he "may" be embarassed, then would get over it in a few hours, a day etc.

BUT......since he was gay, Oh no!!!! Now people know im gay!!! There's hard evidence of it. That obviuosly scared him because of it.

Yeah but it's not just what you think of it yourself.. If he's taking a LOT of shit for it all the time, I'd have to think that'd get to you.