Besides that, being outed is one thing-having a sex vid of you go viral is a wee bit more extreme than that…
Add on top of it that it’s a shy, sheltered, not-so-studly-looking 18-year old…I dunno how old you are, but at 18 that would just seem like the end of the world.
At 18, most people don’t have the resilience that you get once you’ve weathered a few storms. That is combined with raging hormones and poor impulse control.
That’s not illness, that’s just normal teenagerhood I’m talking about.
The kid who perpetrated the crime is disgusting and ignorant. I think he should be charged for the crime involving taping sex acts without consent or whatever else the can find relating to that area of misconduct.
I don’t think the suicide was an intended consequence of the filmmakers actions however, I hope he feels extreme remorse over the death of his roommate. He get’s to live with that for the rest of his life. I hope he understands the pain he’s brought on people. This isn’t a hate crime and I think it’s a stretch to pin the death on anyone other then the unfortunate victim.
While the death may be unintended, it was an indirect result of his actual criminal actions and I feel a maximum penalty should be imposed for the crimes he did commit.
But how do those numbers compare to the student population at large? It’s bad statistics otherwise. I mean, apparently 42% of students were victims of violence (Cite) from a boyfriend or girlfriend. That seems kind of throw a wrench in things right there. Actually, those numbers are for 18 - 24 which isn’t really the high school crowd, but you know what I’m getting at. You need a baseline.
We take motivation into account all the time in criminal proceedings. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, for example.
“Hate crime” is really a horrible label for these laws. “Community identity crime” would be a better. Was someone targeted because of their membership in some larger community? Or was the victim picked randomly or because of personal animosity? Picking a victim because of community identity is judged to be deserving of a harsher penalty because traditionally such crimes have been used as a way to intimidate and harass the entire community. Vandalizing a random house for kicks is not the same as spray-painting a swastika on the front door of a Jew, even though the amount of property damage might be the same.
I hope he faces a judge who likes to make examples. With the increasing ubiquity of cameras, a good harsh case of somebody getting nailed for assholish abuses should help deter at least some potential repeats.
I think you’re reading that statistic wrong. That looks more like 42% of reported abuse is by teens who have experienced violence by a boyfriend or girlfriend. Not 42% of teens reported abuse.
The statistics on LGBT youth is very disturbing. I find it strange that some people in this thread have tried to make this a simple invasion of privacy and just run-of-the-mill college assholery. Are people living in caves?
Something about the way it’s unfolding doesn’t quite sit right with me either. They did a really shitty thing and the end result was tragic, but I’m not sure clamoring for their heads—or searching high and low for some obscure charge to lay on them— is a measured response to what they did.
Scenario 1:
I tape a “KICK ME” sign to your back*. Everybody laughs. You find it, ball it up, and throw it at me while calling me a jerk.
Scenario 2:
I tape a “KICK ME” sign to your back. Everybody laughs. You walk over to your desk, pull out a handgun, and blow your brains out.
My actions were exactly the same in both cases. Am I a jerkish prankster in the first case and a hate-filled killer in the second?
Disclaimer for those with jerkable knees: this is a dumbed-down example for hypothetical purposes only. I am not intimating that taping a “KICK ME” sign on someone’s back is equivalent to broadcasting them having sex on the Internet, nor that the roommate and his accomplice should get off scot-free.
Exactly. If Clementi had lived and chosen to sue Ravi or press charges for anything from net porn to invasion of privacy then I’d support him fully- the guy is an obnoxious heartless asshole like most online pranksters- but I don’t think any reasonable person thinks he wanted or imagined Clementi to kill himself. And it’s not a hate crime unless it comes to light Ravi is a criminal mastermind who knew this would end up with Clementi killing himself.
I’m also against most hate crime legislation (I believe in keeping statistics or allowing the Feds to intervene if local law enforcement isn’t doing much but I don’t believe the person’s motive or personal views should have jack to do with sentencing or the crime itself. Also, as a gay man I also resent the notion that we’re such delicate flowers we need to be especially protected from the big bad world AT THE SAME TIME when we’re furious over not being allowed to get into the military.
I suppose this is why I have a lot of anger at Clementi himself. I know he was acting personally and not to make an example, but he just reinforced the notion of “gay is so bad it’s better to be dead than outed” to both bigots and to other gay kids. They’re ameliorated by the probability he had some serious emotional issues that went way beyond being gay.
A messed-up situation all around, that. I wonder, if the guy just hurt himself severely over it, we’d probably be calling him a self-destructive nutter, rather than a hate-crime victim?
This pretty much sums up what my response would have been, Barkis.
Is anyone else annoyed that they refer to what was probably a forum post as an “email”?
I’d say that’s not even a good parallel–the married guy is doing something wrong by having sex with someone who isn’t his partner. An unmarried man is doing nothing wrong by having sex with another unmarried man.
Disclaimer aside, I don’t think this analogy works at all. I think it’s more of a difference between a “kick me” sign and a “sandnigger terrorist” sign, in a part of the country where being seen as Muslim is enough to get your ass kicked if you run into the wrong people.
That’s not the point of hate crime legislation. Everybody needs protection from violence; groups that are especially targeted need more of it. It’s like calling a racecar driver a “delicate flower” for wearing a five-point harness instead of a standard seatbelt.
Yes, but a reasonable person might expect more damage to life and reputation from being forcefully outed, and your sexual acts broadcasted, than an insignificant prank like you describe.
Being unreasonable, and not knowing when things have gone too far does not constitute an excuse.
I know a young couple whose laptop was stolen, it contained some private videos of them, and photos (and presumably videos too) were disseminated in their small town. They are practicing Catholics, married, and all the things that society values over being gay (unfairly, I hope I don’t have to clarify). They were both horrified, humiliated and have never recovered completely from this.
It is a terrible thing to do to somebody, even worse when the consequences can be more serious (like being outed, or an extramarital affair revealed).
I don’t really understand how that’s at all relevant to what I said. If somebody murders an innocent person then they should be tried for murdering an innocent person; about the only times I can think of that motive should come into play would be in determing whether they were sane (and fewer than 1% of defendants in murder cases claim otherwise) or whether it was self defense. Matthew Shepard’s killers were tried for killing an unarmed innocent person- the fact he was gay isn’t really an issue in the trial or crime itself. If somebody killed a Third World born convenience store and it turns out they’ve been president of “Americans Against Third Worlders” for 20 years, it’s still the murder they’re being tried for, not for the hatred of Third Worlders.
If it was unintentional homicide that would qualify as manslaughter (which I don’t think this case would be) then I don’t think the fact it’s motivated by orientation/race/religion/whatever should come into play either. MLK said something to the effect of “The law can’t make you love me, but it can punish you for hitting me”, and it’s the hitting- not the lack of love- we should be concerned with.
Not quite the same. I believe murder/manslaughter is differentiated by intent, not motive. Granted, first or second degree murder depend on whether the act was planned or not. It’s still not the same as motivation.
@ Sampiro.
I’m not following the argument that closely here, but it appears to be you’re confusing motive and intent. In the case of the young man who committed suicide, the motive of the roommate may have been anything from a prank to a deliberate attempt to hurt the poor fellow. However, that’s a long way from intending the unfortunate outcome.
Does it really matter that he was gay? After all, wouldn’t it have been just as awful if it had been him showering with his girlfriend? The crime was, as I understand it, a violation of the individuals right to privacy, not a homicide.
If I’ve misinterpreting what you’re saying, please accept my apology.
True, and there should definitely be repercussions, but commensurate with the act. Had he lived, I think Clementi would’ve had excellent grounds for a lawsuit against the pair, and that they deserve to be expelled, and possibly merit criminal penalties of some kind.
The public outcry for criminal charges of the severest kind is an (understandable) emotional reaction to the sad aftermath, rather than the crime itself. Let’s be honest, had he not offed himself, nobody—probably Clementi included—would be entertaining thoughts of federal hate crime charges.