Ravi guilty on all major counts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank god. What an ass.

If we criminalized being an ass and a jerk, the prisons would be way more overcrowded than they are now. Ravi's conduct should be condemned, but not criminalized, any more than John Edwards (a real jerk) should be on trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank god. What an ass.

If we criminalized being an ass and a jerk, the prisons would be way more overcrowded than they are now. Ravi's conduct should be condemned, but not criminalized, any more than John Edwards (a real jerk) should be on trial.

John Edwards isn't on trial for being a jerk. He is on trial for allegedly violating federal campaign finance laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one that thinks the media really skewed this case?

1) He never filmed the roommate having sex (just kissing)
2) The roommate was not closeted, he was openly gay
3) The roommate's Mother just a week earlier told him she was disappointed he was gay and didn't approve of his choices.
4) Ravi sent an email (before he jumped off a bridge) apologizing and saying he had no problem with him being gay.

When I was a college freshman lots of stories like this happened between (straight) roommates. Freshmen at college are basically idiots. I think his mother's rejection had more to do with his suicide than his roommate. Of course there is no proof since there is no note.

I agree with him being convicted of privacy invasion, but don't agree with the other counts.

The trail wasn't held by the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank god. What an ass.

If we criminalized being an ass and a jerk, the prisons would be way more overcrowded than they are now. Ravi's conduct should be condemned, but not criminalized, any more than John Edwards (a real jerk) should be on trial.

John Edwards isn't on trial for being a jerk. He is on trial for allegedly violating federal campaign finance laws.

Veteran prosecutors and election law experts consider the charges to be a pretty creative interpretation of the campaign finance statutes. (In hindsight, maybe Edwards should have created a Supreme Court-sanctioned superpac!) Edwards is a moral scoundrel, but that doesn't make him a criminal. Nor should the government be wasting time on these and other cases like prosecuting athletes for steroid use (ok, technically, for allegedly lying about it). Not every kind of bad conduct needs to be criminalized.

[Anonymous]

I don't know all the facts of this case, but I agree generally with the notion that we should not be putting "jerks" on trial or criminalizing their conduct. This seems like a very sad case, and the American "blame" culture going awry. A very unhappy kid took his own life, and we have to blame someone. And it may be true that he was treated cruelly and bullied by the defendant. But that doesn't mean we should put him on trial.

I think it is a dangerous precedent.

[Anonymous]

While the consequences of his actions were certainly unexpectedly terrible and there's been a lot of over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric about this case, the bottom line is that Ravi broke the law(s).

[Anonymous]

The case may have been tried in the media, but that may not have much to do with what the jury decided. I'm a trial attorney and in my experience jurors take their jobs very seriously. They are instructed on the elements of each charge (unlike most people who have written about this story, on this thread and elsewhere). I don't know enough about the particular charges in this case to comment, but having watched many criminal trials, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he was convicted for merely being a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the facts of this case, but I agree generally with the notion that we should not be putting "jerks" on trial or criminalizing their conduct. This seems like a very sad case, and the American "blame" culture going awry. A very unhappy kid took his own life, and we have to blame someone. And it may be true that he was treated cruelly and bullied by the defendant. But that doesn't mean we should put him on trial.

I think it is a dangerous precedent.

How can you comment on whether this is an appropriate prosecution when you admittedly don't know all of the facts of the case and, most likely, you don't know the law either? Your point may be reasonable, but you have no idea whether or not this case is a good example of what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The case may have been tried in the media, but that may not have much to do with what the jury decided. I'm a trial attorney and in my experience jurors take their jobs very seriously. They are instructed on the elements of each charge (unlike most people who have written about this story, on this thread and elsewhere). I don't know enough about the particular charges in this case to comment, but having watched many criminal trials, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he was convicted for merely being a jerk.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the facts of this case, but I agree generally with the notion that we should not be putting "jerks" on trial or criminalizing their conduct. This seems like a very sad case, and the American "blame" culture going awry. A very unhappy kid took his own life, and we have to blame someone. And it may be true that he was treated cruelly and bullied by the defendant. But that doesn't mean we should put him on trial.

I think it is a dangerous precedent.

How can you comment on whether this is an appropriate prosecution when you admittedly don't know all of the facts of the case and, most likely, you don't know the law either? Your point may be reasonable, but you have no idea whether or not this case is a good example of what you're talking about.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. How many other people have even been prosecuted for a violation of this webcam spying law in the past? If spying is illegal in NJ, the prosecutor's office should be going after every kid who videos another person and puts it on facebook without permission. Not just when the outcome is so sad. Otherwise we're criminalizing the result... not the conduct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the facts of this case, but I agree generally with the notion that we should not be putting "jerks" on trial or criminalizing their conduct. This seems like a very sad case, and the American "blame" culture going awry. A very unhappy kid took his own life, and we have to blame someone. And it may be true that he was treated cruelly and bullied by the defendant. But that doesn't mean we should put him on trial.

I think it is a dangerous precedent.

How can you comment on whether this is an appropriate prosecution when you admittedly don't know all of the facts of the case and, most likely, you don't know the law either? Your point may be reasonable, but you have no idea whether or not this case is a good example of what you're talking about.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. How many other people have even been prosecuted for a violation of this webcam spying law in the past? If spying is illegal in NJ, the prosecutor's office should be going after every kid who videos another person and puts it on facebook without permission. Not just when the outcome is so sad. Otherwise we're criminalizing the result... not the conduct.

15:15 here again. I just answered my own question. This law has been on the books for 10 years. According to this article, this is the first EVER prosecution.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/tyler_clement_case/031612_Webcam_spying_case_could_bring_change_to_NJ_bias_law.html

[Anonymous]

Dharun openly encouraged people to iChat him to see his room mate having sex. While the medium doesn't necessarily "record," it is "broadcasting" someone having sex without his(her) consent. Personally, I would file charges against my roommate if this happened to me (and I am straight!). I cannot believe people are defending his actions. I am pretty sure you would not like this to happen to you! It was a complete violation of privacy!

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure that I see this as a hate crime, but invasion of privacy, yes. He would have filmed his friend having sex with a girl too, he was just nosy and immature.

[Anonymous]

Invasion of privacy? Yes.
Hate crime? No.

Very unfortunate all around. Ravi is probably wishing he'd taken that plea deal. Now he'll go to jail AND be deported.

[Anonymous]

How much jail time was recommended by the jury?