Anonymous wrote:How much jail time was recommended by the jury?

Jail time (sentencing) is always decided by either mandatory minimum and maximum sentencing laws when applicable or by the judge within his/her discretion.

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the other student who was in on the secret taping? Why isn't she on trial and up for deportation, too?

She plead guilty. AFAIK, she's a citizen and not facing deportation.

I think he would have had a viewing party if his roommate was with a woman. Free live porn. The woman would also have been humiliated and harassed. But for some reason that would not be a hate crime. Hating homosexuals is a hate crime. Misogyny is somehow acceptable. It wouldn't even have been prosecuted if a woman under these circumstances had killed herself over this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to think it shoudn't make a difference that Tyler was gay, or that Ravi didn't intend for him to die. The gay factor is absolutely relevant, as it was probably the major factor behind Ravi finding it interesting enough to want to broadcast to his friends.

And it was probably the factor that motivated the prosecution to push the limits and bring this case. It's political correctness run amok, joined with a knee-jerk attitutde that someone died, therfore someone's got to pay.

No, it's not political correctness run amok.
Ask yourself whether Ravi would have organized his two "viewing parties" if his roommate had been straight and had decided to bring a girl into their room. The answer is that he wouldn't have, because as a PP pointed out, most college freshmen are like horny toads that have suddenly been liberated from parental supervision and the astronomical amount of sexual activity going on in freshmen dorms is well-known and taken for granted. So his friends would have called him a perv and ostracized him for peeping on a straight couple.

But bullying a gay kid or a handicapped person or anyone who is in any way different is ok? Well, no, it's not ok, it destroys lives, and it's high time people who do that start paying for it.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to think it shoudn't make a difference that Tyler was gay, or that Ravi didn't intend for him to die. The gay factor is absolutely relevant, as it was probably the major factor behind Ravi finding it interesting enough to want to broadcast to his friends.

And it was probably the factor that motivated the prosecution to push the limits and bring this case. It's political correctness run amok, joined with a knee-jerk attitutde that someone died, therfore someone's got to pay.

Anonymous wrote:I agree, this is not a hate crime
If you want to do whoopie, do not do it in a shared space like a dorm room
It is really horrible when your roommate brings sexual partners into the room and your life is inconvenienced.

Just do nooki-nooki somewhere else

So, invasion of privacy?? No

Have you ever lived in a college dorm? (Based on your post I'm not sure.) Sex in a dorm room is pretty much a rite of passage. I think the whole tying-the-necktie-on-the-door thing has been around since dorms were invented. There's even a word for it--"sexiled." College kids are full of hormones, on their own for the first time, and there is NOWHERE else to go. It's unrealistic to think they're not going to do it. And I've never heard of a roommate objecting to sex in their room, as long as the "lucky" roommate was respectful about it, which perhaps the boy at Rutgers may not have been. But to say kids shouldn't have sex in a dorm room....good luck with that.

What happened to the other student who was in on the secret taping? Why isn't she on trial and up for deportation, too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, this is not a hate crime
If you want to do whoopie, do not do it in a shared space like a dorm room
It is really horrible when your roommate brings sexual partners into the room and your life is inconvenienced.

Just do nooki-nooki somewhere else

So, invasion of privacy?? No

Invasion of privacy was trying to broadcast the 'nooki-nooki'. Ravi should have told Clementi in his face that he objected to him 'doing whoopie' in the shared space.

Nooki-nooki, doing whoopie.. PP, are you in the 9th grade, or something?

What makes you think he was not told?

In the New Yorker article, it made it sound like Ravi never voiced any objection and in fact virtually never spoke to Tyler at all. And Ravi had already gone along with it once. This time he had a whole watch party set up, so it's hard to believe he was objecting. Do you have other (reliable) information?

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised anyone who read the new yorker article is glad he was found guilty. This case is like Roshomon...

In my opinion, he was a jerk - but since when does that cause someone to go to jail? Thinking back to freshman year, if my roommate had brought over a 30 year old (man or woman) she met on the internet (back when 30 seemed sooooo old) I'm sure we all would have been talking about it. would I have spied - no - but I can see how someone who is a jerk would do so. again, not saying what he did wasn't wrong - but illegal???

I read it, closely, and I was affected enough to start a thread on here and discuss it with many people in real life. And yet, weeks after reading the article, with the details now fuzzy in my mind, my gut reaction to this verdict was that it is just. Heartbreaking all around, no question. But I think it was the right result, considering everything. It's shitty that this particular kid has to worry about deportation when a garden-variety U.S.-born asshole wouldn't, but if his consequences were worse than another kid's that's all the more reason he should have kept his nose clean. At the end of the day I blame his family, as they are the ones who let him turn into an entitled brat who could live 4 feet away from someone for weeks and continually show utter disrespect for him as a human being. I do think this will send an example and hopefully things like this will happen less often in the future. (Because they do happen, every single day, even though most victims don't commit suicide so it doesn't make the news.)

Everyone seems to think it shoudn't make a difference that Tyler was gay, or that Ravi didn't intend for him to die. The gay factor is absolutely relevant, as it was probably the major factor behind Ravi finding it interesting enough to want to broadcast to his friends. And not all crimes require "specific intent." The penalties are different if you hit someone with your car and they die than if you hit someone with your car and they walk away, even though you never meant to hit anyone with your car at all. The outcome does matter--just ask Tyler's family.

Anonymous wrote:How can a naturalized citizen be deported?

Have you read this thread? He's not a naturalized citizen.

How can a naturalized citizen be deported?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, this is not a hate crime
If you want to do whoopie, do not do it in a shared space like a dorm room
It is really horrible when your roommate brings sexual partners into the room and your life is inconvenienced.

Just do nooki-nooki somewhere else

So, invasion of privacy?? No

Invasion of privacy was trying to broadcast the 'nooki-nooki'. Ravi should have told Clementi in his face that he objected to him 'doing whoopie' in the shared space.

Nooki-nooki, doing whoopie.. PP, are you in the 9th grade, or something?

What makes you think he was not told?

When we deport him maybe he and Obama can leave in January together.

Agree w/ the climate, about being gay. I still think that he would have done it if his roomie had a girl. Still privacy invasion. Agree that these kids should find somewhere else to have sex of any kind.