Verdict in Web-Cam Case

I meant to say something about this on Friday, when I first heard the story on NPR, coming home from work. But it was DW's 40th Birthday, so... yeah, going out to dinner took precedence. Then I had to work Saturday, and for most of the day today... Well, I got my grass-seed planted. Which is weird, considering it's mid-March, and I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. We'll see how that goes. And the rest of the day... what can I say? It was 'bonus x.p. weekend', I had to play at least a little. ;)

So... If you're interested, I'm sure some of you have heard by now about the conviction of Dharun Ravi for, among other things, invasion of privacy and commission of a hate crime.  This is the student who, in late 2010, used a web cam to spy on, and broadcast the romantic activities of, his gay roommate. In September of that year, his roommate killed himself, by jumping of the George Washington Bridge.  It should come as little surprise to many of my readers that I was happy to hear about the verdict.

The reason I wanted to write something about this is that, in my opinion, it shows the true value of having hate crime laws in the first place.  There is no question that privacy was invaded. And regardless of the victim, or the motivation  for doing this, most of us would be angry enough about that.  Put aside for the moment that the victim was gay. Imagine it was yourself, or your son or daughter, being filmed without their knowledge. Having sex, maybe, or masturbating, or maybe just having a good long cry at the end of a stressful day. I'm sure we can all sympathize with the anger that this would evoke, our private moments, stolen from us and broadcast for someone else's amusement.

But there was MORE to this. A young man DIED.  And while it would be absurdly presumptuous of me to say that the spying caused the suicide - and indeed, I don't believe it truly did - likewise I cannot accept that it didn't play somea role in it.  I mean, sure the young man was very likely already suicidal. He was likely struggling to come to grips with his sexuality, he was in college with, apparently, few friends. That's a tough situation in and of itself. He may very well have been clinically depressed. (OK, yeah, duh, he KILLED HIMSELF, so OBVIOUSLY...) But that's just it: It's hardly the act of a law abiding citizen to mock and harass and victimize a person on the brink of suicide. Perhaps we're not required to help people by law.  But this was more than a mere invasion of privacy.  There is a death to account for here, and this man played some role in it that cannot be denied.

So what to do?

Well... the hate crime allows the judge to add up to five more years to the sentence, by adding on another conviction.  Without this, we're left with either nothing - just the invasion of privacy, which to me seems woefully inadequate - or upping the charge to something like manslaughter or felony murder (both of which carry a potential life sentence) which, it might surprise some of you to hear me say, I think would be absurdly overkill.  Ravi did NOT intend to KILL this young man. Of that I have no doubt. This was little more than a stupid college prank, or so he thought.  And the role he played in Clementi's death? In the big picture was likely a small and indirect one.  But the fact remains that his prank led, in whatever way, to the death of a fellow human being, and one who had done him no harm.  He can get up to ten years for this, just for the two primary convictions, and he faces deportation, having been born in India.

And I have almost no opinion about the potential sentence at this point. I don't believe he'll get the full ten years, and part of me wants to say that is still just. Admittedly, part of me wants to see the book thrown at him, but this wasn't a cross-burning or violent type of hate crime. And as for deportation... Meh, we'll see how it goes.  Nothing can be done now to bring this young man back.  It's just such a shame that someone chooses to act this way, rather than to reach out and try to help someone.  If more people did, things like this, and other tragedies that hit closer to home, for me anyway, might never have happened. (It would be so easy for me to hate Seung-Hui Cho, but I can only shake my head, and think that Cho was not so different from Clementi - just another young man who needed help, and did not get it.)

So reach out to your fellow man. Let them know that they are not alone. Such small acts of kindness and consideration and empathy can make such a huge difference in the world. Of course, you'll never SEE that difference, as you'll never know what these small acts may have prevented.  But it is so painful to see what happens in their absence.

Hate Crime?

I want to say a few things, show a few things, and ask all of your opinions about something, regarding the tragic suicide of the Rutgers student last week after being spied on and outed over the Internet by his “otherwise OK” roommate.


I was firing up my Wii the other night, and noticed the story on my Wii News Channel. Normally I don’t get my information from my Wii (or think with my… never mind) but I was interested in this particular story, so I clicked on it. For the most part it was a rehashing of the basic facts of the case, but their conclusion kind of pissed me off. I don’t have access to it any more, so I can’t put the exact wording, but it was something like this:

“Incidents such as these demonstrate the dangers lurking in the Internet and social networking sites.”

…The fuck?

That likes saying “Bananas are dangerous because the can be used to plug up the tailpipes of cars!” That’s an absolutely absurd conclusion to draw form this story! The Internet, and social networking sites are TOOLS. Now ANY tool can be misused for ill purpose. Duh. Obvious. Hardly a newsworthy story here. What it SHOULD show us are the dangers of homophobia. The dangers of ignorance. The dangers of intolerance and bigotry. It SHOULD show us what a lousy job we’re doing instilling our children with moral values such as respecting other people’s privacy. And this is absolutely all about this student being gay, because if he was with a girl, this wouldn’t have happened. But GOD FORBID we put out a news story that is remotely supportive of treating homosexuals like HUMAN BEINGS. That might buy into the radical GAY AGENDA. (…to be treated like human beings. What nut jobs, huh?)

Who’d have thought that my Wii was Conservatively biased?

Speaking of which… what’s with THIS douchbag? How much sympathy? The guys DEAD, asshole! Less than you deserve apparently, should your life be turned upside down, your privacy invaded, your trust violated, and your private affairs used as comedic fodder for those around you, and around the world. Hey, here’s an experiment… Let’s beat this guy to death, and see how much sympathy that generates! Hey… then at least we’d know, right?

Now, having said all that and establishing where I stand on the issue overall, I want to put out a question that I think and hope will generate some thoughtful debate:

Was this a HATE CRIME?

Personally, I’d have no problem with these two being changed with anything up to involuntary manslaughter, because their actions did, absolutely, lead to this man’s death. Unintentionally, yes. I’ll buy that. But there was, at a minimum, a tort being committed, if not a crime: Invasion of privacy. So, in my mind, I can see throwing some rather severe penalties at these two, because their behavior was absolutely unacceptable. No question.

But was it a hate crime?

Believe it or not, and while I may be accused of splitting hairs here, I say, “No.”

My reasoning, is that I think of hate crimes in a very specific way. They have everything to do with the MOTIVES behind a crime, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with hate specifically. That and I don’t think these two really HATED this guy, or gays in general. As little sympathy as I give them legally, this WAS really just a [despicable] college prank gone fantastically, horribly wrong. The MOTIVATION that I need to see to consider something a hate crime is this: Are they trying to send a message to the rest of the [whatever] community?

If they had set his car on fire? Slashed his tires? Beat him to a pulp, while wearing hoods? (Etc, etc…) THAT’S a hate crime, because it’s meant to send a message, a threat, to the rest of the community. And as much as I despise these two, I just don’t see that here. It may be a minor point, but I think it’s an important question; especially if we expect “hate crime” to carry the kind of weight that “terrorism” (essentially the same crime) carries when someone on the Right makes that claim.

Personally? I see this as a crime of IGNORANCE. And I think it shows how much better of a job we need to do to teach people (children) not only tolerance, but a basic respect for boundaries! If these same two had put a web-cam in the girl’s bathroom, there would be people calling for rape charges. But instead they spy on a gay student, and there’s a debate as to whether or not there’s even a crime here. And my Wii seems to think that the danger lies in the Internet and Social Networking!

That sickens me. Because there is no doubt in my mind that if this student were not gay, (1) he wouldn’t have been harassed like this, and (2) if he was, the public would clearly be putting the spotlight of guilt on the other two students, not piddling about, debating whether of not there’s been a crime committed.

But please let me know your thoughts. Especially on whether or not this is a HATE CRIME.  Because I had heard that allegation raised, and I really wasn't quite sure what I really thought about it.  So I'm interested to hear your all's thoughts about it.