Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:22:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.cbsnews.com...

I don't care that Tyler Clementi was gay, and I don't even think it matters that he killed himself. If you video tape me without my knowledge or consent while I'm potentially having sex in my bedroom - and have plans to put it all over the internet (to mock, jerk off to or otherwise), I expect you to get penalized A LOT more than 30 days in jail. "The internet isn't written in pencil. It's written in ink." What you post has the potential to ruin lives (as we have seen). I think cries of "cyber bullying" by the media are excessive, and I don't think Ravi should have been sentenced to 10 years to be made an example of, but damnit I've been harshly grounded for longer than that for MUCH less serious offenses. I don't think he is responsible for Tyler's death (though that was certainly an unfortunate repercussion of his malicious actions), but how is blatantly violating someone's privacy like that only worth 30 days on top of being convicted for lying to investigators and tampering evidence?! Jeez - minor drug offenders are penalized more harshly than this!
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:38:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.

I don't think there was malicious intent, I'm fine with giving him a slap on the wrist with this one. I seriously doubt he'll ever consider re-offending.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:40:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:38:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.

I don't think there was malicious intent, I'm fine with giving him a slap on the wrist with this one. I seriously doubt he'll ever consider re-offending.

So you think that invading someone's privacy and taping him having sex is not malicious? He was taping him specifically because he was gay.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:38:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.

I don't think there was malicious intent, I'm fine with giving him a slap on the wrist with this one. I seriously doubt he'll ever consider re-offending.
Doesn't matter. We have no way of telling whether someone had the intent to do something in this kind of situation. (Different to say, crashing into someone's house when there's heavy storm, which is most likely not intentional.) The public needs to know that behavior like this is not acceptable, and 30 days in jail is as ridiculous as possible. Enough for some people do breach privacy anyway.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:42:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:40:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:38:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.

I don't think there was malicious intent, I'm fine with giving him a slap on the wrist with this one. I seriously doubt he'll ever consider re-offending.

So you think that invading someone's privacy and taping him having sex is not malicious? He was taping him specifically because he was gay.

Do you want to see him locked away for years and have this one incident destroy his future? The intentions are crucial - if Ravi was this insanely anti-gay person who was hell-bent on humiliating his roommate then sure - give him a tougher sentence. That just isn't the picture of Ravi though, and you need to learn to distinguish between like a college prank and genuinely malicious behavior. We save the tough sentences for the latter.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:57:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:42:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Do you want to see him locked away for years and have this one incident destroy his future? The intentions are crucial - if Ravi was this insanely anti-gay person who was hell-bent on humiliating his roommate then sure - give him a tougher sentence. That just isn't the picture of Ravi though, and you need to learn to distinguish between like a college prank and genuinely malicious behavior. We save the tough sentences for the latter.

You can make the argument that this one incident destroyed Tyler's future. The intentions were clear (as evidenced through the texts and e-mails that surfaced - which btw were tampered with and that is a felony). His intent was to violate Tyler's privacy and then humiliate him by publicly outing him on various social networking sites. When you post videos on the internet, they don't disappear. They could have been picked up by YouPorn for all you know. I would love to know how you would feel if someone video taped you jerking off in the shower and then posted it on the internet specifically for others to laugh at and make fun of. Your grandmother could come across it. Your potential employers could come across it. Even if Tyler hadn't died, the repercussions of Ravi's malicious actions would have caused him undue humiliation. I don't see why this should merely be considered a "college prank" when multiple serious laws were broken. Obviously he was "anti-gay hellbent on humiliating his roommate." If he weren't, this wouldn't have happened. And btw - people who have 3 beers and drive get tougher penalties than Ravi did. Tell me more about how we only penalize the tough crimes (as if this isn't tough). Please. Here's a perfect example of someone making a dumb argument just for the sake of arguing. You can't video tape people without their knowledge and consent and then post it on the internet. Period. The fact that it was an obvious hate crime with anti-gay bias on top of the fact that he obscured the investigation by tampering with evidence and lying to investigators further proves that he was perfectly smart enough to know that what he was doing was wrong.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:57:37 PM, Danielle wrote:
You can't video tape people having sex without their knowledge and consent and then post it on the internet.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:04:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:41:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:38:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.

I don't think there was malicious intent, I'm fine with giving him a slap on the wrist with this one. I seriously doubt he'll ever consider re-offending.
Doesn't matter. We have no way of telling whether someone had the intent to do something in this kind of situation. (Different to say, crashing into someone's house when there's heavy storm, which is most likely not intentional.) The public needs to know that behavior like this is not acceptable, and 30 days in jail is as ridiculous as possible. Enough for some people do breach privacy anyway.

Some thoughts from the Judge which confirmed my own picture of Ravi:

"This individual was not convicted of a hate crime, he was convicted of a bias crime, and there's a difference," Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman said.
"I say that because I do not believe he hated Tyler Clementi. He had no reason to," Berman said, adding that Ravi's crimes were committed out of "colossal insensitivity."

What he did was stupid, but I see no reason to throw him in jail for years because of it and as a result destroy his future. He had no way to realize Tyler would kill himself because of that, and he certainly never hated Tyler. This case has already been heavily publicized and anyone considering doing the exact same thing already has amply incentive not to if he's read into it. I guess we should give him life if we really wanted the public to get a message.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:09:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:04:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What he did was stupid, but I see no reason to throw him in jail for years because of it and as a result destroy his future.
How much more can his future be destroyed? He has already lost most contact with friends, been mentally wrecked, lost weight, etc. He would spend a couple of years in jail. That would educate the public. It's deserved.

He had no way to realize Tyler would kill himself because of that,
It's not only that someone committed suicide which makes Ravi deserve punishment. It's the fact that he breached strict privacy, and spread the misery over the web. It's not acceptable, no matter who does it - Whether an individual or the government. It should be strictly punishable.

and he certainly never hated Tyler. This case has already been heavily publicized and anyone considering doing the exact same thing already has amply incentive not to if he's read into it. I guess we should give him life if we really wanted the public to get a message.
Really, what kind of a message is that? You get 30 days for breaching someone's very strict privacy, only because the breach wasn't influenced by hatred? Seems nonsensical.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:12:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:57:37 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:42:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Do you want to see him locked away for years and have this one incident destroy his future? The intentions are crucial - if Ravi was this insanely anti-gay person who was hell-bent on humiliating his roommate then sure - give him a tougher sentence. That just isn't the picture of Ravi though, and you need to learn to distinguish between like a college prank and genuinely malicious behavior. We save the tough sentences for the latter.

You can make the argument that this one incident destroyed Tyler's future. The intentions were clear (as evidenced through the texts and e-mails that surfaced - which btw were tampered with and that is a felony). His intent was to violate Tyler's privacy and then humiliate him by publicly outing him on various social networking sites. When you post videos on the internet, they don't disappear. They could have been picked up by YouPorn for all you know. I would love to know how you would feel if someone video taped you jerking off in the shower and then posted it on the internet specifically for others to laugh at and make fun of. Your grandmother could come across it. Your potential employers could come across it. Even if Tyler hadn't died, the repercussions of Ravi's malicious actions would have caused him undue humiliation. I don't see why this should merely be considered a "college prank" when multiple serious laws were broken. Obviously he was "anti-gay hellbent on humiliating his roommate." If he weren't, this wouldn't have happened. And btw - people who have 3 beers and drive get tougher penalties than Ravi did. Tell me more about how we only penalize the tough crimes (as if this isn't tough). Please. Here's a perfect example of someone making a dumb argument just for the sake of arguing. You can't video tape people without their knowledge and consent and then post it on the internet. Period. The fact that it was an obvious hate crime with anti-gay bias on top of the fact that he obscured the investigation by tampering with evidence and lying to investigators further proves that he was perfectly smart enough to know that what he was doing was wrong.

I honestly don't know what goes on in the mind of someone who makes a decision to do something like this. What could possibly make him think that it was okay and a good idea? To have such contempt for another person so that all boundaries are gone, and their life is of such little value that it's okay to do this is beyond me.

Privacy seems to be a dwindling commodity, and people don't really get it that the internet is forever and for everyone, when you post. But it's more than that with this guy, like I said, this individual deemed another unworthy of the common decency and dignity that a fellow human being deserves, worse, he should be deprived of self resepect by public humiliation. Yeah, at least a year in prison, probably more.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:15:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:04:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What he did was stupid, but I see no reason to throw him in jail for years because of it and as a result destroy his future. He had no way to realize Tyler would kill himself because of that, and he certainly never hated Tyler. This case has already been heavily publicized and anyone considering doing the exact same thing already has amply incentive not to if he's read into it. I guess we should give him life if we really wanted the public to get a message.

People who are convicted of crimes have their "entire futures" destroyed every single day, because they have to check 'Yes' on job applications when asked if they have ever been convicted of a felony, or when employers do background checks on them. Why should Ravi be treated any differently? Cocaine dealers don't have the intent to destroy lives though many do and are punished severely. Why should THEY be subject to harsh penalties by Ravi not?

All you have done is say that he didn't HATE Tyler. Okay, he was just an ignorant and immature fvck. True. But (a) he is a legal adult meaning he should be tried accordingly for his crimes, and (b) his intent WAS malicious. You also completely ignored every single thing I said about the dangers of posting sexual videos on the internet. That's convenient. Just gloss right over the fact that what he did could have had serious repercussions even outside of Tyler's suicide (which happened as a direct result of his actions). There's a difference between humiliating someone by posting them farting on the internet and showing them engaged in sexual activity - which btw others could profit from by posting it to various sex sites.

You have also continuously ignored the fact that Ravi lied to investigators and tampered with evidence. Once again other offenders have been punished MUCH more harshly for this same exact crime. You want to give Ravi a free pass most likely because you can relate to being an immature bag-o-douche yourself during your early college years, but that's not the way the law works.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:19:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would say a year in prison is reasonable and fair. This wouldn't "ruin his future." Everyone now knows who Ravi is and will judge him accordingly, therefore the law should penalize him for his numerous crimes outside of how this might impact "his future." It should be irrelevant to the sentence. As I said, minor drug offenders have been known to be punished far more harshly than this. We know the justice system is flawed but JEEZ.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:19:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:57:37 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:42:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Do you want to see him locked away for years and have this one incident destroy his future? The intentions are crucial - if Ravi was this insanely anti-gay person who was hell-bent on humiliating his roommate then sure - give him a tougher sentence. That just isn't the picture of Ravi though, and you need to learn to distinguish between like a college prank and genuinely malicious behavior. We save the tough sentences for the latter.

You can make the argument that this one incident destroyed Tyler's future. The intentions were clear (as evidenced through the texts and e-mails that surfaced - which btw were tampered with and that is a felony). His intent was to violate Tyler's privacy and then humiliate him by publicly outing him on various social networking sites. When you post videos on the internet, they don't disappear. They could have been picked up by YouPorn for all you know. I would love to know how you would feel if someone video taped you jerking off in the shower and then posted it on the internet specifically for others to laugh at and make fun of. Your grandmother could come across it. Your potential employers could come across it. Even if Tyler hadn't died, the repercussions of Ravi's malicious actions would have caused him undue humiliation. I don't see why this should merely be considered a "college prank" when multiple serious laws were broken. Obviously he was "anti-gay hellbent on humiliating his roommate." If he weren't, this wouldn't have happened. And btw - people who have 3 beers and drive get tougher penalties than Ravi did. Tell me more about how we only penalize the tough crimes (as if this isn't tough). Please. Here's a perfect example of someone making a dumb argument just for the sake of arguing. You can't video tape people without their knowledge and consent and then post it on the internet. Period. The fact that it was an obvious hate crime with anti-gay bias on top of the fact that he obscured the investigation by tampering with evidence and lying to investigators further proves that he was perfectly smart enough to know that what he was doing was wrong.

AFAIK, he watched it via ichat which certainly is not the same as taking a video of him and uploading it to youporn. What sentence do you think is appropriate for him? It's really quite obvious from his testimony - and as the judge determined and many gay activists are coming to realize - that like most college students Ravi wasn't maliciously anti-gay and this fell into the "unfortunate college pranks carried way too far category."

What he did was really shitty, but putting him in jail for years is excessive. Again, I stress the term used by the judge "colossal insensitivity." I don't know what a jail sentence of 5 years accomplishes in this case. By all means, give me more info about the case. I'm familiar with the 2 webcam incidences but you implied there was more - so share.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:23:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Cocaine dealers don't have the intent to destroy lives though many do and are punished severely. Why should THEY be subject to harsh penalties by Ravi not?

They shouldn't.

You also completely ignored every single thing I said about the dangers of posting sexual videos on the internet.

I'm familiar with the webcam incidences, care to elaborate?

You have also continuously ignored the fact that Ravi lied to investigators and tampered with evidence.

When?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:38:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it's worth pointing out that he didn't actually record Clementi with the intent to post it over the internet. What he did was set up a live feed with a webcam and invite his friends to watch it with him - and nothing was viewed more explicit than two men kissing with their shirts off. It was a disgusting invasion of privacy, but I doubt there's any chance of him reoffending even after 30 days of jail time.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:48:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:19:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
AFAIK, he watched it via ichat which certainly is not the same as taking a video of him and uploading it to youporn. What sentence do you think is appropriate for him?

The judge called Ravi's actions "cold, calculated and methodically" planned. This shows intent behind his actions - and you said "intent is everything." So.

Hate/bias crimes are the same thing. "Bias crime" is merely NJ's nomenclature for a hate crime. Maybe Ravi didn't HATE gays, but his bias toward them motivated the crime which means it falls within the parameter of a hate crime. Some have said it wasn't a hate crime "because he does not hate gay people and that prison is too harsh a punishment for someone who did not mean to hurt anyone." Once again hating gay people is NOT a requirement of a hate crime (biased motivation is), and I don't know how such a smart kid dubbed a "computer whiz" could not understand that public humiliation wouldn't hurt anyone. If he believed his actions wouldn't hurt Tyler, why keep it a secret? Why not TELL Tyler he was going to tape him and then post it on social networking sites? Oh yeah... because he knew it was wrong. That's why he tampered with evidence and tried frantically to delete texts, posts and e-mails that he knew would show the malicious intent behind his actions.

It's really quite obvious from his testimony - and as the judge determined and many gay activists are coming to realize - that like most college students Ravi wasn't maliciously anti-gay and this fell into the "unfortunate college pranks carried way too far category."

Right, because people never lie under oath. Obviously he's going to say "I don't hate gay people." DUHHHHH. But clearly Tyler's sexuality motivated the entire act. If he were straight, Ravi wouldn't have done this. However once again I don't even care about the biased motives. I'm talking about the act itself: spying and creating a conspiracy to humiliate someone not only IRL but in the world of virtual reality as well. Numerous pundits have commented on how the "gay panic" defense was translated in this case to the "innocent college prank" defense which is just as unjustifiable. I think that defense might hold up if for some reason Ravi was charged with Tyler's death, but not for his actual acts of committing various crimes.

What he did was really shitty, but putting him in jail for years is excessive. Again, I stress the term used by the judge "colossal insensitivity." I don't know what a jail sentence of 5 years accomplishes in this case. By all means, give me more info about the case. I'm familiar with the 2 webcam incidences but you implied there was more - so share.

It's not only really shitty. It's illegal. I don't understand why you insist that the law should not apply to Ravi in particular. Collecting or viewing sexual images without consent is a fourth-degree crime. Transmitting them is a third-degree crime with a maximum prison term of five years.

I would say that he should be sentenced to a year in jail plus probation. Penalties exist not only to rehabilitate criminals but to serve as a deterrent against others breaking similar laws. Once again I don't think Ravi should necessarily be "made an example of" insofar as a ridiculously harsh 10 year penalty, but I don't see how ONE year in prison would remotely be unfair in any way. The type of prison he would go to isn't particularly harsh. One year in prison is NOT unfair when you consider all of the crimes which include multiple felonies.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:56:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:23:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Cocaine dealers don't have the intent to destroy lives though many do and are punished severely. Why should THEY be subject to harsh penalties by Ravi not?

They shouldn't.

But they are, and the law is expected to apply with some degree of consistency whether you personally agree with them or not. I don't think pot dealers should be arrested, but if I were arrested for dealing pot, I don't see why others shouldn't be. Instead I think the laws need to be amended for all. As for now the current laws should apply to Ravi. Y

I'm familiar with the webcam incidences, care to elaborate?

You said Ravi only intended to iChat and not record video. You can record a video iChat. Further, even if Ravi didn't intend to take this any further (which we have no idea to what extent he would have gone had Tyler not done what he did), someone Ravi alerted about this - or who randomly stumbled across his Twiter, ya know, as people tend to do - could have taken it further.

You have also continuously ignored the fact that Ravi lied to investigators and tampered with evidence.

When?

In every post... because all you talk about are Ravi's "intentions" (which were proven to be malicious and motivated through unjust bias) as if that should be the only thing taken into consideration for punishment. However, committing several felonies should ALSO be taken into consideration in terms of sentencing. Obstruction of justice (lying and tampering with evidence) can be punished with a sentence up to 10 years in jail. Coupled with the fact that Ravi's invasion of privacy can be subject to up to 5 years in jail, I don't think 1 year is remotely unfair. At the very absolute least - 6 months! As I said in the OP, I've been grounded for far longer than a month for doing MUCH less severe things than Ravi did. Please. If I cursed out a parent I would be punished for 3x as long.
President of DDO
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:58:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, from what I gather Ravi taped this guy, who is gay, having sex and then posted it on the internet.

I agreed he should get 1 year or so, but 10? No.

Also, why does it matter why he did it? It's all the same.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 3:33:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:58:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
So, from what I gather Ravi taped this guy, who is gay, having sex and then posted it on the internet.

I agreed he should get 1 year or so, but 10? No.

Also, why does it matter why he did it? It's all the same.

It is all the same, I'm just curious as to what goes on in someone's mind.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 3:51:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WOW. Way to add insult to injury criminal justice system.

The family must be absolutely torn up right now.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 4:22:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:58:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, why does it matter why he did it? It's all the same.

Exactly. Bieber is trying to make it sound like the crimes (invasion of privacy and obstruction of justice, to name a few) don't matter because Ravi "doesn't hate gays..." which btw nobody knows for sure if this is true or not, considering the motivation behind his actions was certainly bias. Regardless, if I drive my friend's car into a tree because I think it's a hilarious joke (ya know - just a silly college prank), it's still grand theft auto and destruction of property and I would be punished accordingly.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 4:38:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:56:26 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 2:23:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Cocaine dealers don't have the intent to destroy lives though many do and are punished severely. Why should THEY be subject to harsh penalties by Ravi not?

They shouldn't.

But they are, and the law is expected to apply with some degree of consistency whether you personally agree with them or not. I don't think pot dealers should be arrested, but if I were arrested for dealing pot, I don't see why others shouldn't be. Instead I think the laws need to be amended for all. As for now the current laws should apply to Ravi. Y


This is a matter of broader judicial philosophy. If we lived in a country where thieves for their hands chopped off, would you support Ravi getting his eyes gouged out? Lets say this has been the precedent and has been applied to other crimes of Ravi's stature - surely it's fair that Ravi receive the same punishment...

I'm familiar with the webcam incidences, care to elaborate?

You said Ravi only intended to iChat and not record video. You can record a video iChat. Further, even if Ravi didn't intend to take this any further (which we have no idea to what extent he would have gone had Tyler not done what he did), someone Ravi alerted about this - or who randomly stumbled across his Twiter, ya know, as people tend to do - could have taken it further.

Yes, true.
You have also continuously ignored the fact that Ravi lied to investigators and tampered with evidence.

When?

In every post... because all you talk about are Ravi's "intentions" (which were proven to be malicious and motivated through unjust bias) as if that should be the only thing taken into consideration for punishment. However, committing several felonies should ALSO be taken into consideration in terms of sentencing. Obstruction of justice (lying and tampering with evidence) can be punished with a sentence up to 10 years in jail. Coupled with the fact that Ravi's invasion of privacy can be subject to up to 5 years in jail, I don't think 1 year is remotely unfair. At the very absolute least - 6 months! As I said in the OP, I've been grounded for far longer than a month for doing MUCH less severe things than Ravi did. Please. If I cursed out a parent I would be punished for 3x as long.

He tried to cover his tracks as a lot of people would do if faced with a situation which has spiraled far out of control. It should be noted that it's not merely 30 days, but 300 hours of community service, counseling for cyber bullying, and a 10k fine. Look, I'm no legal philosopher and at least at first glance it doesn't appear that this person is a genuine threat to society who needs to be locked up for a considerable amount of time.

The importance I place on intentions isn't arbitrary either - it determines whether someone is a genuine threat to social order as opposed to a dumb, insensitive college student.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:00:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:42:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:40:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:38:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:35:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
A couple of years would suffice. People need to know that breaching walls of privacy is not acceptable. Actually, the governments have to realize this first and foremost.

I don't think there was malicious intent, I'm fine with giving him a slap on the wrist with this one. I seriously doubt he'll ever consider re-offending.

So you think that invading someone's privacy and taping him having sex is not malicious? He was taping him specifically because he was gay.

Do you want to see him locked away for years and have this one incident destroy his future?
His future has already been diminished, as has Clementi's.
The intentions are crucial - if Ravi was this insanely anti-gay person who was hell-bent on humiliating his roommate then sure - give him a tougher sentence.
That's what he was . . . did you read his Twitter comments? He also engaged in a cover-up. The guy is not repentant. He has not apologized. He frankly does not care about anything in this incident except that he was punished.
That just isn't the picture of Ravi though, and you need to learn to distinguish between like a college prank and genuinely malicious behavior. We save the tough sentences for the latter.
This wasn't a college prank, and even if it was, he still violated privacy laws. It is illegal to broadcast the sexual encounters of others without consent.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 7:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly, hate crime statutes are completely unjust. The day you want to argue that if a perpetrator is a homosexual then they should receive more punishment than anyone else, you can come on here and plead that if the victim is a homosexual then they should be entitled to some kind of special privilege that other people don't enjoy.

And even then you would be wrong, because you are mocking and destroying the fundamental principle of equality before the law. The state has no right to give one group of people special protections that do not apply to another.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you video tape me without my knowledge or consent while I'm potentially having sex in my bedroom - and have plans to put it all over the internet (to mock, jerk off to or otherwise), I expect you to get penalized A LOT more than 30 days in jail.
Quick question: Was Ravi this fellow's literal roommate, as in they had the same bedroom, or did they have separate bedrooms in the same apartment with an agreed-upon expectation of privacy from one another?

In the former case-- I unequivocally think that anywhere someone has a right to be, their video camera does too.

In the latter case, I don't necessarily care what the absolute penalty for trespassing in a housemate's bedroom with an agreement that the bedroom is a private area is , but do you think it should be any different whether a videotape is involved versus personally snooping? If so, why?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would love to know how you would feel if someone video taped you jerking off in the shower and then posted it on the internet specifically for others to laugh at and make fun of.
Did they have a right to be in the shower? Did we have any prior agreement regarding whether that differed depending on my presence/activity in the shower?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.