Tyler Clementi

[Corny]

telstra, you are usually cute and all that. but you can't win discussion if you cannot back up your arguments or at least de-validate those of the other side. i am surprised that both sides here still try to have this discussion ..

 

[Telstra]

OK i give up as i'm not a good debater.
Lucky7 make more sense.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I think I'm agreeing with Lucky and Naughty on this one so far.

 

[construct]

I thought you guys are more forgiving than that but obviously not.

I'm sure Ravi and Molly felt really sorry and very remorseful, so this remorselessness doesn't count.

This is a criminal offense. This is not a wrongful death suit in which the Clementis could just forgive him and go on about their lives. This is an offense against the state. The case will be called "State v. Ravi." The case can and should go forward no matter who forgives him.

Perhaps the D.A.'s office might seek a lower sentence if he were to display remorse, but even though a prosecutor might ask for a lighter sentence (within the limits set by statute), the jury is not obligated to limit themselves on account of that.

Anyway, if the prosecutor were inclined to seek a lighter sentence, he wouldn't have added hate crimes to the charges. And the grand jury thought enough of the case that they handed down an indictment. There's enough to it that they believed it should go to trial.

In short, whether I forgive him is not germane to the case even if it were my place to forgive him.

 

[barnbuddy]

first off, it seems trying to cover up their actions (erasing online accounts, getting people to lie to authorities,) painted them into a corner.

after a death, if you don't show complete cooperation, law enforcement will use every tool they have to bring you down.

as for the hate crime stuff, well, you'd think the "law and order" conservatives would love giving law enforcement another tool to make criminals sweat. but I guess in this case, they're the ones who want to "coddle" the poor suspects.

but, remember, hate crime legislations isn't passed in a vacuum. lots of people say whats been said on this thread; a crimes a crime.

then ,at public hearings, witness after witness comes forward, recounting gay bashing.

and the sheer number, and the horror overwhelms the fence sitters.

violence for the sake of violence.

and the criminals assertion that they were "right" that their gangs' actions were justified.

even pick pockets, when caught, won't try to convince the cops that the were right - but a gay basher will.

 

[braex27]

I didn't know about the twitter comment deletions and falsification until I read the article. Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime in itself.

 

[Kulindahr]

And I hope anyone who would think of doing something similar takes this entire situation as an example. Actions have consequences...

Unfortunately, many kids aren't brought up to be aware that actions have consequences. I was astounded at how much students were like that when I was at OSU, and from my admittedly limited observation, it has only gotten worse.

violence for the sake of violence.

and the criminals assertion that they were "right" that their gangs' actions were justified.

even pick pockets, when caught, won't try to convince the cops that the were right - but a gay basher will.

Excellent point.

Wasn't too many years ago, a black family moved into the county. Their kid got beat up in school, to the point of some broken bones. When at sentencing the judge admonished the kid who beat him, "You can't just beat people up and expect no punishment", the juvy-bound kid looked bewildered and said, "But he's a nigger".

It verges on mental illness.

 

[fetaby]

Johann. Give it a rest. You really appear to be race baiting.

 

[pat grimshaw]

But have the facts of this particular case come out yet?
Wasn't it just a practical joke? They didn't intend that Clementi suicide?

 

[Callum]

There is obviously 'hate' in every violent crime - tacking on 'hatred' in mens rea is such an absurd notion. Is a serial rapist going to be charged with a hate crime because he was raping women (enjoys controlling them) and he's a sexist bastard? No. Probably not. Hate crimes are a gray area where political underlinings tweak laws and I don't agree with them at all. It's awfully convenient for the prosecution.

If Luke takes a machete to my skull because he just saw me kissing my boyfriend, he's going to be charged with a hate crime? Nah, I'd rather him be charged for murder and get life in prison rather than a 'hate crime'. Is Kyle going to be charged with a hate crime because he shot Bob in the face because he hated the music he was listening to? I don't agree with privileged victims. Murder is murder - adding on minorities or any form of affirmative action directly lessens the value of another victim's life.

 

[Callum]

No murders are being committed based on their appearance. If there were, it'd be a point we'd have to address.

And that's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. You know, the one you're using to generalize the MO of any and every murder out there.

 

[JNewYork]

Hate crime legislation is just and necessary, despite the overly simplistic argument that crimes are already hateful.

Crimes are not being perpetuated at all against members of a majority because of their membership in that group.

The majority in a population, while vulnerable to crime in general as all human beings are, is not suffering any crime whatsoever due to their majority status. Minorities, however, are being singled out for their membership in a group. For example, in New York City crime is "down" in general and people are applauding that. Not so fast folks. Crimes against gays are UP.

There needs to be specific legislation for this very specific hate crime. Hence Hate Crime legislation.

To treat a crime against a minority for being a minority as just any crime would be totally disregarding the specific nature of the crime. And that is not just.

Spray painting a gang tag on a neighbor's car is vandalism and should be treated as such. Spray painting "Burn the Jews" on a neighbor's synagogue is also just vandalism? There are too many examples I could mention.

Setting a fire to a neighbor's garage is arson and setting fire to a mosque is also just arson?

As long as minorities are being singled out for specific crimes of hatred based on who they are, then a just society will maintain specific laws for these specific hate crimes.

 

[skd5674]

Why you did the crime does not change the crime itself.

And you get into very dangerous territory when you try to charge people based on their THOUGHTS.

The concept of a hate crime IMO is ridiculous. In addition, it's not a crime to hate someone. I'm free to think whatever I want... what matters are my actions.

So, would you say that the KKK killing and flogging African Americans back in the day was not a hate crime? If this wasn't considered a hate crime, they couldn't get these ass holes for Tyler's death. They would only be charged with invasion. He would have never have killed himself if he wasn't targeted. Hate crimes cover a lot in justice, and if there was no room for them, the justice system would be more out of sorts than it already is.

 

[construct]

This falls under involuntary manslaughter doesn't it?

No. As far as I can tell, there are no charges for the death--no murder charges--no manslaughter charges.

 

[construct]

Crimes are not being perpetuated at all against members of a majority because of their membership in that group.

Hate crime laws do not apply to minorities only. A crime committed based on the color of the victim is a hate crime whether the victim is black, white, green or blue.

 

[construct]

There is obviously 'hate' in every violent crime - tacking on 'hatred' in mens rea is such an absurd notion.

The 'hate in 'hate crime' is not an emotion. It is bias. Maybe these laws have been given the wrong popular name.

Hate crimes are a gray area where political underlinings tweak laws and I don't agree with them at all. It's awfully convenient for the prosecution.

They are harder to prosecute because they add elements to the ones that already have to be proved. They aren't some some kind of fudge factor.

I'd rather him be charged for murder and get life in prison rather than a 'hate crime'.

Hate crimes have to be based on an underlying crime. You can't just be guilty of a hate crime. You have to be found guilty of some other crime before bias can be attached to it. The result is greater punishment for the underlying offense.

 

[doetim]

What is extra disappointing about these two, Dharun and Molly, is that they're both minority people, so you would like they had more sense in their heads having possibly gone through discrimination or being made fun of when they were kids.

 

[construct]

Such a "law" creates privileged victims.

Hate crime laws do not create privileged victims. They recognize a difference in the basis for selecting the victims. Whites are protected just like blacks. Americans are protected just like Mexicans. Christians are protected just like Jews. No one is privileged.

If you want, let the judge take into account any bias or discrimination during sentencing.

One reason for hate crime laws is to keep judges from giving lighter sentences for crimes based on bias. We've seen it too many times.

 

[construct]

They didn't intend that Clementi suicide?

I have seen nothing to indicate that the suicide even need be mentioned in the case. The case is about invasion of privacy based on bias, obstruction of justice, and things like that.

 

[construct]

So, what is the crime that the bias is being attached to? I'm very curious. Obviously we are not privvy to the whole facts??? So i'm just finding it difficult to see the evidence that bias was actually involved at the moment.

The underlying offenses include invasion of privacy and publicly displaying the tape on the internet. Each of those things are separate--invasion of privacy, the public display, and displaying it on the internet.

One piece of evidence that it was based on bias I didn't know about until yesterday is that the first comment Ravi posted about his new inmate was a mildly derogatory statement that he was gay. I'm sure there is more since the grand jury indicted him. That alone would probably not have won an indictment.

You're right that we don't have all the facts. That's why I think it's wrong for us to rush to judgment.