Tyler Clementi

[chrisrobin]

Roommate charged with hate crime in NJ suicide

Anybody remember Tyler Clementi?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rutgers_suicide

Perhaps this will be "one small step" toward national anti-bullying legislation. Now, if only the neocons will just shut the fuck up. Let's start with Virginia Foxx (R. North Carolina) who asked us to believe that Matthew Shepherd's lynching was a hoax.

 

[Speeds]

I'm probably alone here, but I kinda feel for the perps. Like many crimes I'm sure they never thought it would end up the way it did. And all involved on both sides were just kids, too.

All told, the entire thing is tragic no matter which way you look at it.

-d-

I'm pretty sure Ravi is not a kid, he's 18. neither was Tyler.


Ravi ruined and destroyed Tyler's life. Now karma is coming back to bite him.

 

[Telstra]

Re: Roommate charged with hate crime in NJ suicide

from your link,
invasion of privacy yes but i can't see any hate crime there.

 

[Telstra]

That is an illogical comparison. And yes we are entering dangerous territory.

Let's say a criminal assaults a man on the street who happens to be gay. Are we going to charge him with a hate crime just because the victim happens to be gay?
How can you prove something like targeting a minority? Why should that make any difference?

Intending to kill someone and killing someone accidentally are two different crimes. However, adding additional charges because of the identity of the victim is ridiculous. The exact same crime may be charged differently because of what we ASSUME was in the mind of the perpetrator.
Not only that, but it shows favoritism towards select groups. If a man is killed for being an atheist, is that a hate crime? If a man is killed for being skinny, is that a hate crime? How do we decipher the mind of the criminal to figure out exactly WHY he targeted the victim. Additionally, what other layers of WHY will come next? Should killing someone for the joy of it be a harsher crime than killing someone for their money?

If Tyler Clementi was straight and the EXACT same events happened, should the perpetrators be charged any less?

This sentence need repeating.

If the word "hate crime" being misused so easily, it may become meaningless.

 

[construct]

That is an illogical comparison. And yes we are entering dangerous territory.

Let's say a criminal assaults a man on the street who happens to be gay. Are we going to charge him with a hate crime just because the victim happens to be gay?

No, because he was not selected because he was gay.

How can you prove something like targeting a minority? Why should that make any difference?

Targeting a minority could be evidenced by witnesses who heard the accused speak in relation to his actions before, during, or after the offense. It may be evidenced by artifacts negative toward that minority which the accused had in his possession or left behind at the crime scene. It might be evidenced by the nature of the crime scene. There could be other evidence which might be developed during the course of investigation.

Targeting a person because he is believed to be a member of a group defined by a protected characteristic is not merely an attack against the particular victim. It is intended to intimidate the group as a whole. It is in that way similar to terrorism. Therefore it should be punished more severely.

Intending to kill someone and killing someone accidentally are two different crimes. However, adding additional charges because of the identity of the victim is ridiculous. The exact same crime may be charged differently because of what we ASSUME was in the mind of the perpetrator.

Well, no. Murder and manslaughter in their various degrees are defined differently from state to state, but murders are murders, and manslaughters are manslaughters. Within each there are degrees, each with their distinctive elements. Each of the elements, including premeditation and malice, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before the accused may be found guilty of first degree murder. These mental states are not assumed. They are proved.

Furthermore, crimes do not become hate crimes because of the identity of the victim. They are hate crimes because of the accused was targeting a person based on his presumed membership in a group defined by protected characteristics. This element may not be assumed. It must be proved.

Not only that, but it shows favoritism towards select groups. If a man is killed for being an atheist, is that a hate crime?

Yes, because religion is a protected characteristic.

If a man is killed for being skinny, is that a hate crime?

No, because physical build is not a protected characteristic.

How do we decipher the mind of the criminal to figure out exactly WHY he targeted the victim.

See above for examples of the types of evidence that may be introduced to prove state of mind.

Additionally, what other layers of WHY will come next? Should killing someone for the joy of it be a harsher crime than killing someone for their money?

Probably not, because both probably involve premeditation and malice.

If Tyler Clementi was straight and the EXACT same events happened, should the perpetrators be charged any less?

That is almost impossible. I doubt that a straight couple would be targeted for this sort of invasion of privacy specifically because they were straight. But if they were, the perpetrators should and could be charged with a hate crime because they targeted the victims because of their sexual orientation which is a protected characteristic.

Please review post 19 above. Many of the objections you raised in your post had been answered in several previous posts.

 

[scrapple]

This is not the crime of the century. Tyler Clementi would have been embarrassed. Haven't we all? Deal with it. But no, he CHOSE to cause misery to friends and family by his cowardly act. Was the instigator an asshole? Certainly. Not a criminal, just an asshole.

 

[construct]

This is not the crime of the century. Tyler Clementi would have been embarrassed. Haven't we all? Deal with it. But no, he CHOSE to cause misery to friends and family by his cowardly act. Was the instigator an asshole? Certainly. Not a criminal, just an asshole.

The invasion of privacy (or however it is classified in New Jersey) is a crime. If these two accused individuals committed the offense, they are criminals as well as assholes.

 

[bankside]

Hate crimes legislation does not create "ordinary victims" and "privileged victims."

It recognizes only that some people are "specially targeted victims" of crime, and that we find that to be another layer of odiousness. Someone getting into a scuffle at the door of a bar and assaulting another patron is different than someone who says to his buddies "Let's go bash us a fag tonight!"

BTW, what goes through people's minds matters as much as their actions in every single court case. The concept is called mens rea ("guilty mind") and it matters as much as the action or the outcome. The mental states and attitudes of the accused always matter.

 

[bankside]

The thing is they don't add a hate charge because of the victim's background. They add a hate charge because of what they can prove, with evidence, about why that victim was chosen.

So the police have to do an investigation and come up with the evidence and see where it goes. They can charge with assault, or with assault + hate if the evidence shows that. They can add a parking ticket if the accused's car was next to a fire hydrant when they got out to bash the guy. They go where the evidence takes them. And sometimes that's a hate charge.

 

[construct]

So what justifies certain categories as protected and others as not?

The most obvious reason these particular characteristics should be protected is that they have historically been the basis for invidious discrimination.

Additionally, I doubt Dharun Ravi intended to intimidate gays as a whole. Attacks made on someone because of certain characteristic I would say are most of the time not purported to intimidate the group they belong to.

Yet they have that effect even when that was not the primary intent.

And if this is not a requirement for an act to be considered a hate crime.. aren't most if not all crimes carried through because of some defining characteristic of the individual?

The protected characteristics must be statutorily listed if a hate crime law is to have any teeth. In fact, it may be unconstitutionally vague without such a list.

If I attack and rob an old lady.. and do so because (1) as an elderly person she is less likely to resist, (2) as a woman, she is most likely weaker and less likely to resist as well... am I guilty of a hate crime?

Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the case law in your state, but my first inclination is to say no. The principle reason for targeting the victim must be his presumed membership in a group defined by a protected characteristic.

Even if I am guilty of a hate crime by these standards, should I be? There was no intention to terrorize the elderly or the female sex. My attack was not motivated by her sex or age... those characteristics only factored in making it easier to achieve my goal of getting money.

I'm not questioning the legality or rules of the law.. I'm saying "hate crimes" as law do not make much sense at all. It should be left to the discretion of the judge or jury.

Well yes, they make sense. I think I have explained why a great many people think they make sense. Further, they represent the will of the people in the majority of states, including New Jersey, because they were passed into law by the elected legislatures and have been found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Defining in broad outline what constitutes a hate crime should, in our day, be left to the legislators. The charge should be at the discretion of the District Attorney's office. The conviction and sentence should be left to the jury and the judge.

 

[NedNickerson]

The original Twitter post from Ravi stated, "I found out that my roommate is gay..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Dharun-Ravi-tweeted-homosexuality-start.html

Everything seems to have stemmed from that. Tyler was targeted by Dharun because he was gay. Everything was planned and premeditated with the intention of ridiculing and humiliating Tyler.

Here's a definition posted on USLegal.com:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.

I think "harassment...motivated by prejudice against... (Tyler's) sexual orientation" fits this situation.

 

[ronboy]

Let's hope that the charges stick.....

That one person could purposely do that to another really sucks!

 

[Telstra]

Not a hate crime. Case closed !!!

 

[construct]

Not a hate crime. Case closed !!!

In light of post 40, why do you believe it is not?

 

[looseliam]

I'm not one for legislating what's in one's head - I'm still on-the-fence about hate-crime enhancements to charges.

I do wonder, however, if New Jersey has a depraved indifference murder statute. Throw that one on and see the little fuckers sweat.

Anybody remember Tyler Clementi?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rutgers_suicide

He was a member here:
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=320377

 

[Telstra]

In light of post 40, why do you believe it is not?

Nothing in this writing sounds like a hate crime.
Spying and invasion of privacy yes, they should be charged for that crime.

Quote:
so the other night i had a guy over. I had talked to my roommate that afternoon and he had said it would be fine w/him. I checked his twitter today. he tweeted that I was using the room (which is obnoxious enough), AND that he went into somebody else's room and remotely turned on his webcam and saw me making out with a guy. given the angle of the webcam I can be confident that that was all he could have seen.

so my question is what next?

I could just be more careful next time...make sure to turn the cam away...
buttt...
I'm kinda pissed at him (rightfully so I think, no?)
and idk...if I could...it would be nice to get him in trouble
but idk if I have enough to get him in trouble, i mean...he never saw anything pornographic...he never recorded anything...

I feel like the only thing the school might do is find me another roommate, probably with me moving out...and i'd probably just end up with somebody worse than him....I mean aside from being an asshole from time to time, he's a pretty decent roommate...

the other thing is I that don't wanna report him and then end up with nothing happening except him getting pissed at me....

yeah. I guess what he was doing was...he was in another person's room, with other people...

and so I feel like it was "look at what a fag my roommate is"
--other people have commented on his profile with things like "how did you manage to go back in there?" "are you ok?"

and the fact that the people he was with saw my making out with a guy as the scandal whereas i mean come on...he was SPYING ON ME....do they see nothing wrong with this?

unsettling to say the least....

so I decided to fill out the room change request form....its not guaranteed that you get a change...and i don't have to switch if I change my mind or work things out over the next week (they won't start filling requests until next week)...but I figure I might as well as see what they can offer me....

 

[GL]

i'm on the fence with this one.

i do believe they should be punished for what they did as we all know tyler's actions and subsequent suicide were a direct result of their callous acts.

i just don't remember reading or hearing anything that indicated they targeted tyler for his being gay. in fact it got the impression that to them this was a prank. if i am wrong in this i apologize.

were their actions malicious? yes.

was it a hate crime? i don't think so.

regardless i sincerely and truly hope they are punished fully for what they did.

 

[fetaby]

Nothing in this writing sounds like a hate crime.
Spying and invasion of privacy yes, they should be charged for that crime.

Those are Tyler's words, not Ravi's. You know this.

i just don't remember reading or hearing anything that indicated they targeted tyler for his being gay

and the fact that the people he was with saw my making out with a guy as the scandal whereas i mean come on...he was SPYING ON ME....do they see nothing wrong with this?

Ravi used Tyler's sexuality as a means to be an attention whore. The provider of "the joke" "lolz" to his friends.

 

[GL]

^ i stand corrected. thanks fetaby.

 

[construct]

Nothing in this writing sounds like a hate crime.
Spying and invasion of privacy yes, they should be charged for that crime.

Quote:
so the other night i had a guy over. I had talked to my roommate that afternoon and he had said it would be fine w/him. I checked his twitter today. he tweeted that I was using the room (which is obnoxious enough), AND that he went into somebody else's room and remotely turned on his webcam and saw me making out with a guy. given the angle of the webcam I can be confident that that was all he could have seen.

so my question is what next?

I could just be more careful next time...make sure to turn the cam away...
buttt...
I'm kinda pissed at him (rightfully so I think, no?)
and idk...if I could...it would be nice to get him in trouble
but idk if I have enough to get him in trouble, i mean...he never saw anything pornographic...he never recorded anything...

I feel like the only thing the school might do is find me another roommate, probably with me moving out...and i'd probably just end up with somebody worse than him....I mean aside from being an asshole from time to time, he's a pretty decent roommate...

the other thing is I that don't wanna report him and then end up with nothing happening except him getting pissed at me....

yeah. I guess what he was doing was...he was in another person's room, with other people...

and so I feel like it was "look at what a fag my roommate is"
--other people have commented on his profile with things like "how did you manage to go back in there?" "are you ok?"

and the fact that the people he was with saw my making out with a guy as the scandal whereas i mean come on...he was SPYING ON ME....do they see nothing wrong with this?

unsettling to say the least....

so I decided to fill out the room change request form....its not guaranteed that you get a change...and i don't have to switch if I change my mind or work things out over the next week (they won't start filling requests until next week)...but I figure I might as well as see what they can offer me....

That's fine. You're focusing on what the victim experienced. That is not really the issue.

The issue is whether the victim was targeted because he was gay. Sure there were other possible reasons, his hogging the room, for instance. So I'll put it this way. Would the accused have thought hogging the room for an evening was such an imposition were his roommate straight? Would he have set up his spycam and published it if his roommate were straight? Those are the kinds of questions the jury will have to consider once they've heard the evidence.

I'm fairly sure the whole story isn't out yet. I know I learned one detail even today. That detail weighed on the side of this being a hate crime. So I'm eager for the trial. I'm sure that some of the things we wonder about will become a little clearer. And I ought to reserve judgment on this case until the evidence is more fully available. (I'm not certain that I offered an opinion on this particular case. I think I didn't. If I did, I shouldn't have because I don't think I have enough information to form a proper opinion--one that's worth anything.)

The burden of my posts in this thread is simply that hate crime laws are understandable, useful, and unobjectionable. Despite the misinformation that has been spread about how invasive, unfair, and unenforceable they are, hate crime convictions are not amorphous speculation about the inner life of the accused. Simply stated, they require proof of the basis for selecting the victim.

Do you have hate crime laws in Australia?