Not a member? Sign up now
Dharun Ravi receives 30 day sentence in Tyler Clementi case
By James Brady RyanMay 21st, 2012, 4:15 pmComments (19)
Well, here we are: Dharun Ravi has received thirty days in jail, three years probation, and 300 hours of community service from presiding Judge Glenn Berman today. (There's no word yet on Ravi's possible deportation to India.) Ravi was found guilty in March of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, witness tampering, and hindering arrest after using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate Tyler Clementi with another man; Clementi later committed suicide.
Said Judge Berman:
You lied to your roommate who placed his trust in you without any conditions, and you violated it. I haven’t heard you apologize once.
While the jury in the case was specifically instructed not to consider Clementi's death in their decision making, on a public level the two issues became unescapably intertwined, especially as reports of suicide among LGBT youth continued to pile up. The big question — well, one of the big questions — was what to do now. How do you appropriately punish Ravi for an act most people would brush off as youthful indiscretion if not for the death that followed? How much should the defendant's age play a factor? Was Ravi just a convenient scapegoat? Were people only asking if he was a scapegoat because the victim was gay? Were gay people playing the victim card? Were you just being a homophobe? Are gays the real bigots? Are you a total idiot? Are you a fuckhead?
(Sorry. But that is a faithful rendering of many online discussions about this case.)
Chances are none of the questions people wrestled with over the course of this trial were answered this morning. I certainly don't know how I feel about the sentence, which could have been as long as ten years. And, in truth, we're all just outsiders working to make sense of this whole thing with the barest amount of information — there's a lot we will probably never know about this incident. So I simply hope that, as I wrote when Ravi was sentenced, we don't just put the issue of the real problems facing LGBT youth in a drawer and forget about it now that someone's serving time. For better or for worse, this has always been bigger than one person; let's do all we can to make it "for better," yeah?
Commentarium (19 Comments)
My understanding of this situation is shaped largely by what seems like an excellent, detailed article from The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker I don't believe Ravi was trying to intimidate Clementi, and therefore that the bias-intimidation count should not have resulted in a guilty verdict. There is no question he invaded Clementi's privacy and obstructed justice. My speculation is that Ravi would have acted the same way if Clementi were not gay, but had some other kind of sexual "otherness" to him, such as if he brought middle-aged women to the dorm, or if he had an interest in a kink or a fetish that, to Ravi, would seem like Clementi was an "other," someone not like Ravi or other "normal" people. I speculate further that Ravi, an Indian immigrant, picked on Clementi's "otherness" as a way to deny his own and to become part of the majority, rather than part of the "other." It is an unfortunate truth that many peope who are the victims of bigotry themselves turn to bigotry, to ameliorate their victimhood by victimizing others. I suspect Ravi was trying to "belong" by making fun of a kid he deemed more "other" than himself.
I don't think Ravi deserved 10 years. I also don't think 30 days is enough. If I were the judge, I'd give him six months, and recommend against deportation. Ravi may have been the last factor in Clementi's suicide, but he wasn't the only; I suspect there were many, many others, and that's what needs to be understood and fought against.
Agreed, on all points you made. I read the same article and it did seem as though Ravi would have pulled a prank on any roommate he considered not "normal." And I also got the impression that if his roommate had been a good-looking, confident gay man he probably wouldn't have pranked him. It was pretty clear that Ravi didn't hate gay people, he just didn't like this particular gay person.
Technology is great but it has the unfortunate side-effect of opening up new vistas of assholery and meanness. He was way out of line to invade his roommate's privacy like that and it sets a bad precedent to not give him more jail time.
Well spoken and not knee-jerk. That being said, I think that the "good" coming out of this sad, sad example of terrible choices on many people's parts is that the publicity forces us - and lawmakers - to face the issue of ethics and technology. Hopefully this force the legal system and especially the public's ethical "consensus" regarding technology to catch up to the times.
I find it reprehensible that Ravi is going to spend any time in jail, whatsoever. The actual criminal acts which he committed (i.e. witness and evidence tampering) are of such minuscule magnitude as to warrant not even a slap on the wrist. The fact of Clementi's suicide is tragic, but Ravi is no more the cause than the architect of the bridge from which Clementi jumped.
I would say witness and evidence tampering are not really of minuscule magnitude, since those acts blatantly disrupt bringing the criminal to justice.
Clementi's suicide was more than just a tragic misfortune. Ravi was at least complicit in, if not the main perpetrator of the harassment and invasion of privacy against Clementi and Ravi's unnecessary actions need to be recognized for the crimes they are. We all have choices and while Clementi is responsible for his, so is Ravi responsible for his own.
I concur that witness and evidence tampering, when applied in a manner which prevents proper execution of law towards a criminal, are indeed serious offenses. However, what Ravi did only minimally counts as either of those things, and nothing else he did was criminal.
If it weren't for the confluence of gay suicides and cyberbullying, two issues about which people are incredibly hypersensitive, would you really believe Ravi had done anything wrong? How about if Clementi hadn't killed himself? Don't let hindsight bias throw you off too much.
I think putting on a surreptitious webcam and inviting people to watch is criminal. Not 10 years' worth of criminal, as I said above, but yeah, six months' worth. How would you feel if he'd instead climbed a tree outside a woman's dorm window and shot video of her during a sexual encounter? Peeping Toms might be funny in the movies, but it's seriously wrong in real life.
Hey Ann, I fixed your text to tryt and save you from looking like an asshat! You're welcome!
I find it reprehensible that Ravi is going to spend any time in jail, whatsoever. The actual criminal acts which he committed (i.e. witness and evidence tampering) are of such minuscule magnitude as to warrant not even a slap on the wrist. The fact of Clementi's suicide is tragic, but Ravi is no more the cause than the architect of the bridge from which Clementi jumped.
You make some convincing points, though consider whether that woman had a right to expect privacy from Dharun that his roommate did not.
@Ann, yes, it's not a perfect analogy. If Ravi had walked in accidentally, or had inadvertently left his webcam on, I agree that would not be criminal at all. It's the planning and intentional watching -- after Clementi asked to have the room to himself and Ravi agreed -- that I believe crosses the line between an annoying prank and criminal conduct. But reasonable minds may differ; I respect your position even if I don't agree with it.
Though not a perfect analogy, it still works, in my opinion. There should still a reasonable expectation of not being purposefully spied upon/taped regardless of whether or not the person doing the spying is a roommate. And I would posit that even if a webcam were left on inadvertently, the distribution aspect should still be criminal, even if it's not at this point (I have little idea about the actual law on this and what precedents may or may not have been set in recent years.)
Ann, I find it absolutely laughable that you really think Ravi is facing these consequences only because of the anti-gay anti-bullying hype surrounding the trial. Though I appreciate the encouragement not to let "hindsight bias" throw me off too much. I don't know what I would do without you here to show me the way...
Furthermore, I would surmise that an actual judge/lawyer has more experience in these types of cases than you, so your conclusion that Ravi's actions "only minimally count as either of those [charges], and nothing else he did was criminal" doesn't really hold very much sway. What's your basis for his actions not being criminal? By definition, they were. Texting his girlfriend and telling her that she needs to tell the police the same story he gave them is evidence and witness tampering and hindering prosecution. How is it not?
(Can you consider how you might feel about these actions if you were filmed without your consent or knowledge in your own room and that film was simultaneously distributed on the internet? Regardless of Clementi's suicide, Ravi broke the law. It's not as though he's being charged with manslaughter for his not his influence in Clementi's death; he's being charged for the crimes he actually committed).
As for your comment on profrobert's analogy, whether the person is being unknowingly filmed in their own room by a roommate or in their own house by someone outside, the crime is the same. No matter who the people are, where they are, etc., the crimes are the same. Therefore, Ravi was charged with "15 counts of crimes involving invasion of privacy, attempted invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with evidence, witness tampering, and hindering apprehension or prosecution." The law states that all of those actions are crimes. Who are you to contend that they aren't? Unless you think you would feel differently if the same crimes were committed against you, of course.
@True Patriot: See the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph smt wrote above. Apply those words to this thread and don't bother to engage with bilious, nonsensical trolls.
In an effort to be less nonsensical, I would point out that perhaps Clemnti's MOTHER is more to blame being as she REJECTED HIM WHEN HE CAME OUT.
I like the way you use the capslock key to really make your audience understand how so totally serious you are about this. Like so serious, it's not even funny.
Also, your comment has nothing to do with anything. The trial isn't about who bears responsibility for Clementi's death. It's about Ravi's actions, which the police found to be crimes.
Thanks! I'LL try TO use IT MORE in the future!
But seriously, if Clemnti wasn't gay there is no way this would have been prosecuted. Believe me, I've dealt with the Police and this simple would not have been treated as something to take to court. Meanwhile, the Essex County Sherif who murdered a man (who was accused of being Gay) is not being prosecuted. Ooops, SORRY, I stopped DOING it!
Get on the BALL!
Nothing new. Rich, privileged douchebag gets a slap on the wrist.
You do 30 days in jail and see if you call it a slap on the wrist.
He didn't killed Clementi. The mother is more to blame for that IMHO.