yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
The sentencing is scheduled for May 21. It is unlikely he'll get anywhere near the 10-year maximum. Chances are he'll also be deported after whatever sentence he serves, though that much is in Immigration's hands, not the judge's.
In the case of the first "viewing" incident (2 of the 4 hate crime charges), the jury did reject the prong of the argument positing antigay bias as the "basis" for Ravi's invasion of privacy--the "viewing" that time came about pretty spontaneously, and there was quite a lot else going on in terms of plausible motives (Ravi's expressed anger at being expected to leave on short notice; his being taken aback that Clementi's visitor turned out to be a "scruffy" older nonstudent who didn't seem to know Clementi well), so that pinpointing homophobia as the decisive factor in that incident seems problematic to me. But the second incident, most of the time I'm leaning towards agreement that Ravi's intentions there warranted hate crimes charges. Sure there were probably still other motives involved (like Ravi's desire to enhance his own social standing), but there's just no way, in a premeditated situation like that, that you wouldn't know damn well this kind of exposure will be far more humiliating towards a gay man than it would be towards a straight man, who might be furious at the invasion of privacy (more so if his partner is "atypical") but is unlikely either to see himself or to be seen by others as having been irredeemably socially undermined by the episode. And surely being aware of that is key to why you find the prospect of inviting your buddies to share the "view" so enticing, and surely that in turn has everything to do with holding it against your roommate that he's gay. You want to put on a show for your buddies, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that by nature the show's theme is the social humiliation of your f- roommate. That seems almost inescapable to me.
Maybe some kind of cyberbullying statute would've been more appropriate for these acts than the peeping tom + hate crime combo--in a way it is more reminiscent of bullying, the malicious capitalizing on someone's social vulnerabilities for your own gratification, than the straightforward expression of hostility towards an individual as embodiment of collective we normally associate with "hate crime." Still, I think all this "He's a jerk, not a bigot" may be missing the point. Hate crime convictions aren't based on broad-stroke character assessments; the history of expressed prejudices does matter, but ultimately the focus is the perpetrator's motivation for pursuing some specific, discrete criminal act.
In the case of the first "viewing" incident (2 of the 4 hate crime charges), the jury did reject the prong of the argument positing antigay bias as the "basis" for Ravi's invasion of privacy--the "viewing" that time came about pretty spontaneously, and there was quite a lot else going on in terms of plausible motives (Ravi's expressed anger at being expected to leave on short notice; his being taken aback that Clementi's visitor turned out to be a "scruffy" older nonstudent who didn't seem to know Clementi well), so that pinpointing homophobia as the decisive factor in that incident seems problematic to me. But the second incident, most of the time I'm leaning towards agreement that Ravi's intentions there warranted hate crimes charges. Sure there were probably still other motives involved (like Ravi's desire to enhance his own social standing), but there's just no way, in a premeditated situation like that, that you wouldn't know damn well this kind of exposure will be far more humiliating towards a gay man than it would be towards a straight man, who might be furious at the invasion of privacy (more so if his partner is "atypical") but is unlikely either to see himself or to be seen by others as having been irredeemably socially undermined by the episode. And surely being aware of that is key to why you find the prospect of inviting your buddies to share the "view" so enticing, and surely that in turn has everything to do with holding it against your roommate that he's gay. You want to put on a show for your buddies, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that by nature the show's theme is the social humiliation of your f- roommate. That seems almost inescapable to me.
Maybe some kind of cyberbullying statute would've been more appropriate for these acts than the peeping tom + hate crime combo--in a way it is more reminiscent of bullying, the malicious capitalizing on someone's social vulnerabilities for your own gratification, than the straightforward expression of hostility towards an individual as embodiment of collective we normally associate with "hate crime." Still, I think all this "He's a jerk, not a bigot" may be missing the point. Hate crime convictions aren't based on broad-stroke character assessments; the history of expressed prejudices does matter, but ultimately the focus is the perpetrator's motivation for pursuing some specific, discrete criminal act.
Last edited:
. 
Also reminds me of a young girl who's ex boyfriend released a pic of her in a personal ad, saying she liked it rough and liked surprises, and he put her address, hence she got followed and raped in her own home.
I hope those tormenting people get what they cause or dish out. If it was your son or daughter who's video got posted, im sure you would feel the same, they could have been on drugs, drunk or experimenting, although wrong I agree, but kids will always be young, stupid and nieve. As much as I love the net, I couldn't care less is it got banned and only used for filing, pretty much love the older days.
