Using webcams to spy on other students is, sadly a common enough phenomenon in college. What made this case different was that Tyler Clementi was hooking up with another guy – and by broadcasting the encounter to his classmates, Dharun Ravi was “outing” his roommate to the entire university.
The case was charged as a bias crime – with a possible sentence of 10 years in prison, and deportation for Dharun Ravi, who is an Indian citizen.
This morning, this reporter was at Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior Court, as Judge Glenn Berman read his verdict. He surprised everyone by sentencing Ravi to just 30 days in jail, and three years’ probation. Read about it in the New York Times.
For the prosecution, and for gay rights advocates who’d vilified Ravi as an example of the pandemic bullying of LGBT teenagers, the sentencing seemed inadequate.
“We opposed throwing the book at Dharun Ravi,” said Steven Goldstein, chairman of prominent New Jersey gay rights group Garden State Equality, “but we have similarly rejected the other extreme, that Ravi should have gotten no jail time at all, and today’s sentencing is closer to that extreme than the other. This was not merely a childhood prank gone awry. This was not a crime without bias.”
But others, including many among the Indian-American community, had exactly the opposite reaction.
Dharun Ravi’s lawyer, Steven Altman, warned: “Dharun’s youth and immaturity were unable to provide him with the tools necessary to appreciate the consequences of his actions.” He claimed a prison sentence would ultimately not serve as any more of a deterrent than probation and community service. He clarified that the media attention surrounding Clementi’s suicide meant, “This case is being treated and exists today as if it’s a murder case.”
What do you think? Do you think Dharun’s sentencing was too light?
Or do you think it reflects the argument Ravi’s lawyer is making; that it was just a college prank that had tragically unforeseen, and deadly, consequences?
Let us know in the comments below.
The case was charged as a bias crime – with a possible sentence of 10 years in prison, and deportation for Dharun Ravi, who is an Indian citizen.
This morning, this reporter was at Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior Court, as Judge Glenn Berman read his verdict. He surprised everyone by sentencing Ravi to just 30 days in jail, and three years’ probation. Read about it in the New York Times.
For the prosecution, and for gay rights advocates who’d vilified Ravi as an example of the pandemic bullying of LGBT teenagers, the sentencing seemed inadequate.
“We opposed throwing the book at Dharun Ravi,” said Steven Goldstein, chairman of prominent New Jersey gay rights group Garden State Equality, “but we have similarly rejected the other extreme, that Ravi should have gotten no jail time at all, and today’s sentencing is closer to that extreme than the other. This was not merely a childhood prank gone awry. This was not a crime without bias.”
But others, including many among the Indian-American community, had exactly the opposite reaction.
Dharun Ravi’s lawyer, Steven Altman, warned: “Dharun’s youth and immaturity were unable to provide him with the tools necessary to appreciate the consequences of his actions.” He claimed a prison sentence would ultimately not serve as any more of a deterrent than probation and community service. He clarified that the media attention surrounding Clementi’s suicide meant, “This case is being treated and exists today as if it’s a murder case.”
What do you think? Do you think Dharun’s sentencing was too light?
Or do you think it reflects the argument Ravi’s lawyer is making; that it was just a college prank that had tragically unforeseen, and deadly, consequences?
Let us know in the comments below.
I think he got off easy and that the punishment should have been a little more harsh that what he got. And that community service sentence should be mandated to be carried out in a way that supports the LGBT community. Ravi acted like a twelve-year old boy pantsing another boy in the locker room or gymnasium to exploit and humiliate him. In this case, it ended with the loss of a life. Suicide is a choice, but I believe there should be a way to prosecute someone who has been tortured to the point of taking their own lives. How on earth could this kind of behavior ever be acceptable?
This reminds me of a debate from high school. In that case we were debating a doctors choice to remove a kidney from an under age patient who did not want the procedure. Her parents, on the other hand, were requesting the kidney be removed and donated to her sister. Now, that scenario may seem completely unrelated, but the argument became one over quality, or quantity of life.
Even in highschool several of the students grasped the concept that dealing with such a clear and disrespectful dismissal of personal choice and boundaries, could easily push an already unhappy person over the edge, and possibly to suicide.
Not only outing somebody, but also publicly sharing their sexual encounters, would likely result in humiliation, harassment of that person and a lot more, thus removing quality of life. If we could grasp in high school, that without quality of life, suicide becomes a possibility, it should not be difficult for a university student to grasp it.
This reminds me of a debate from high school. In that case we were debating a doctors choice to remove a kidney from an under age patient who did not want the procedure. Her parents, on the other hand, were requesting the kidney be removed and donated to her sister. Now, that scenario may seem completely unrelated, but the argument became one over quality, or quantity of life.
Even in highschool several of the students grasped the concept that dealing with such a clear and disrespectful dismissal of personal choice and boundaries, could easily push an already unhappy person over the edge, and possibly to suicide.
Not only outing somebody, but also publicly sharing their sexual encounters, would likely result in humiliation, harassment of that person and a lot more, thus removing quality of life. If we could grasp in high school, that without quality of life, suicide becomes a possibility, it should not be difficult for a university student to grasp it.
Well said Stormy! Took the words right out of my mouth.
It kills me what Ravi's lawyer said: “Dharun’s youth and immaturity were unable to provide him with the tools necessary to appreciate the consequences of his actions.”
He's. In. COLLEGE!!!
No fucking way was he unable to comprehend that broadcasting someone else's sexual encounters might have the kind of impact it did. That's even without outing someone who perhaps wasn't ready to come out.
I think he got off really easy seeing how Tyler Clementi is no longer living due to Dharun Ravi actions
I agree with Rin all the way! What the hell is that?! It reeks of the whole "boys will be boys" mentality that we've allowed to go on for far too long. There are serious consequences to us treating these MEN as boys and punishing them with a mere slap on the wrist.
Such a weak punishment for the crime is sending a message that violation of others privacy is no big deal. Even if it causes irrepairable damage to the victim's life and/or livelihood. This is unacceptable. Like Stormy, I think that a crime should carry a heavier punishment if the victim commited suicide as a result of it.
I am so angry over this.