Rutgers student commits suicide after being spied on

[theamericandream38]

Wait a sec though-- when discussing Ravi's crime and his future as an American Citizen, there is no way we can conclude that Prison is the best option. I am directing this to all those who are saying he should "rot in prison" and so forth.

This is absolute horseshit. 18 years of age is the age when one becomes responsible for their own actions in the US. He knew the consequences of his actions, let him experience them. This fucker should be given a life sentence (the death penalty should only be given to those who knowingly take another's life IMO) for what he did, considering he directly caused another person to die. I agree, there is no hope for rehabilitating him. He is a stain on society and is not fit to live in it, and thus should be removed from it. The US justice system needs to grow some balls and take actions that actually remove the problem rather than just hiding it for a few years. Prison is a fine punishment for lesser crimes (though I think rape is a pretty severe crime and should be given a life sentence, especially because the vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders), but life sentences or the death penalty need to be given to anyone who kills another person, intentionally or not.

 

[billymills]

This is absolute horseshit. 18 years of age is the age when one becomes responsible for their own actions in the US. He knew the consequences of his actions, let him experience them. This fucker should be given a life sentence (the death penalty should only be given to those who knowingly take another's life IMO) for what he did, considering he directly caused another person to die. I agree, there is no hope for rehabilitating him. He is a stain on society and is not fit to live in it, and thus should be removed from it. The US justice system needs to grow some balls and take actions that actually remove the problem rather than just hiding it for a few years. Prison is a fine punishment for lesser crimes (though I think rape is a pretty severe crime and should be given a life sentence, especially because the vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders), but life sentences or the death penalty need to be given to anyone who kills another person, intentionally or not.

At this point I'd rather you dead than him.

 

[Objection]

I think he has a point though. If people know what the consequences of their actions are and they aren't scared of the consequences, the only reason they won't perform that action is if they have strong moral values, which is something that (sadly) cannot be assumed.

 

[Chou Toshio]

At this point I'd rather you dead than him.

This.

 

[ChaosAkita]

This is absolute horseshit. 18 years of age is the age when one becomes responsible for their own actions in the US. He knew the consequences of his actions, let him experience them. This fucker should be given a life sentence (the death penalty should only be given to those who knowingly take another's life IMO) for what he did, considering he directly caused another person to die. I agree, there is no hope for rehabilitating him. He is a stain on society and is not fit to live in it, and thus should be removed from it. The US justice system needs to grow some balls and take actions that actually remove the problem rather than just hiding it for a few years. Prison is a fine punishment for lesser crimes (though I think rape is a pretty severe crime and should be given a life sentence, especially because the vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders), but life sentences or the death penalty need to be given to anyone who kills another person, intentionally or not.

Great logic. If a professor causes someone to kill themselves over a poor exam grade (lots of gunners in this world; a lot more common than you think), they should die? This doesn't actually solve the problem of people killing other people unintentionally, especially since no one (seemed to) knew that Clementi had a psychological problem. There's a reason no one has suggested any laws like this.

 

[cim]

I think you can't compare outing a closeted person to giving a tough exam. One is kind of obviously going to ruin someone's life, and one is your job.

 

[theamericandream38]

At this point I'd rather you dead than him.

Well then you're a fucking idiot. I've never done anything to deserve my death, because I do my best to avoid harming other people. If you're saying someone who purposely attempted to humiliate and shame another person deserves to live more than a person who has done nothing of the sort, then I have nothing to say to you.

 

[billymills]

Prison is a fine punishment for lesser crimes (though I think rape is a pretty severe crime and should be given a life sentence, especially because the vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders), but life sentences or the death penalty need to be given to anyone who kills another person, intentionally or not.

Well then you're a fucking idiot. I've never done anything to deserve my death, because I do my best to avoid harming other people. If you're saying someone who purposely attempted to humiliate and shame another person deserves to live more than a person who has done nothing of the sort, then I have nothing to say to you.

You're intentionally advocating death to others, which is far more than anything Ravi wanted. No matter how you cut it, I don't know how you'd argue Ravi wanted anyone to commit suicide.

Once humiliating someone becomes a crime, I don't think I'll ever approach the United States ever again. If shame becomes a crime, then you may live in the most backwards nation in the world.

Why is it that I have to ask again and again, why do sentences have to be solely punitive (such as a life sentence, which serves absolutely no other purpose). The only answer I've ever received is 'that's just how it is' or 'the constitution says so.'

 

[theamericandream38]

You're intentionally advocating death to others, which is far more than anything Ravi wanted. No matter how you cut it, I don't know how you'd argue Ravi wanted anyone to commit suicide.

Once humiliating someone becomes a crime, I don't think I'll ever approach the United States ever again. If shame becomes a crime, then you may live in the most backwards nation in the world.

Why is it that I have to ask again and again, why do sentences have to be solely punitive (such as a life sentence, which serves absolutely no other purpose). The only answer I've ever received is 'that's just how it is' or 'the constitution says so.'

The only people who deserve to die are those who kill others, it is as simple as that. If everyone believed and followed this then no one would die (what a concept!). People who cause the death of others do not deserve a second chance, they have robbed another person(s) of an opportunity to live and should have the same done to them. Humiliating someone should be a crime, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why someone should deserve to have something bad happen to them (unless they did something bad to someone else, as I have said).

 

[umbarsc]

Hey guys, I'm going to out my roommate by videotaping him and posting gay sex videos of him online to show my homophobic friends!

What? I didn't mean anything bad to happen! You can't punish me, I'm only 18 years old!

People arguing about how he didn't mean any harm and how it was just a dumb prank gone wrong and NOT a hate crime need some perspective, like, stat.

 

[Son of Disaster]

The only people who deserve to die are those who kill others, it is as simple as that. If everyone believed and followed this then no one would die (what a concept!). People who cause the death of others do not deserve a second chance, they have robbed another person(s) of an opportunity to live and should have the same done to them. Humiliating someone should be a crime, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why someone should deserve to have something bad happen to them (unless they did something bad to someone else, as I have said).

That seems horribly harsh. Even accidental death? why should we be the arbiters of death as well. Sure killers took a life but then to tell them that's wrong we take their life? How does that make sense. And that doesn't leave much space for those who are unjustly put to death. You can't revive them if they do get cleared of charges. Why should humiliation be a crime? That would be incredibly subjective and seems ridiculous to even think of as a crime.

 

[DarthChake]

The only people who deserve to die are those who kill others, it is as simple as that. If everyone believed and followed this then no one would die (what a concept!).

If someone kills someone because...let's say they enjoy it to make this more simple, then who will kill them? It is my humble opinion that you are saying someone should be put to death if they intentionally caused death. By this logic whoever condemmed them to death should also die.

People who cause the death of others do not deserve a second chance, they have robbed another person(s) of an opportunity to live and should have the same done to them.

Murder is a terrible crime, but causing the death of someone is not always filled with such malice. If the only way to stop someone from killing me was to kill them then I would defend myself as necessary. This is self defense if I did not put them in a situation where they had to kill me, e.g. someone is trying to kill me for enjoyment and the only way I can stop them at that time is by killing them.

Humiliating someone should be a crime, 1.there is absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why someone should deserve to have something bad happen to them 2.(unless they did something bad to someone else, as I have said).

1.A reasonable explanation for why someone would want to humiliate someone is a lack of self-esteem. By making someone look bad they comparitively look better. That is a reasonable explanation. edit Most people deserve little of what happens to them. I am typing on a laptop on my desk not because I am a successful worker who has earned this, but because my parents love and thought I would enjoy this gift. It is not right that someone humiliates someone but it is that persons fault for feeling humiliated. It is how the person thinks people will think of them that makes them feel humiliated. It is worong to try and make someone feel bad about themselves because you want to feel better about themselves. That part you are right about, I misread that.
2.Revenge doesn't seem like a good way to go about preventing humiliation. If all of the peole enacted revenge on the people who humiliated them we would certainly have more people humiliating each-other. I'm sure that if person A humiliated person B and person B retaliated by humiliating person A it would quickly escalate past the mere act of humiliation.
As for making humiliation a crime, that seems like a very dangerous law to make. It is very difficult to find a different person's intent, if it's even possible. Sure it is very rude to humiliate someone for the express purpose of your own pleasure, but you must understand that not all instances of humiliation were intentional, although it seems the person who posted those videos had that intent.

 

[petrie911]

The only people who deserve to die are those who kill others, it is as simple as that.

That's all well and good, but not particularly relevant. Ravi killed no one. The person who killed Tyler is Tyler. Not to say Ravi isn't guilty of anything; he's certainly guilty of the invasion of privacy he's charged with. But no action he took directly caused Tyler's death.

 

[theamericandream38]

See, billymills? Look at how fine user DarthChake has calmly and reasonably explained his opinion and why he disagrees with me. Instead of immediately calling me an idiot and saying that I deserve to die, he has remained calm and spoken (or typed I suppose) logically. You could learn a lot from DarthChake, I think.

If someone kills someone because...let's say they enjoy it to make this more simple, then who will kill them? It is my humble opinion that you are saying someone should be put to death if they intentionally caused death. By this logic whoever condemmed them to death should also die.

Fair enough, but what I mean to say is that the law should be set in such a way that the punishment for murder is death. The executioner is not killing the murder, they are only carrying out what society has deemed necessary (that murder is never acceptable and those who do it should be removed from society). Also notice that if nobody killed anyone, then no one would die as a punishment.



Murder is a terrible crime, but causing the death of someone is not always filled with such malice. If the only way to stop someone from killing me was to kill them then I would defend myself as necessary. This is self defense if I did not put them in a situation where they had to kill me, e.g. someone is trying to kill me for enjoyment and the only way I can stop them at that time is by killing them.


Also a very valid point. I should have addressed this when I made my original statement, but I forgot to do so. In this case, the person defending themselves is basically doing the job of the executioner: punishing the murderer. Obviously it would be optimal if they could simply disable the (attempted) murderer in some way, but in the case where there is no choice, I believe that there should be no punishment.


1.A reasonable explanation for why someone would want to humiliate someone is a lack of self-esteem. By making someone look bad they comparitively look better. That is a reasonable explanation.

It may be a reasonable explanation of the human psyche, but it is not an excuse. In order to optimize human society, negative behaviors such as humiliating others need to be discouraged and/or removed.

2.Revenge doesn't seem like a good way to go about preventing humiliation. If all of the peole enacted revenge on the people who humiliated them we would certainly have more people humiliating each-other. I'm sure that if person A humiliated person B and person B retaliated by humiliating person A it would quickly escalate past the mere act of humiliation.

This is fixed rather easily. If no one humiliates (and I do not mean that humiliation is the only case that this applies to, it is simply relevant to the original discussion) another person, then there will never be any revenge taken. As such, the originator of the problem should be punished, not the other way around.

As for making humiliation a crime, that seems like a very dangerous law to make. It is very difficult to find a different persons intent, if it's even possible. Sure it is very rude to humiliate someone for the express purpose of your own pleasure, but you must understand that not all instances of humiliation were intentional, although it seems the person who posted those videos had that intent.

Another good point, and I suppose I was referring to the instances where intent is obvious. There are certainly cases where the humiliation was unintentional, and as humiliation is a rather minor offense, I do think that each situation must be examined individually and the punishment adjusted accordingly. I think that because murder is such a terrible offense, even unintentional murder deserves the harshest punishment.

That's all well and good, but not particularly relevant. Ravi killed no one. The person who killed Tyler is Tyler. Not to say Ravi isn't guilty of anything; he's certainly guilty of the invasion of privacy he's charged with. But no action he took directly caused Tyler's death.

Very valid argument until the bolded part, because his actions were exactly what caused Tyler's death. Yes, he did not "pull the trigger" (not literal in this case), but because of what he did, Tyler died. There was no further interaction with other people, it was directly: Ravi posts video on internet --> Tyler kills himself. As such, I think he should punished as though he had murdered Tyler.

Also, it should be noted that I am just stating my opinion in these posts, and they should be taken as such. Obviously the justice system is very different from what I think, I am just saying what I think should happen. My opinion is as meaningless as any of yours, as none of us (as far as I know) have any influence over how the government works.

 

[DarthChake]

Theamericandream38"Fair enough, but what I mean to say is that the law should be set in such a way that the punishment for murder is death. The executioner is not killing the murder, they are only carrying out what society has deemed necessary (that murder is never acceptable and those who do it should be removed from society). Also notice that if nobody killed anyone, then no one would die as a punishment."

I read part of what you said wrong and I edited that, so this is the only thing you say that I do disagree with at this point. I belive that regardless of what someone does, no matter how cruel, death is not an option edit(that should be directly enforced) and does not send the right message. There are things worse than death that would deter potentiel murders, if that is your intention. A better solution for someone who killed (someone who killed someone not because they had to, to stop someone else from dying but because they simply didn't like the person, or gained joy from killing someone would be a more specific example) would be for that person to go to an abandonded area that is disconnected from the rest of the world. There they could start anew with other murderers. Either they would all work together and make their own society, or they would not like eachother and be punished by either each-other, or nature (attacked by wild animals because they did not, or were not able to work together to make defenses against this). This seems like a fitting punishment for the aforementioned types of murderers because they are seperated from harming other people that do not murder. They will either die, or learn to change their ways, depending on how the rest of the murderers on the island are. As for if they will be allowed back into normal society, I am not sure. You would be hard pressed to tell if a person has truly changed, although I believe people deserve a second chance. If they murdered again a life sentence at the island would do them well and if the other islanders are in chaos the person is likely to die, if they have established rules and he is remembered to have been there then he is likely to be percieved as a threat and die.

 

[petrie911]

Very valid argument until the bolded part, because his actions were exactly what caused Tyler's death. Yes, he did not "pull the trigger" (not literal in this case), but because of what he did, Tyler died. There was no further interaction with other people, it was directly: Ravi posts video on internet --> Tyler kills himself. As such, I think he should punished as though he had murdered Tyler.

You see, there is a key intervening step where Tyler chooses to kill himself. That is what prevents the cause from being direct.

 

[theamericandream38]

Theamericandream38"Fair enough, but what I mean to say is that the law should be set in such a way that the punishment for murder is death. The executioner is not killing the murder, they are only carrying out what society has deemed necessary (that murder is never acceptable and those who do it should be removed from society). Also notice that if nobody killed anyone, then no one would die as a punishment."

I read part of what you said wrong and I edited that, so this is the only thing you say that I do disagree with at this point. I belive that regardless of what someone does, no matter how cruel, death is not an option edit(that should be directly enforced) and does not send the right message. There are things worse than death that would deter potentiel murders, if that is your intention. A better solution for someone who killed (someone who killed someone not because they had to, to stop someone else from dying but because they simply didn't like the person, or gained joy from killing someone would be a more specific example) would be for that person to go to an abandonded area that is disconnected from the rest of the world. There they could start anew with other murderers. Either they would all work together and make their own society, or they would not like eachother and be punished by either each-other, or nature (attacked by wild animals because they did not, or were not able to work together to make defenses against this). This seems like a fitting punishment for the aforementioned types of murderers because they are seperated from harming other people that do not murder. They will either die, or learn to change their ways, depending on how the rest of the murderers on the island are. As for if they will be allowed back into normal society, I am not sure. You would be hard pressed to tell if a person has truly changed, although I believe people deserve a second chance. If they murdered again a life sentence at the island would do them well and if the other islanders are in chaos the person is likely to die, if they have established rules and he is remembered to have been there then he is likely to be percieved as a threat and die.

An interesting idea for punishment, to say the least. I think that death is more appropriate, if not simply because the punishment equals the crime. I respectfully disagree with your opinion on second chances, but that is an argument to which there is much evidence on both sides (both criminals who have been rehabilitated and repeat offenders).

Also, I do not really believe that the death penalty will deter people from murdering others. There will be those people who enjoy killing others (and no punishment would prevent them from commiting their terrible crimes), and those people should be removed from society (by death or by isolation as you have suggested), so that they may not procreate or otherwise spread their ideas to others.

You see, there is a key intervening step where Tyler chooses to kill himself. That is what prevents the cause from being direct.

True, perhaps I was being a bit quick in my judgment. I'm not about to argue that Tyler's only choice was to kill himself (it wasn't), so I will admit that I was probably wrong in my initial assesment of the situation at hand (though my opinion on punishments remains unchanged). Also, this does not excuse Ravi's deplorable behavior, and I am glad that he is being charged with something.

 

[lati0s]

The way I see it is that in determining punishments, as in all things, our goals should be to create that system that leads to the best results for society. The punishment must be severe enough that it deters crime but the only reason that it would be justifiable to kill someone or give them a life sentence would be if there was no way that they could ever be rehabilitated to live in society. While there are probably people that fit this description it is absurd to claim that all murderers should be treated like this. People can and do change and I believe that if we had a better system of punishment a lot more people could be reformed. The current system where prison time is the most common punishment is fairly effective at detering crime and can be effective at containing people during their most violent years but it is not good at all at reforming people, the prison environment often exposes people to even more criminal behavior and the limited job opportunities available to felons makes crime pay.

As far as I understand it the people that kill for the pleasure of the kill make up only a small fraction of the homicides that are committed. Many mores homicides are committed because of disputes that go bad, gang disputes and for monetary gain. I am not at all trying to justify these actions but people who murder for these reasons are more likely to be able to be reformed then people who kill for fun.

 

[billymills]

The only people who deserve to die are those who kill others, it is as simple as that. If everyone believed and followed this then no one would die (what a concept!). People who cause the death of others do not deserve a second chance, they have robbed another person(s) of an opportunity to live and should have the same done to them. Humiliating someone should be a crime, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why someone should deserve to have something bad happen to them (unless they did something bad to someone else, as I have said).

If it were only that simple. Lets see how long it takes for you to retract that statement.

Two wrongs make a right, even in the case of unintentional murders (random car accident for instance)?

Also for the case of humiliation, what exactly does that involve? My soccer team lost 10-0 once, does that give me the right to throw the other team in jail? I can at least fine them or sentence them to community service for that right?

That seems horribly harsh. Even accidental death? why should we be the arbiters of death as well. Sure killers took a life but then to tell them that's wrong we take their life? How does that make sense. And that doesn't leave much space for those who are unjustly put to death. You can't revive them if they do get cleared of charges. Why should humiliation be a crime? That would be incredibly subjective and seems ridiculous to even think of as a crime.

Son of Disaster makes a great point here. Son of Disaster thinks you're being a bit too extreme. Think about that for a second.

An interesting idea for punishment, to say the least. I think that death is more appropriate, if not simply because the punishment equals the crime. I respectfully disagree with your opinion on second chances, but that is an argument to which there is much evidence on both sides (both criminals who have been rehabilitated and repeat offenders).

Interesting idea, but I believe the complete opposite is more appropriate. I disrespectively disagree with your point of view because I think it's terribly harsh and promotes unnecessary suffering for more people. I do believe you had good points previously (with respect to humiliation but I believe they are more applicable here) that each case should be examined individually and a punishment adjusted accordingly. Not all murder is the same, and should not be treated as such.

Also, I do not really believe that the death penalty will deter people from murdering others. There will be those people who enjoy killing others (and no punishment would prevent them from commiting their terrible crimes), and those people should be removed from society (by death or by isolation as you have suggested), so that they may not procreate or otherwise spread their ideas to others.

Completely agree here. Point conceded. However, keyword: some. There are some people the death penalty will not change, and for that they do have to be isolated(/killed/whatever). That does not mean this has to be the default treatment.

Also, I greatly enjoy that simply because you do not agree with me, I am an idiot and deserve to die.

You then proceeded to make a sweeping generalization about the American education system, truly showing your intelligence (or lack thereof).

Neither of these comments are true.

 

[theamericandream38]

If it were only that simple. Lets see how long it takes for you to retract that statement.

Two wrongs make a right, even in the case of unintentional murders (random car accident for instance)?

No, because the execution is not a wrong. It is necessary to keep society operating optimally.

Also for the case of humiliation, what exactly does that involve? My soccer team lost 10-0 once, does that give me the right to throw the other team in jail? I can at least fine them or sentence them to community service for that right?

Not what I was getting at, but I see your point. I should have been more specific: humans should not go out of their way to humiliate others. In the presented example, the opposing soccer team was not trying to humiliate you, merely to win the game. The humiliation was a byproduct of the result of the game.

Son of Disaster makes a great point here. Son of Disaster thinks you're being a bit too extreme. Think about that for a second.

I accidently skipped over his post (and it was accidental, I swear!), so I suppose I will address it here. He makes a very good point about incorrect guilty verdicts, something that I think the American justice system needs to greatly improve (regardless of the punishment involved). As I stated after I made that post, the execution of the murderer is not necessarily to say "this is wrong" (every sane human being knows that killing another is wrong)

If I calmly explained my position, there's a good chance you'd simply ignore it or wouldn't bother reading. Outright attacking you makes you want to show how idiotic I'm being, and puts a little more on the line in the argument. I find things more interesting this way.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. I think arguments should be reasonable and logical without negativity between the two debaters.

Doesn't an executioner by definition, kill people? Who cares if he's doing the will of the society, he's killing them heartlessly. That's a little scary, why exactly is he immune to any revenge kills unlike everyone else?

The executioner shouldn't be seen as a person, but rather as a tool that is necessary to keep society optimal. I suppose it would be possible to construct some way to execute people without another person being involved, but the current system is already woefully slow and cost inefficient and needs to be simplified. The executioner is "immune" because he is just doing what society has determined what is best (in this fantasy world).

So in other words, you're backtracking? So now murder is potentially justified, at least in the case of self defense. Why not other situations. Should we kill off every last american soldier from the afghan war, or the iraq war simply because they killed people? (Don't claim they only killed enemy combatants out of self defense, there have been numerous stories about civilian deaths and those deaths only increase monthly.)

I apologize, I failed to mention certain situations in my original post and instead went against my own methods and made an absolute statement (which is obviously a very foolish thing to do). I am glad you brought up war, because it is a very interesting topic. I believe that the answer very much depends on what is the cause of the war. In the case of the Iraq war, I feel like America's intervention was unjustified. If the reasoning is that the government believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they should have gathered more (or better) intelligence. If the reasoning is that America should be some sort of "world police", then I staunchly oppose that idea and believe that each country should mind it's own business (just as people should). I don't think that the soldiers are to blame in this case, but rather the government officials who sent them to attack the Iraqi people. The Afghan war is slightly more justifiable in that it is in response to an attack on America, but the civilian deaths are certainly inexcusable and the soldiers who commit those crimes should be punished in the appropriate manner.

So whenever I play a game, I need to make sure I don't win by too much as to not humiliate the opponent?
If I 6-0 somebody, does he have permission to kill me/castrate me/otherwise remove me from the gene pool as you recommend?

See my response to your soccer example. You are only trying to win the game, not trying to humiliate your opponent. This obviously does not apply if you can literally win the game with one attack and purposely stall to make the game last longer. Also, the death/isolation/etc. punishment is not universal and should only be used for the most heinous crimes.

So humiliation is not necessarily evil, ever wonder if this applies to murder too? Possibly that murder is not always evil, that there may be some cases where murder is justifiable?

In my opinion, the only situation where murder is justifiable is where it isn't "murder", it is "killing in self defense", as was described earlier. Taking someone's life is so extreme a crime that I believe it should be treated as such.

There is a clear difference between posting a video on the internet and stabbing someone with a dagger.

True to an extent, but the video had the same direct result as stabbing someone would. This is the situation where intent does not matter, his actions caused the death of another person, thus he should be held accountable (also see my previous post where I retract this argument because I failed to consider that Tyler did indeed have a choice of whether or not to kill himself).

That's good. I wholeheartedly recommend everyone post their opinion to the fullest extent and argue the heck out of it, because then we can both see the flaws in our arguments. (Believe it or not, I don't think I'm correct, and am only doing this to see if my argument makes sense to myself and others.)

Interesting, I incorrectly assumed (and now chastise myself for doing so) that you were one of those internet dudes who was quite sure he was the greatest thing to happen to the world and that he was always corrrect regardless of the situation.

Interesting idea, but I believe the complete opposite is more appropriate. I disrespectively disagree with your point of view because I think it's terribly harsh and promotes unnecessary suffering for more people. I do believe you had good points previously (with respect to humiliation but I believe they are more applicable here) that each case should be examined individually and a punishment adjusted accordingly. Not all murder is the same, and should not be treated as such.

I smiled slightly at your "disrespectively disagree" remark, if that was what you were hoping for. I do disagree that not all murder is the same, as the result cannot be changed or fixed by any known means (whereas a theft could be remedied with complete repayment for the stolen item and some sort of other punishment for the theif).

Completely agree here. Point conceded. However, keyword: some. There are some people the death penalty will not change, and for that they do have to be isolated(/killed/whatever). That does not mean this has to be the default treatment.


I'm glad we can agree on something! Unfortunately, I feel that it is far too difficult to determine who can and who can't be rehabilitated, and thus no chances should be taken.


Neither of these comments are true.

At this point I'd rather you dead than him.

were you born an idiot or are you the product of the american education system

^ in my visitor messages

These seem to say otherwise.

 

[Morm]

I think you can't compare outing a closeted person to giving a tough exam. One is kind of obviously going to ruin someone's life, and one is your job.

Not to mention outting someone by showing them having gay sex with another man on the internet. That is so far from reasonable it's just beyond me, especially because that prick was malicious enough to try it twice.

Man I wish bigotry like that didn't exist; to me, the humor of ripping on someone for being black/gay/jewish/whatever is hilarious, but once you mean it or try to hurt the person for it you are a total fucker.

This redneck guy who outted him should be made an example of, the equivalent of a public lynching. Give him a heavy sentence in the hopes that it'll make others realize that it's NOT okay to do what he did. That is the point of a penal system relying on deterrence, after all. Though in Canada we would just "rehabilitate" him by giving him a light sentence of cable TV and home cooked meals followed by an earliest parole leave time.

 

[DM]

I wish I had been reading this thread all along, so I apologize if I tread old ground.

Will he be convicted for invasion of privacy? Absolutely, that couldn't be clearer. Will he be convicted of a hate crime? It's possible. They differ from state to state, but I get the distinct feeling New Jersey is one of the more progressive states in that area, so he'll probably fall under the statute with his actions.

Will he be convicted for murder/manslaughter? Bitch please. That's a stretch, at best. But can he be held liable for wrongful death in a civil suit? Almost undoubtedly. This family is irreparably harmed, but they will almost certainly (barring some ridiculous miscarriage of justice) get adequate legal closure.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think you can't compare outing a closeted person to giving a tough exam. One is kind of obviously going to ruin someone's life, and one is your job.

Well Chris, I will start by admitting I am not gay, and have no way of conceiving what being outed would feel like.

That said, the comparison was made only in the context of whether you can hold Ravi accountable for Tyler's death-- that is, can you say "outing him" is akin to "murdering him" or even doing "man-slaughter". Frankly, that is a big no, and I think most reasonable people would agree that instigating the "shame" that led to a person to choose his own suicide is a far cry from "directly causing someone's death."

Also, I will respectfully take the chance to say, "You can never understand us, so your opinion isn't relevant!" is rather unfair and petulant when trying to have discourse. Playing the victim to try to make an emotional move does not promote fair and reasonable discussion. I only say this because you seem to play that card often in sexuality-related threads.

As for the rest of what people are throwing back and forth above . . . wow . . . just wow . . .

 

[mtr]

@DM:

IMO the hate crime charge is ludicrous, and merely a product of the homosexual lobby's attempts to capitalize on the crisis. There is little evidence of Ravi and Wei displaying any malice against Clementi simply because of sexual orientation (definition of "bias" in the law), they merely used his sexual orientation to have more fun in their distasteful prank. Odds are they would have done it if Clementi were heterosexual.

The fact remains that there wouldn't be nearly this much fuss if the victim were heterosexual (episodes of heterosexual voyeurism are a dime a dozen), or if the victim hadn't committed suicide.

 

[Curtains]

See, billymills? Look at how fine user DarthChake has calmly and reasonably explained his opinion and why he disagrees with me. Instead of immediately calling me an idiot and saying that I deserve to die, he has remained calm and spoken (or typed I suppose) logically. You could learn a lot from DarthChake, I think.






Very valid argument until the bolded part, because his actions were exactly what caused Tyler's death. Yes, he did not "pull the trigger" (not literal in this case), but because of what he did, Tyler died. There was no further interaction with other people, it was directly: Ravi posts video on internet --> Tyler kills himself. As such, I think he should punished as though he had murdered Tyler.

Also, it should be noted that I am just stating my opinion in these posts, and they should be taken as such. Obviously the justice system is very different from what I think, I am just saying what I think should happen. My opinion is as meaningless as any of yours, as none of us (as far as I know) have any influence over how the government works.

This is the shit that pisses me off. We should not in anyway be accepting that he committed suicide.Glorification of suicide. This is the reason that more and more people are doing it to "get revenge". What your saying here is anyone can commit suicide for any behavior someone else did and they will be charged for murder.That concept is just dumb as fuck and if this happens then the justice system is basically supporting suicide.Ravi should not have any big discipline for his death.The biggest thing here is invasion of privacy and emotional distress for the family.I have no respect for anyone that says he should get major punishment for tylers death.