I don't see the relevance of those analogies. In both of them, the do-nothing option breaks the law and so someone only has to be negligent to commit a crime/offence. Your analogy would only work if there were a webcam set to stream onto the internet and the guy forgot to turn it off.
In this case, the two offenders took action to commit a crime.
True, but it demonstrates the lack of intent.
The point is that it's possible to deliberately commit an offence without intending for that offence to have serious consequences but, when things go badly wrong, you DO have to face serious consequences.
In this case, it's clear that the kids DID intend to invade the other kids privacy but I think it's pure speculation to suggest that they intended their actions to have fatal consequences.
Sorry about the confusion with regard to my examples.
I was trying to suggest that both of those things WERE carried out deliberately rather than accidentally.
In this case, it's clear that the kids DID intend to invade the other kids privacy but I think it's pure speculation to suggest that they intended their actions to have fatal consequences.
I agree they almost certainly did not intend for him to kill himself. It's difficult though because they did intend to cause him anguish. If I hit someone (not in self defence etc.) and they have a weak skull and die, I can be prosecuted for manslaughter, even though I may have intended to just give them a black eye or bloody nose. I am not sure myself how far I'd use the same (you caused it, you do the time) logic with mental rather than physical assault.
In his defence, the male bully must be stupid to set out to. taking the minimal reaction, severely annoy his roommate.
Those who enjoy having exhibitionist-sex (e.g. dogging) possibly wouldn't be mortified at this kind of act. Yet you do execise your own free will in opting to participate in this pursuit. Conversely, if your freedom to choose is totally removed, as was the case in this tragedy, the ensuing reaction could be fatal (or severely damaging) to the victim &/or perpetrators of the crime.
I hope those that "arranged" the filming feel the full weight of the law on them.
How cruel to do such a thing to another person, no wonder he felt such shame that he did what he did. They are slime balls and I hope they find non of their friends want anything to do with them.
That's why I can't really understand why people seem to be treating them with so much hatred.
On the one hand, it'd be nice if this could be dealt with informally (on the assumption that the kids DID genuinely grasp the seriousness of what they did).
OTOH, however, dealing with it informally also sets a precedent where people might assume that "bullying" (and I'm not suggesting this WAS bullying) somebody to commit suicide is okay.
The guy who didn't bother replacing the bald tyres on his car wasn't planning on running somebody over.
The guy who didn't tighten up the bolts on a roller coaster car properly never intended for somebody to fall out.
It IS unfortunate (IMO, at least) but we have laws intended to dissuade people from doing these things. When they ignore those laws and something tragic happens those people DO have a responsibility to answer for their action.
As I say, that's why we should really be taking the middle ground here IMO.
Course, if it turns out this guy was involved in a campaign of bullying against the other kid then I'd be happy to se him done for manslaughter.
If it WAS just a stupid prank that had tragic consequences then I think all parties involved deserve some measure of sympathy.
You hear about these cases where soandso was bullied on facebook which drove them to suicide- do those cases get prosecuted? The culprits?
You hear about these cases where soandso was bullied on facebook which drove them to suicide- do those cases get prosecuted? The culprits?
But these 2 aren't getting prosecuted for bullying.
They're being done for 'invasion of privacy' which is a crime.
I don't think actual 'bullying' is classified as a crime - but there could be some other thing it may come under?? I don't know maybe if it was directed at someone because of their colour it would be racism, or maybe at someone who was gay as a 'hate crime'.
I think you'd have to have some sort of classification not just bullying as in saying someone is 'fat' or 'ugly' or a tart or something.
They cannot and will not be charged with anything more so stop being so stupid as to insist they are.
The young lad who killed himself, think they might want to look into him a little more. Seems he was planning this for whatever reason already and he got himself an excuse to be selfish and put his family through the worst kind of pain.
So a recording of him having sex went online, hardly something to kill yourself over is it.
A stupid prank gone wrong that has resulted in a lot of peoples lives wrecked, the young lad could of gone about how he dealt with it better if there are no underlying problems.
People are still myth-making here. We don't know that this incident was connected to the suicide (as rude and disgusting as it was), and the man's attitude after the first incident didn't suggest a suicidal mindset (and he was already one to publish sexual pictures of himself online), and while oblivious to the kiss being recorded, was entirely aware the second time. There is more to this story than has been revealed, as I don't think this was the catalyst, regardless of how improper it was.
In terms of LGB suicide issues, I think the most horrifying thing this week are the 5 12-15 year olds who have topped themselves in the US (and they're just the ones who have hit the headlines). There is something very dark rising.
In terms of LGB suicide issues, I think the most horrifying thing this week are the 5 12-15 year olds who have topped themselves in the US (and they're just the ones who have hit the headlines). There is something very dark rising.
Not really, apparently there are 1 million suicides a year around the world. A certain number will always off themselves.
Considering 23k suicides occur per year in age group 10-19 in america yea sure, how many do you think there should be a week? But cheap hysteria is more fun. 5 a week is aprox 1% of the total, aka the number of homosexuals in the population, meaning it is simply proportionate.
They cannot and will not be charged with anything more so stop being so stupid as to insist they are.
The young lad who killed himself, think they might want to look into him a little more. Seems he was planning this for whatever reason already and he got himself an excuse to be selfish and put his family through the worst kind of pain.
So a recording of him having sex went online, hardly something to kill yourself over is it.
A stupid prank gone wrong that has resulted in a lot of peoples lives wrecked, the young lad could of gone about how he dealt with it better if there are no underlying problems.
What a post for our times that is. Blame the boy, of course. The offenders are totally guiltless. I'd be looking into their pasts, actually, the same as any other sex offender - they're in the same category as dirty voyeurs spying on girls, peering through windows, snapping with their hidden cameras, being pests in their neighbourhood.
And just why was this room mate so entranced by watching the boy's sex life? And who else has he been filming? BTW, he'd better have been filming others (although I fancy the lawsuits would cripple him for life) because if this gay lad was the only one, the DA says it could come under the heading of hate crime - that carries an even heavier sentence.
The boy may have underlying problems or he may not. That's irrelevant - the point is some creep decided to make him the star of his own porn film without his consent; he chose to humiliate him publicly. There is much malice in that, not prankishness - and nothing funny about it.
What a post for our times that is. Blame the boy, of course. The offenders are totally guiltless. I'd be looking into their pasts, actually, the same as any other sex offender - they're in the same category as dirty voyeurs spying on girls, peering through windows, snapping with their hidden cameras, being pests in their neighbourhood.
And just why was this room mate so entranced by watching the boy's sex life? And who else has he been filming? BTW, he'd better have been filming others (although I fancy the lawsuits would cripple him for life) because if this gay lad was the only one, the DA says it could come under the heading of hate crime - that carries an even heavier sentence.
The boy may have underlying problems or he may not. That's irrelevant - the point is some creep decided to make him the star of his own porn film without his consent; he chose to humiliate him publicly. There is much malice in that, not prankishness - and nothing funny about it.
I think the fact he wanted to tape him AGAIN and livestream it is something the prosecution will definately use.
And the fact that the victim was perfectly aware of the camera the second time is something the defence will use.[/QUOTE
He took advice about what to do about the situation, so he was obviously upset. Then he thought he'd sorted it out with this man after a chat. The prosecution will make somehting of that because je'd expressed his objections to being secretly filmed.
I agree they almost certainly did not intend for him to kill himself. It's difficult though because they did intend to cause him anguish. If I hit someone (not in self defence etc.) and they have a weak skull and die, I can be prosecuted for manslaughter, even though I may have intended to just give them a black eye or bloody nose. I am not sure myself how far I'd use the same (you caused it, you do the time) logic with mental rather than physical assault.
In his defence, the male bully must be stupid to set out to. taking the minimal reaction, severely annoy his roommate.
I think the issue of intent is a bit of a red herring here; I've not seen anyone, even their bitterest critics, suggest that Wei and Ravi intended Tyler Clenenti to kill himself.
The real issue over why manslaughter charges would be wrong is the issue of how Clementi died. Manslaughter charges are brought when someone dies through the actions of another person (or persons). Clementi didn't die as a result of Wei and Ravi's actions. He died as a result of his own action. Wei and Ravi (or perhaps really just Ravi; as I've mentioned before, the degree to which Wei was involved is still not quite clear) may have caused him to feel suicidal, but in the end it was he himself who decided to act on his feelings.
That's where this differs from an assault where the victim dies because he had an eggshell skull, or the examples previously mentioned of bald tyres and loose bolts on a fairground ride. In those cases, the victim had no choice. In this case, he did.
What a post for our times that is. Blame the boy, of course. The offenders are totally guiltless. I'd be looking into their pasts, actually, the same as any other sex offender - they're in the same category as dirty voyeurs spying on girls, peering through windows, snapping with their hidden cameras, being pests in their neighbourhood.
The media have been looking into Ravi and Wei's pasts. There's no dirt. Everyone seems to have liked them.
And just why was this room mate so entranced by watching the boy's sex life? And who else has he been filming? BTW, he'd better have been filming others (although I fancy the lawsuits would cripple him for life) because if this gay lad was the only one, the DA says it could come under the heading of hate crime - that carries an even heavier sentence.
The DA is clearly trying desperately to find an excuse to charge them with a hate crime. I think the DA in America is an elected official, so of course he will want to do the popular thing (this is why having such officials elected is a poor idea IMO). Maybe he will find something, I don't know. But the mere fact that Ravi never did this to anyone else doesn't prove it to be a hate crime. He's only 18; maybe he never had the opportunity to do this before, or never really thought of the idea until now. It doesn't prove he wouldn't have done this if Tyler Clementi had been having heterosexual sex. There may be other things that would prove or suggest such a view, but not that.
The media have been looking into Ravi and Wei's pasts. There's no dirt. Everyone seems to have liked them.
The DA is clearly trying desperately to find an excuse to charge them with a hate crime. I think the DA in America is an elected official, so of course he will want to do the popular thing (this is why having such officials elected is a poor idea IMO). Maybe he will find something, I don't know. But the mere fact that Ravi never did this to anyone else doesn't prove it to be a hate crime. He's only 18; maybe he never had the opportunity to do this before, or never really thought of the idea until now. It doesn't prove he wouldn't have done this if Tyler Clementi had been having heterosexual sex. There may be other things that would prove or suggest such a view, but not that.
I support the concept of hate crimes legislation to the hilt.
This isn't that. This is two kids who did something stupid, that *may* have influenced a suicide. But probably, in the balance of evidence, didn't.
Comments
True, but it demonstrates the lack of intent.
The point is that it's possible to deliberately commit an offence without intending for that offence to have serious consequences but, when things go badly wrong, you DO have to face serious consequences.
In this case, it's clear that the kids DID intend to invade the other kids privacy but I think it's pure speculation to suggest that they intended their actions to have fatal consequences.
Sorry about the confusion with regard to my examples.
I was trying to suggest that both of those things WERE carried out deliberately rather than accidentally.
I agree they almost certainly did not intend for him to kill himself. It's difficult though because they did intend to cause him anguish. If I hit someone (not in self defence etc.) and they have a weak skull and die, I can be prosecuted for manslaughter, even though I may have intended to just give them a black eye or bloody nose. I am not sure myself how far I'd use the same (you caused it, you do the time) logic with mental rather than physical assault.
In his defence, the male bully must be stupid to set out to. taking the minimal reaction, severely annoy his roommate.
What a vile thing to do. Invading someone's privacy and negating their personal dignity in such a way.
How cruel to do such a thing to another person, no wonder he felt such shame that he did what he did. They are slime balls and I hope they find non of their friends want anything to do with them.
You hear about these cases where soandso was bullied on facebook which drove them to suicide- do those cases get prosecuted? The culprits?
But these 2 aren't getting prosecuted for bullying.
They're being done for 'invasion of privacy' which is a crime.
I don't think actual 'bullying' is classified as a crime - but there could be some other thing it may come under?? I don't know maybe if it was directed at someone because of their colour it would be racism, or maybe at someone who was gay as a 'hate crime'.
I think you'd have to have some sort of classification not just bullying as in saying someone is 'fat' or 'ugly' or a tart or something.
You'll have to explain that one to me because I've not seen it.
G
The young lad who killed himself, think they might want to look into him a little more. Seems he was planning this for whatever reason already and he got himself an excuse to be selfish and put his family through the worst kind of pain.
So a recording of him having sex went online, hardly something to kill yourself over is it.
A stupid prank gone wrong that has resulted in a lot of peoples lives wrecked, the young lad could of gone about how he dealt with it better if there are no underlying problems.
In terms of LGB suicide issues, I think the most horrifying thing this week are the 5 12-15 year olds who have topped themselves in the US (and they're just the ones who have hit the headlines). There is something very dark rising.
Not really, apparently there are 1 million suicides a year around the world. A certain number will always off themselves.
5 gay children in a week in the US is not usual.
Imagine if Black people, Women and others had this attitude when suffering much the same thing gay people suffer now.
So easy to kill yourself for some people.
Considering 23k suicides occur per year in age group 10-19 in america yea sure, how many do you think there should be a week? But cheap hysteria is more fun. 5 a week is aprox 1% of the total, aka the number of homosexuals in the population, meaning it is simply proportionate.
What a post for our times that is. Blame the boy, of course. The offenders are totally guiltless. I'd be looking into their pasts, actually, the same as any other sex offender - they're in the same category as dirty voyeurs spying on girls, peering through windows, snapping with their hidden cameras, being pests in their neighbourhood.
And just why was this room mate so entranced by watching the boy's sex life? And who else has he been filming? BTW, he'd better have been filming others (although I fancy the lawsuits would cripple him for life) because if this gay lad was the only one, the DA says it could come under the heading of hate crime - that carries an even heavier sentence.
The boy may have underlying problems or he may not. That's irrelevant - the point is some creep decided to make him the star of his own porn film without his consent; he chose to humiliate him publicly. There is much malice in that, not prankishness - and nothing funny about it.
I think the fact he wanted to tape him AGAIN and livestream it is something the prosecution will definately use.
And the fact that the victim was perfectly aware of the camera the second time is something the defence will use.
Yes but was the perpetrator aware that the victim was aware of the camera iykwim.
I think the issue of intent is a bit of a red herring here; I've not seen anyone, even their bitterest critics, suggest that Wei and Ravi intended Tyler Clenenti to kill himself.
The real issue over why manslaughter charges would be wrong is the issue of how Clementi died. Manslaughter charges are brought when someone dies through the actions of another person (or persons). Clementi didn't die as a result of Wei and Ravi's actions. He died as a result of his own action. Wei and Ravi (or perhaps really just Ravi; as I've mentioned before, the degree to which Wei was involved is still not quite clear) may have caused him to feel suicidal, but in the end it was he himself who decided to act on his feelings.
That's where this differs from an assault where the victim dies because he had an eggshell skull, or the examples previously mentioned of bald tyres and loose bolts on a fairground ride. In those cases, the victim had no choice. In this case, he did.
The media have been looking into Ravi and Wei's pasts. There's no dirt. Everyone seems to have liked them.
The DA is clearly trying desperately to find an excuse to charge them with a hate crime. I think the DA in America is an elected official, so of course he will want to do the popular thing (this is why having such officials elected is a poor idea IMO). Maybe he will find something, I don't know. But the mere fact that Ravi never did this to anyone else doesn't prove it to be a hate crime. He's only 18; maybe he never had the opportunity to do this before, or never really thought of the idea until now. It doesn't prove he wouldn't have done this if Tyler Clementi had been having heterosexual sex. There may be other things that would prove or suggest such a view, but not that.
I support the concept of hate crimes legislation to the hilt.
This isn't that. This is two kids who did something stupid, that *may* have influenced a suicide. But probably, in the balance of evidence, didn't.