Thought Crimes
As Marc J. Randazza posts, "I hate 'hate crimes.'"
It was at Randazza's blog, The Legal Satyricon, that I found this link to Rogier's blog item at Nobody's Business. Rogier echoes my views -- on gay rights and hate crimes -- as he writes about hate crimes, vis a vis the Tyler Clementi case:
This blog is a friend of equal rights, and of marriage equality. I have written multiple posts and a newspaper editorial stating my position loudly and clearly.But I don't think I will ever see eye to eye with people, of any sexual orientation, who believe that harsh words and actions directed at gay/lesbian/transgender folk must be punished extra severely. You want equality? I'll stand with you, and fight alongside you. But the moment you begin arguing that your people are more equal than other people -- well, excuse me while I spin on a dime, and become your implacable foe. Even Animal Farm-reading eighth-graders might understand why I feel that way.
...Being greatly upset does not give you the higher moral ground. It does not earn you automatic respect. It's exactly the opposite for me: Play the "I'm really upset" card as if it means anything -- an attempted plea for sympathy usually made by hypocrites and weasels -- and you will earn my enmity and scorn. Claiming that intemperate words can hurt just as much as bullets or blades is, after all, the same lame "argument" that religious crybabies of various stripes love making. Improbably enough, they believe that they somehow have the right not to have their feelings hurt.
...THOUGHT EXPERIMENT NUMBER ONE: Let's say that Clementi never jumped off that bridge, but everything else about the case remains the same. Do you believe that Ravi would have even been prosecuted for what he did, much less convicted by a jury and facing ten years in jail? More to the point: If you'd been on that jury, and Tyler Clementi was alive and appearing in court as the plaintiff, would you have felt have compelled to put Ravi behind bars for up to a decade? I doubt it. Remember, Ravi's awful behavior would still have been the same. But few people would probably choose to convict him in the absence of a corpse.
What does that tell us? It says that his actions only amount to a crime when there are certain outcomes that he had no control over. (It's not like he handed Clementi a gun and advised him to shoot himself. And even if he had, that final deed would still be Clementi's choice, and no one else's.)
...I just cannot be comfortable with a legal system that punishes thought crime. Did Ravi commit a heinous invasion of privacy? Yes, and it deserves our condemnation, even our anger. But a privacy invasion is all I see Ravi being legally guilty of. I say "legally" because, yup, the guy is a first-class douche nozzle. But a criminal? Hardly.
Again, I'd be happy to see him leave the country. Do we really need a peeping Tom secret internet broadcaster added to our population? I think not.
Nor do I think we need to feed and clothe him for the next decade.
NicoleK at March 21, 2012 4:45 AM
"But few people would probably choose to convict him in the absence of a corpse."
Count me among those few who WOULD convict; what Ravi did was criminal.
I live in the same county as the trial, I wished to God that they had chosen me to be on that jury - I would have strung him up by his f*cking balls! And it would not have been because of what he thought - it was his actions that were crimnal.
Charles at March 21, 2012 1:09 PM
Or, we could have just told people he was a witch and was casting spells making the cows milk sour and the mob would have taken care of the rest. (with thanks to 27bslash6).
The WolfMan at March 21, 2012 1:57 PM
> Do we really need a peeping Tom secret
> internet broadcaster added to our
> population?
"Added"? WTF?
This guy was, and is, a kid. Young people do horrible things to each other, especially with respect to (and during) dating and other bonds of early adulthood. None of us would want to be held accountable –or freaking exiled– for the shenanigans of those years, though many might deserve it. Those are the years when we learn that the people who happen to be close to us are not our brothers and sisters, as the earlier targets of that misconduct had been; They're not compelled to put up with the hurt. And that hurt can be very real, not the posturing a of a snot-sibling who's going to retaliate with a purple-nurple in the back seat during the long drive to Grandma's.
A old story from the early days of Apple comes to mind. Steve Jobs and his engineering partner Steve Wozniak were poking around for opportunities before the Apple Computer took off. Atari needed a design for video game; Wozniak did all the work, but Jobs arranged the deal, keeping most of the money for himself.
When he died, that story was one of the fundamental bricks in my dislike for the man, and strong evidence of his selfishness. But since then I've read several times that Wozniak had forgiven the sin. Both men became fabulously wealthy anyway, and Wozniak had a central role in the most exciting industry of his generation. People like me, who collect evidence against Jobs, have plenty to work with from other sources.
Jobs was twenty; Ravi's younger than that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 21, 2012 2:59 PM
"People like me, who collect evidence against Jobs, have plenty to work with from other sources."
Gee, you have a lot of spare time...
Charles...
Think about this. How do you code your, Charles', intent into law?
There is precedent in changing a charge from aggravated assault to murder if the victim dies at your hand -- but how do you make a law about what the victim does?
Bully one guy, get your teeth kicked out. Bully the next one, he commits suicide. You did the same thing in both cases. What's the charge?
"Hate" crimes pander to revenge, not to the business of getting something for the public good, and pander to a logical fallacy, too: appeal to consequences.
Radwaste at March 21, 2012 5:02 PM
> Gee, you have a lot of spare time...
For reflection upon the history of the most exciting, profitable, and far-reaching innovation of my flickering lifetime on our murderous planet; the microcomputer revolution?
Not a problem... I make time, babe.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 21, 2012 6:33 PM
""Hate" crimes pander to revenge, not to the business of getting something for the public good..."
Even more to the point, hate crime laws allow for defendants from politically unpopular groups to be subject to extra-special prosecution. As they move to becoming "primary enforcement" laws, as we saw in this case, they essentially legalize witch-hunting. They're also a handy means of allowing the federal government to barge in on what would otherwise be state matters.
Cousin Dave at March 21, 2012 6:53 PM
I don't think Ravi deserves ten years, but pulling the "he's a kid" crud doesn't work with me either.
If at 18 I can take out a loan, open a bank account, join the Army and go to Afghanistan carrying a firearm and using it, then at 18 I can be guilty of criminal invasion of privacy.
Nothing in the Constitution says we have a right to privacy, it is implied by the Fourth and Fifth.
That he recorded the encounter was not inherently wrong because it was a shared space and he was concerned about his property. (According to him.)
The moment that he shared it with anyone he was in the wrong. If he had recorded multiple encounters of his roommate with a woman and Ravi shared it would you look at it the same way?
What if the woman involved had committed suicide because she didn't want to "outed" having sex with the guy, for whatever reason?
I don't think 10 years is equal to the crime, but a misdemeanor with no jail time is to lax.
Jim P. at March 21, 2012 10:39 PM
A mega invasion of privacy in a shared dorm room? 10 years? Bias intimidation? Puhlease. Ravi is a jerk but he was convicted because Clementi killed himself and was gay. Modern day witch hunt. The judge excluded the suicide note and 3 other ominously named notes from his computer apparently. The lover testified but was not named? We know of nothing about that relationship. The DA offered a deal with no jail time and probation on top of that IIRC.
From what I understand, no video got out on the net, it wasn't recorded just streamed and then the second time Clementi turned off Ravi's computer before anything happened.
For some interesting comparison, see R.Balko's post here:
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/03/21/two-incidences-of-webcam-spying-up-to-10-years-in-prison-more-than-8000-incidences-of-webcam-spying-no-charges/
Sio at March 22, 2012 2:10 AM
> A mega invasion of privacy in a
> shared dorm room?
Exactly.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 22, 2012 8:41 AM
If at 18 I can take out a loan, open a bank account, join the Army and go to Afghanistan carrying a firearm and using it, then at 18 I can be guilty of criminal invasion of privacy.
Nothing in the Constitution says we have a right to privacy, it is implied by the Fourth and Fifth.
Good points, but at 18-20 and 364 days 23hr & 59 seconds you cant drink champane at your own wedding, or even have a stripper at you bachelor party in some juridictions or watch porn.
Also the constituion never says anything about your privacy being violated by your roomate, or even a stranger, but by the government
lujlp at March 23, 2012 9:31 AM
"For reflection upon the history of the most exciting, profitable, and far-reaching innovation of my flickering lifetime on our murderous planet; the microcomputer revolution?"
The Macintosh! Yeah!!
Which led to Apple being the most valuable company on Earth.
See, here's the problem. You equated this with "...collect evidence against Jobs". This was just minor, but you don't say what you mean, a lot.
Don't miss that "the microcomputer revolution" is exactly why government can ramp up its efforts to monitor the populace.
Radwaste at March 24, 2012 3:55 AM
The real intended (and deserving!) target of hate crime laws is terrorism -- the practice, by groups like the KKK, of making scary "examples" of people in order to compel a large number of others to stop being what they hate, or to move away from them.
The law needs to, and should, punish this type of bullying (when it can be identified) over and above the direct crime. Otherwise the terrorists will win. It's only too bad that the law can't simply let juries draw reasonable inferences about the intent to bully, so that it has to beat around the bush with "hate crime" language instead.
John David Galt at March 24, 2012 10:46 AM
Leave a comment