>>> http://www.dailypress.com/news/national/sns-ny-suicide,0,250832.story <<< It's so sad to read something like this to see where a young kid was traumatized by a mean person that was trying to get some attention. He could get five years in jail which to me for what he did to another human being is nothing. For Tyler to end his life like that he must have really been hurting bad over what Dharun did. Their is really no reason or excuse for a person to do this to another person. I know some in here would feel that Dharun didn't make Tyler do this but if he didn't do what he did Tyler would most likely be here today...Mike
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Should they burn the perppetrators
- Thread starter hey_moe
- Start date
Perhaps a comment in a fairly recent article I read in National Geographic might sum up our troubles here in the US. This is only a portion of an article published in January 2010, and it comes from Lee Kwan Yew, the leader in Singapore. I find it quite "fitting" here, as we seem to be "pushing the envelope" in our freedoms quite often now, especially with the growth of the internet. He said, when asked about the US:
"That is his beef with America: The rights of individuals to do their own thing allow them to misbehave at the expense of an orderly society. "
I don not advocate giving up any of our freedoms, but I think our supposed adults are failing our supposed children by not teaching them respect, especially respect for others, even if it means being civil with each other. We have our freedoms, but we must learn how to use them properly.... Just my 2 cents...
"That is his beef with America: The rights of individuals to do their own thing allow them to misbehave at the expense of an orderly society. "
I don not advocate giving up any of our freedoms, but I think our supposed adults are failing our supposed children by not teaching them respect, especially respect for others, even if it means being civil with each other. We have our freedoms, but we must learn how to use them properly.... Just my 2 cents...
Roadburner440
Charter Member 2010
Unfortunately you cannot teach children respect anymore. They are all told they are #1, are special, and can never lose/be wrong. I believe that 5 years is a slap on the wrist for the end result. To charge them with murder though you would have to prove intent, and I do not think they intended for him to die. They wanted to mass humiliate him. I think the most they probably could get charged with is involuntary manslaughter... Which probably would only be a 10 year maximum I think.
What a despicable thing to do to somebody. 
I agree with Rami, involuntary manslaughter may be appropriate here. The two people who posted the video are intelligent kids who had to know that doing so would cause some degree of damage - at least shame and embarrassment - to Tyler Clementi. Although I'm sure they didn't expect it would cause his death, the fact that posting the video did cause his death would IMHO justify involuntary manslaughter charges.
I agree with Rami, involuntary manslaughter may be appropriate here. The two people who posted the video are intelligent kids who had to know that doing so would cause some degree of damage - at least shame and embarrassment - to Tyler Clementi. Although I'm sure they didn't expect it would cause his death, the fact that posting the video did cause his death would IMHO justify involuntary manslaughter charges.
Reply...
TARPSBird,
Yes, that's the whole point of an involuntary manslaughter charge. Whether or not it was there intent, their actions precipitated his death through jumping off the bridge. They knew what they were doing was wrong and harmful, and they chose to do it anyway. They are therefore responsible and culpable in Tyler Clementi's subsequent actions.
What a despicable thing to do to somebody.
I agree with Rami, involuntary manslaughter may be appropriate here. The two people who posted the video are intelligent kids who had to know that doing so would cause some degree of damage - at least shame and embarrassment - to Tyler Clementi. Although I'm sure they didn't expect it would cause his death, the fact that posting the video did cause his death would IMHO justify involuntary manslaughter charges.
TARPSBird,
Yes, that's the whole point of an involuntary manslaughter charge. Whether or not it was there intent, their actions precipitated his death through jumping off the bridge. They knew what they were doing was wrong and harmful, and they chose to do it anyway. They are therefore responsible and culpable in Tyler Clementi's subsequent actions.
I feel like a crime worse than simple invasion of privacy was committed here, there just may not be a name for it. I don't think Ravi's influence was direct enough to warrant a manslaughter charge, because in the end it was still Clementi who killed himself. That's not to say Ravi's actions weren't utterly despicable, and an influencing factor in the suicide.
gecko65
PV-1
I'm seeing a turn in this country back towards the teaching of personal responsibility and respect for others. The vast majority of parents I've met at the school our son goes to share a desire to have their kids taught the appropriate way treat others. They aren't automatons by any means and are encourage to express their individuality - but not at the expense of others. Granted, it's a charter school, but I see this trend towards old fashion values in other areas as well. There are several books out on how to raise self-reliant, upstanding, confident humans. Theses books stress a back to basics attitude of raising children that teaches respect for others and of oneself. They say one of the best gifts you can give a child is to let them understand early on the concept of "no." The pendulum seems to be swinging back as society and parents alike are finally getting tired of the consequences of raising self-centered, narssistic children.
Unfortunately, the pendulum has a ways to go yet, as the article in question reveals.
I agree that while there are some truly heinous things being done by kids to one another, I've met a lot of young people that give me hope lately. This is obviously not an example of that. Then again, I have a theory that a lot of what we think of as being horrendous and particular to our age has actually been going on in some form or another for millennia. We just have much better access to nearly instant news now, and 24-hour news networks with an insatiable appetite for anything shocking.
I wonder how many kids these days, under the age of eighteen, actually have a hobby?
Cos taping your roommate while they're engaged in a sexual act really seems like the kind of thing a person would do when they have nothing better to occupy their time with!
Regards,
Stratobat
Cos taping your roommate while they're engaged in a sexual act really seems like the kind of thing a person would do when they have nothing better to occupy their time with!
Regards,
Stratobat
While I agree it is a dastardly act to perpetrate, this sort of thing has been going on for years.
How many of you laughed at similar antics portrayed by Hollywood? The film "M.A.S.H." springs to mind.
OK, the reality of the film is fiction and this case is fact but your reaction to both is ???????
regards Collin:ernae:
How many of you laughed at similar antics portrayed by Hollywood? The film "M.A.S.H." springs to mind.
OK, the reality of the film is fiction and this case is fact but your reaction to both is ???????
regards Collin:ernae:
Emil Frand
Charter Member
Im sorry the guys dead BUT, really, he kills himself over this? While I do agree charges of invasion of privacy apply here manslaughter or any related charges concerning his death other than the privacy issues are BS. Its always somebody elses fault in this country when do we take personal responsibility for our own actions????
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
Truly a despicable act and one can only wonder what kind of person would do these kinds of things to another. The prosecutor's are going to have a tough time though. This kind of activity is a gray area, and the "right to privacy" is not so clearly defined. I think they will win their case in this instance, but it will be a tough go.
That being said, the only individual responsible for that young man's death is himself. Unless you can show a persistent pattern of harassment you're not going to be able to tie his death to the privacy invasion.
Likewise, you're going to have a tough sell trying to call it a "hate crime". Any attempt to say this was done because this young man may or may not have had homosexual tendencies is going to be pure conjecture. It's all well and good to say "they wouldn't have done it if it was a heterosexual encounter", but you have to prove that in a court of law. Tough to do. Were I a prosecutor I would not go tilting at windmills. My comments assumes of course that we know all there is to know about the circumstances.
I'm with Piglet. The concept of "hate crime" is a fraud. The whole idea is to raise certain members of society above others on completely arbitrary and constantly changing and ambiguous criteria. I've no doubt at some time in the future some case will push this concept too far, the courts will strike it down, and victims will be equal again under the law.
What bothers me is the number of people who cannot stop two seconds and think through the fundamental problem with accepting this kind of malarky.
That being said, the only individual responsible for that young man's death is himself. Unless you can show a persistent pattern of harassment you're not going to be able to tie his death to the privacy invasion.
Likewise, you're going to have a tough sell trying to call it a "hate crime". Any attempt to say this was done because this young man may or may not have had homosexual tendencies is going to be pure conjecture. It's all well and good to say "they wouldn't have done it if it was a heterosexual encounter", but you have to prove that in a court of law. Tough to do. Were I a prosecutor I would not go tilting at windmills. My comments assumes of course that we know all there is to know about the circumstances.
I'm with Piglet. The concept of "hate crime" is a fraud. The whole idea is to raise certain members of society above others on completely arbitrary and constantly changing and ambiguous criteria. I've no doubt at some time in the future some case will push this concept too far, the courts will strike it down, and victims will be equal again under the law.
What bothers me is the number of people who cannot stop two seconds and think through the fundamental problem with accepting this kind of malarky.
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
Whether you call it a hate crime or not, the action of posting a someone private act of sex on the internet is a despicable thing to do.
Argue if you wish that it is ultimately, the boy who killed himself. However, he was pushed over the edge by the actions of his room mate.
I see no difference between this behavior and some kid deciding to scare an elderly driver by pretending to run into the elderly driver car, only to cause the elderly driver to lose control of the car and have a fatal accident. Would you then argue that the elderly person is at fault for losing control of his car?
It was wrong! Plain and simple.
Argue if you wish that it is ultimately, the boy who killed himself. However, he was pushed over the edge by the actions of his room mate.
I see no difference between this behavior and some kid deciding to scare an elderly driver by pretending to run into the elderly driver car, only to cause the elderly driver to lose control of the car and have a fatal accident. Would you then argue that the elderly person is at fault for losing control of his car?
It was wrong! Plain and simple.
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
JMIG,
I certainly agree with you regards the INFERENCE that the young man took his own life due to the perceived invasion of privacy, however inference and fact are two different things.
The young man appears to have taken his own life, we assume that as a fact. Anything regards motive, stated or otherwise is inference. Inference doesn't work in court.
Your example of the startled elderly driver highlights the effects of causality. Something missing from this disgusting episode. The driving example you describe is a continuous causal chain (series of directly events with no interruption) and an accident is a reasonable foreseeable outcome of someone startling an individual operating a motor vehicle. There is no break in the chain. Even then, the MOST the "kid" would be held for is manslaughter, and even that would be difficult (reckless driving would be far more likely).
Not so the suicide. The courts have regularly held that suicide is the result of an individual decision which others cannot be held accountable for. There are exceptions, but they usually involve an individual under medical care and perceived negligence on the part of the caregivers. This only makes sense if you think about it. People commit suicide all the time. Are we going to start charging their families, neighbors, co-workers for the hateful (or innocent) things they may or may not have said that may have influenced the suicide's thought processes? If a suicide is in a depressive state, it could be termed a form of madness, but that madness would not even come close to equating the legal madness such as holding everyone around them accountable for the suicides actions.
Of course you are right regards the entire incident. It was wrong pure and simple.
I certainly agree with you regards the INFERENCE that the young man took his own life due to the perceived invasion of privacy, however inference and fact are two different things.
The young man appears to have taken his own life, we assume that as a fact. Anything regards motive, stated or otherwise is inference. Inference doesn't work in court.
Your example of the startled elderly driver highlights the effects of causality. Something missing from this disgusting episode. The driving example you describe is a continuous causal chain (series of directly events with no interruption) and an accident is a reasonable foreseeable outcome of someone startling an individual operating a motor vehicle. There is no break in the chain. Even then, the MOST the "kid" would be held for is manslaughter, and even that would be difficult (reckless driving would be far more likely).
Not so the suicide. The courts have regularly held that suicide is the result of an individual decision which others cannot be held accountable for. There are exceptions, but they usually involve an individual under medical care and perceived negligence on the part of the caregivers. This only makes sense if you think about it. People commit suicide all the time. Are we going to start charging their families, neighbors, co-workers for the hateful (or innocent) things they may or may not have said that may have influenced the suicide's thought processes? If a suicide is in a depressive state, it could be termed a form of madness, but that madness would not even come close to equating the legal madness such as holding everyone around them accountable for the suicides actions.
Of course you are right regards the entire incident. It was wrong pure and simple.
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
What an excellent post. Your logic and flow are impressive and I assume irrefutable in a legal sense. Luckily for me, I don't have to meet the legal requirements.
I am of the opinion, although I will admit that I haven't looked at the APA manual in many years, that anyone who commits suicide is indeed mad (crazy) and depressed. That is the only way you can overcome the strong instinct for survival. Death has to seem to be the only way out of an untenable situation.
That being said, if a prosecutor could show that the video was released in order to shame and embarrass the boy because he was gay, I think the hate crime aspect could stick. If there is evidence that the defendants knew the boy was quite apprehensive about his gayness and even close to being unbalanced mentally then maybe causality can be proven? The actions of the defendants pushed the boy over the edge.
It is such a shame that anyone can be so hateful to video and release something so private as an intimate act, gay or straight.
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
Well, I would make two points ...one being the "hate crime". The underlying concept of a hate crime that somehow some victims are more victim than others. If find this disturbing for these reasons, first being that this kind of prosecution is actually a form of thought control, that perpetrators can be indicted for their thoughts by the courts, the other being that by the victim, by merely being a member of an ambiguous class, somehow makes the crime more serious. The flip side of that being that by not being a member of that class a crime against another victim is LESS serious.
You are correct of course in that if the prosecution can tie it in, the "hate crime" clause can be invoked under current statutes. My disagreement is with those current statutes.
As for the suicide, I would add that we convict people for their own actions, not the actions of others. We cannot convict these weirdo's for the actions of the young man. Only their own.
You are correct of course in that if the prosecution can tie it in, the "hate crime" clause can be invoked under current statutes. My disagreement is with those current statutes.
As for the suicide, I would add that we convict people for their own actions, not the actions of others. We cannot convict these weirdo's for the actions of the young man. Only their own.