Ravi Trial Verdict for Invading the Privacy of Clementi

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Doesn’t the concept of a shared room indicate that both persons should consent to activities conducted therein?

  2. Free Legal says:

    I am not surprised by the decision from this jury. The concept of a “hate crime” has become very political in our society. Neverthless, I speculate that the defendant may not have had the actual “mens rea” and did not intend the consequences of his acts.

  3. Andrea Saren says:

    Hate crime/bias intimidation. Hmmm. Would a gay person EVER be charged? How about a black person? Has a gay or black person ever been charged with a hate/bias crime?

    Are they automatically, always and only victims?

    Invasion of privacy laws were never intended to carry any prison term at all; all have been pre-trial interventioned with fines/community service here in NJ. But here we’ve got the possibility of 10 years in prison because of the bias intimidation add-on that perhaps would never be charged against gays or blacks no matter what.

    Having followed the trial, I have a big problem with “bias intimidation” because it is a tool to allow the prosecutor to do character assassination on the defendant. When else would it ever be allowed that the prosecutor gets to tell the jury about the jokes you laughed at???