Dahurn Ravi Indictement

[Katja]

The case of violinist Tyler Clemente who killed himself after he had been filmed having sex with another man by a room-mate who posted the film on the web took an interesting turn when the room-mate was indicted by an American Grand Jury of a hate crime and an invasion of privacy. To be outed as a homosexual or bisexual is particularly nasty, but to be filmed covertly and outed on the net where untold millions can graphically see and be left in no doubt is an entirely diffferent level of vindictiveness.

Whether done out of hate, or for the thrill of simply embarrassing another human being is not relevant. I hesitate to judge the case of Dahrun Ravi in respect of the hate element of the charges against him, yet should it be proven that he did post the film on the net, then I do believe that a charge of invasion of privacy is an incredibly inadequate charge to be laid against him. Proving hate crime is notoriously difficult in law, and the defendant's motives may have been other than hate, but whatever the charges to be laid, there is evidence that Clemente committed suicide because of his public outing. It is for a jury to decide the case against Ravi in respect of both charges, but this case is an extreme example of just how dangerous outing a person can be.

In my opinion, there is at least a case to answer that Ravi by posting the film on the net, if indeed it was he as seems likely, that by his actions committed the murder, or at least the manslaughter of another human being?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/25/gay-rights-new-jersey

[DuckiesDarling]

It was a truly tragic case and the prosecution will definitely set a precedent along with other cases that have come to light lately where someone posted something online or sent a text message and then tried to delete it to keep it from being in evidence. But in the end, even though his actions apparently led to the suicide, he can only be tried for what he actually did and what he did is something several people have to live with for the rest of their lives.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/4924532/Deleted-tweets-critical-in-US-webcam-suicide-case

[Long Duck Dong]

I have been following the case with interest

the sticking point for me, is why did clemente commit suicide.... and that will be a large part of the case in court..... and the only person that can really answer that, is the deceased.......

yes it is easy to say that the deceased committed suicide as a result of the invasion of privacy and the knowledge that so many people have seen a intimate part of their lives, online, without their express knowledge and consent.... but that is pure assumption....

I, myself, spent many years with a undiagnosed mental illness and dealt for many years with a overwhelming desire just to lay down, go to sleep and never wake up... and if I had done that... then the reason why, would have been assumed by many people... yet the simple truth... is I wanted to lay down and go to sleep and never wake up... the events and issues in my life would have had no bearing on my decision to not wake up

that aside.... yes, there is a case to be answered.... the invasion of privacy and the issues surrounding that....

to me, that is not a hate crime... as the sexuality of the person should not matter as a reason to invade a persons privacy.....

invasion of privacy, is a knowing and willingly committed act, regardless of sexuality, race, religion or age......

would there be the same outcry if it was a straight mans personal life revealed for the world to see, by a gay male.... and would we call it a hate crime ?????

this is what the jury will be swayed on.... not the ethics of right and wrong... but sexuality and does sexuality make a crime more heinous ?

[Katja]

We are unable to know for sure what is in the mind of a person when they they take a certain course of action. We do to some degree make assumptions based on our own prejudices, on our own selves, on others and what we know of an individual.

Legal authorites, a jury and a judge do just this when deciding upon whether there are grounds to prosecute, whether to convict and what sentence, upon conviction a person or person receives in accord with the law. All is done, or at least should be done based on the evidence available. It is a society's representatives during a criminal prosecution, who make the best guess whether or not there is a case to answer, and whether to convict, and what is an appropriate punishment upon conviction.

We do not know as yet what evidence is available to prosecutors, and until we know of this evidence we shall have to wait and see. We cannot say whether or not it is a hate crime, or whether Ravi is guilty of any crime whatever. A trial, and a jury will decide this. As with any criminal prosecution the evidence shall, or at least should determine innocence or guilt. Juries make assumptions of guilt every day of the week based on evidence, and until we know that evidence we cannot be sure whether something is a crime in law or not. Even longer if we take appeals procedures into account. So we cannot say that Ravi is innocent of hate crime or not any more as yet than can we judge him guilty. As yet we cannot judge whether he is responsible for any invasion of privacy.

My point is not whether or not he is guilty or innocent. The point I make is whether, can a case be made for a more fundamentally serious charge to be made. It is quite feasible in English law for a defendant to be prosecuted for having so pressured a person and humiliated him or her, that a case can be made for him or her to be held directly responsible for the death of another. Usually this would be a manslaughter case as the intention was not to kill the person or cause his death deliberately, but it is not unknown for deliberate efforts to be made for a person to end the life of another for whatever reason using attacks on his or her mental health.

Accidental deaths are often ultimately manslaughter cases. By acting without due responsibility people are held to account in law for the deaths of others. Drink driving, careless driving, over robust play, disciplining a child too hard have all been the cause of deaths and all have resulted in cases of manslaughter. We do not need to have intent to end up in prison for killing a person. My point is that I see no difference between our actions unintentionally killing a person in an accident, and our actions creating such distress in another that we unintentionally drive them to end their lives.

Often such cases, by being not proven in criminal law end up in the civil courts where the onus of proof is so much less, even after a not guilty verdict has been granted too a defendant.

I make no claim as to Ravi's innocence or guilt. I am no more the wiser as to that than anyone else. But should not one who is acted as he is claimed to have acted, and where evidence exists that those actions were the direct cause of a person to ending his or her life, be charged and prosecuted where it is considered there is a case to answer? Is that person not as equally responsible in law for the death of another as one who for instance punches someone in the face and unintentionally kills that person or knocks someone down while driving a few miles over the speed limit? Arguably is that person not more responsible?

I am no lawyer, and such cases would be very difficult to prove. That should not however mean that we do not attempt to do so, for proving a person innocent or guilty should not necessarily be easy, in fact it should be difficult if the cause of justice is to be served.

[Darkside2009]

That you are not a lawyer is evident from what you have said. A person is regarded as innocent of criminal charges until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Barring a signed confession freely given, the prosecutor has to prove his or her case beyond that reasonable doubt. The burden of doing so lies entirely with the prosecution.

This standard of proof is higher than in civil cases for the simple reason that the defendant's liberty is at stake, rather than just a court fine, or compensation being awarded.

In criminal cases certain elements need to be completed for a crime to be involved. The Mens Rea,(in Latin it means Guilty Mind) It is the state of mind that the prosecution must prove the defendant to have had at the time of committing the alleged offence, in order to secure a conviction. Mens rea varies from crime to crime; it is either defined in the statute creating the crime or established by precedent.

Common examples of mens rea are; intention to bring about a particular consequence; recklessness as to whether such consequences may come about; and for a few crimes negligence.

The second element is called Actus Reus, (in Latin it means Guilty Act), this must also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. The prosecution has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, these two elements existed at the same time in order to secure a conviction.

Recklessness has normally been held to have a subjective meaning of being aware of the risk of a particular consequence arising from one's actions but deciding none the less to continue with one's actions and take the risk.

Negligence is defined as carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty: failure to do something that a reasonable person,(i.e. an average responsible citizen), would do, or doing something that a reasonable person would not do.

The Mens Rea for murder is malice aforethought, this has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

Manslaughter may be committed when there is no Mens Rea for murder in two situations: 1. If the accused committed an act of gross negligence or 2. if the act, although not negligent, was criminally illegal and also involved an element of danger to the victim.

Gross negligence is defined as a high degree of negligence, manifested in behaviour substantially worse than that of the average reasonable man. Causing someone's death through gross negligence could be regarded as manslaughter if the accused appreciated the risk he was taking and intended to avoid it, but showed an unacceptable degree of negligence in avoiding it.

Given the scant details of the case as supplied it is highly unlikely that a case for murder or manslaughter could be secured.

In these days of kiss and tell reports in the media would the plaintiff's suicide have been contemplated by the defendant? I would think it unlikely, a certain degree of embarrassment certainly, but suicide no.

[Katja]

Nothing I have said removes from Ravi or anyone else the presumption of innocence. I am well aware that it is an important tenet of justice in the court systems of the United Kingdom and that of the United States. It was therefore unnecessary to remind me of that as I have made it quite clear that I have not prejudged any verdict because of the scant information available in the public domain.

In legal matters I am very much as ignorant as most members of the general public. What I am saying is that where a case can be made whether for murder or manslaughter in such instances as the Clemente death, should it not be made? Can it be made in law? If not should the law not be amended to enable such a case to be made in future instances. I argue it not because I wish to persecute anyone, or punish unjustly, but to attempt to gain some sort of justice for the victim, and a proper recognition of the seriousness of irresponsible behaviour such as is alleged against Ravi. I use the word alleged, because that is right and proper until such time as a court decides whether or not to convict.

Darkside you obviously have much more knowledge of law than I, and appreciate the information you have provided (even making allowance for the slightly condescending manner with which some of it is expressed), but if I take what you have said literally there are several grounds, should the evidence be available to a prosecution, upon which a prosecution could be made. Whether that is the case in law I am very sadly ignorant, because what is literal to lay members of the public may not be so in law, but if it is not, then again arguably, is it not time the law was changed?

[Darkside2009]

No offence intended, but your previous posts on this thread contained so many basic inaccuracies as to the law, it was easier to state the position of the law, rather than cut and paste and go through them one by one. That way you could make a more informed decision.

I give you an example closer to home, you will no doubt be aware of the controversy surrounding Wayne Rooney and his previous actions surrounding certain women. The press were given the story and decided to publish it.

Now if instead of simply being embarrassed by the publication and having to face the anger of his wife and family, Wayne Rooney had committed suicide, do you really think the editor of the newspaper, the journalist responsible for the story, or the source of the story would be guilty of either murder or manslaughter?

The law is there for the protection of all of us and is why the burden of proof seems so great. A prosecutor will not bring charges to court if there is insufficient evidence to justify those charges. There would be no prospect of making such charges stick. Judges and juries have to decide on the evidence presented before them and on nothing else. Beyond a reasonable doubt, not on gut feeling, or prejudice but on the facts.

In the above scenario would the editor have considered the possibility that Rooney might commit suicide through shame and embarrassment, or would the prospect have been so remote that he would not even consider it?

Bring it even closer to home, think of in terms of yourself, you say your family shunned you when they found out about your sexuality. Would they be guilty of murder or manslaughter if you had taken your own life because they had shunned you?

The simple answer is no, because such a response would not be in the contemplation of a reasonable person.

There have been quite enough witch hunts on both sides of the Pond decided on gut feelings and prejudice. The Rule of Law, for all its faults is the better option.

Suppose this person who took his own life had a pre-existing mental illness of depression and felt remorseful at his actions in having sex with another man. That the remorse was the factor that triggered the tail-spin of depression that led to him taking his own life and not the publication of the details on the net. Ask yourself whether the Defendant would be tried for murder or manslaughter, let alone found guilty.

I'm sorry if you found my post patronised you, it was not intended to. It was merely to correct your assumptions regarding the law.

[Katja]

Bring it even closer to home, think of in terms of yourself, you say your family shunned you when they found out about your sexuality. Would they be guilty of murder or manslaughter if you had taken your own life because they had shunned you?

The simple answer is no, because such a response would not be in the contemplation of a reasonable person.



Darkside, I have considered this believe it or not. There are many things occur in one's lifetime which can send us into deepest depression and despair, and being ostracised from family is one. Such despair may lead to a suicide and no one truly knows what is in a person's mind when they decide to end their own life. I am struggling with this I do accept, but there are things such as being shunned which is in effect people deciding not to see or speak to another, and deliberately going out of their way to expose, hurt and humiliate such as is alleged in the Clemente/Ravi case, where potentially the world potentially is voyeur.

I know it is a minefield, but as with deliberate damage or destruction of the body, my concern is that wilful and deliberate damage and destruction of the mind leading to destruction of the body is an area to which we pay too little attention.

Thank you for you comments, they are both interesting and informative. I may have little or no knowledge of the law, but I was married to a solicitor, and what knowledge I picked up from him would not cover a postage stamp, since he was extremely uncommunicative about the law in general and his own affairs in particular. Why this should be, I leave to your own imagination and intuition.