It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rutgers verdict: Dharun Ravi guilty of hate crimes, other charges

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Heart goes out to ravi's family, and him.
Prison is a bitch. The punishment is very severe
maybe to severe, he did not kill anyone, this is NOT murder.
edit on 16-3-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Well by definition (deviating or departing from the norm) we can't ALL be deviants but I suppose this proves homosexual sex is a form of deviance considering it's not average.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Sounds 'sound' to me, as a hate crime, cause

"Hate" crime mean it's motivated again a "Protected" Group (ie, Sex, Gender, Nationality, Ethnic orign, Religion, Orientation, etc)

In this case it seems Dharun Ravi was obsessed with getting off on antagonizing and exposing the roomate's homosexuality, to enforce his insecurities about his own masculinity.

Someone secure with their own masculinity and sexuality would not have stalked his roomate's sexuality and set out to DESTROY HIM (which he did).

Citizens MUST be responsible for their actions, ie ruining someone's life to the point they somehow die because of that damage.
edit on 16-3-2012 by BiggerPicture because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Well by definition (deviating or departing from the norm) we can't ALL be deviants but I suppose this proves homosexual sex is a form of deviance considering it's not average.


Then oral sex is a deviation?

because it's not 'average' whatever average means



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by freakjive
It looks like they've done all but throw the book at Ravi for this. I personally feel like this is good justice, but it's an emotional case and a severe circumstance.

What if he wasn't gay?

This is a non-violent crime, he should just pay a small fine and that's it


Agreed. There is also evidence which suggests that the guy who committed suicide did so because of his relationship with his mother. Also, there is enough evidence to doubt that Ravi had a problem with gays.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
see, the problem I have with Homosexuality is, I am not a homosexual. I dont get why in this day in age the kid was in the closet in the first place. If being gay wasn't right in his own head, if he struggled with being gay to the point that he killed him self, he is guilty of all that made him die.

Dharun Ravi is guilty of criminal mischief, Voyeurism, and being socially dumb.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TypeSH2001

Definately. The legal system needs to put its foot down on guys like this. People are paranoid enough because of gov't intrusion into our lives and people like this make it worse. Besides, you gotta be a raunchy, perverted SOB to go out of your way to tape or even watch other people's private moments (ie. sex, picking their nose, in the bathroom) - gross!


INDEED, to let an educated, otherwise intelligent adult showcase his hate of gays by secretly eavesdropping in on, filming and distributing sex acts publicly to defame the roommate for his sexuality is something the system can't let go because then everyone will be doing it with their phone cams and mini cams left and right and it will become morbid entertainment industry online before you know it, where these jerks like Ravi actually make money off of entertaining other repressed obsessive homophobes whose obsessive behavior indicates they would KILL a gay if they could get away with it just for kicks.

Ravi will be getting plenty of the same "action" he filmed as entertainment.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


Yes, and Yes.

"Normal" or "Average" sex would be procreation sex within a monogamous married unit.

Everything else "deviates" from that, including sex within a monogamous, married unit! When it is done solely for the purpose of fun, it would be a perversion wouldn't it? That includes all types, even boring missionary, where birth control is used, because it is being done purely for enjoyment.

I'm not one to quote the Bible, but "spilling seed" is even a sin, so I guess even sex by yourself, or sex with your partner, without birth control, but where other last second precautions are taken would still be a perversion or deviancy.

Once again, nothing negative at all with having sex for fun, but I happen to hate it when people pretend it is something more. It is nothing more. It is a fun vice. Very, very rarely is anybody doing it for anything but pure blissful enjoyment, except for those unique times where a baby is actually created.

Therefore, married couples using birth control are on equal spiritual footing with homosexual's at a rave! They are both doing a physical act for pure enjoyment and contrary to the biological need for sex, and in defiance of just about every religious doctrine.

Let's just call it what it is. None of us are any better than any of the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
"Hate" crime mean it's motivated again a "Protected" Group (ie, Sex, Gender, Nationality, Ethnic orign, Religion, Orientation, etc)


Right. It took me a long time to understand and come to terms with a "special" crime for hate.

I think you explained it perfectly.

It works well as a deterrent. It does its job in making someone think before committing a crime against a "Protected" group.

There have been very few actual convictions under Hate crime.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Salamandy
 


Homosexuals having sex is not sexual deviancy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I really dislike hate crime laws. I'm glad this kid is getting in trouble, his idiotic actions resulted in someone taking their own life but getting in more trouble because one group is more special than another is ridiculous. What if the gay guy had been black? Double hate crime?


The deviancy I'm referring to in that situation was towards voyeurism more so than about the sexual preference of the people getting it on.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Everything else "deviates" from that, including sex within a monogamous, married unit!


Regarding spilling seed,

then both using condoms or simply 'pulling out' to prevent unplanned parenthood/overpopulation, are also "not normal".



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Sounds 'sound' to me, as a hate crime, cause

"Hate" crime mean it's motivated again a "Protected" Group (ie, Sex, Gender, Nationality, Ethnic orign, Religion, Orientation, etc)

In this case it seems Dharun Ravi was obsessed with getting off on antagonizing and exposing the roomate's homosexuality, to enforce his insecurities about his own masculinity.

Someone secure with their own masculinity and sexuality would not have stalked his roomate's sexuality and set out to DESTROY HIM (which he did).

Citizens MUST be responsible for their actions, ie ruining someone's life to the point they somehow die because of that damage.
edit on 16-3-2012 by BiggerPicture because: (no reason given)


I think anyone would agree that what he did was wrong.
He will be held responsible for his actions in his own mind. The law should not be getting into situations like this. The dead party in this did NOT have to jump. He could have easily told the authorities and probably gotten this Ravi guy kicked out of the housing.
The defendant had NOTHING to do with the young man's death anymore than the next schmoe who shouts an anti "this or that" ingnorant statement at some "protected" group.

Also, we should not have "protected" groups based on religion or color of skin. Is there a stupider concept in a society where the idea is equal rights. Gimme a break!



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


I could catch lots of flack for "selling out" and doing a white girl myself. I don't expect any extra protection for it. And how do you judge intent? Is that not thought crime, and totally up for interpretation and conjecture?


So intentions shouldn't matter then? If I cut your break lines, that's not simply destruction of property; there's intent behind that. There's a cause and effect that will take place. You could say "Well I didn't know cutting break lines would lead to that." but when it comes to the law, stupidity isn't an excuse.

In this scenario, they ruled not guilty that he targeted the victim BECAUSE he was homosexual. They did rule guilty however that he used homosexuality as a means to further harm/intimidate the victim. He committed an illegal act (invasion of privacy) to gain information about an individual, then used that information to further intimidate him. That information is essentially being used as a psychological weapon. That information happens to be a group of individuals who face bias and ridicule in society today. Using information that he is part of this group of individuals as a means to further intimidate shows malicious intent, and should be punished accordingly.

Nobody is saying people can't be bias against a group of people. Nobody is saying you can think "these people are *insert here*". If that were illegal, yes it would be a thought crime. The difference is he didn't just THINK these things, he obtained information then committed an act to intimidate using that information. That's when it becomes a hate crime.

When you target somebody like that, it shows forethought. It also shows you intended to use THAT information specifically as a weapon, a form of intimidation. Intentions are NOT the same as thought crime at all. You want to think about what it would be like to exterminate a certain religious group, nobody is going to say that's illegal. If you started to commit acts that would reasonably lead to, or are, illegal, as a result of such intentions, then THAT is a hate crime. It's a crime that can be proven to be HATE motivated. Forethought and premeditated malicious intent.

Intention should definitely be considered when punishing and illegal act. State of mind is nothing new when it comes to the courts. Why do you think there's multiple degrees of murder? Why do you think they make a distinction between murder and manslaughter, why do they make distinctions between different forms of manslaughter? The law takes into account the situation, and yes, the intention/state of mind of those involved. If you had every intention of killing before hand, and that can be proven, it's going to catch a stiffer degree of law/sentence. That's the way the system works, and rightfully so. I don't want somebody with an unfortunate manslaughter charge being treated the same as somebody who plotted the murder of a religious leader because they hate that group. It's not the same circumstances, and shouldn't be treated the same.

The same logic applies here. The circumstances of the case proved that this was not a simple invasion of privacy.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy

The defendant had NOTHING to do with the young man's death anymore than the next schmoe who shouts an anti "this or that" ingnorant statement at some "protected" group.


Are you aware of the extremely high rate of young homosexual suicides?

Of course Ravi had something to do with the victim's state of mind - - that pushed him to suicide. As does society as a whole.

The excuses and justifications for poor Ravi are pretty sick in themselves.




edit on 16-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Everything else "deviates" from that, including sex within a monogamous, married unit!


Regarding spilling seed,

then both using condoms or simply 'pulling out' to prevent unplanned parenthood/overpopulation, are also "not normal".


Exactly. Again, no negative connotation intended, but how can one type of sexual person criticize the types of sex another person has, when both people are doing it purely for enjoyment and nothing more? Neither one is more "normal" than the other. The only people that have any basis whatsoever to criticize homosexuals are the Mormons and strict fundamentalist Catholics.

The urge comes from an instinct to procreate, and in that regard heterosexual sex, for the purpose of procreation is perfectly and biologically "normal." But, any deviation from that purpose is equally perverted. It doesn't matter if it is just using a condom or if it is homosexual intercourse. Both are equally deviant from the pure intention of sex.

In my opinion, if someone is ok with birth control, then they are necessarily condoning all forms of perversions (with obvious exceptions like rape, abuse, incest, or pedophilia), but all sex between consenting adults, that is not for procreation, is equally deviant, and it is unfair and hypocritical for one type of deviant to criticize another.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


Just because he was gay, you assume it was to intimidate. Why not assume it was like any other jerk broadcasting someone's private act over the internet, which was to embarrass the crap out of them?

To me, protected groups, goes against the very grain of having a free and equal society. No one should be afforded extra protection under the law in my mind. There is malice intent in doing that to anyone, why not leave it at that?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





paraphilia Sexual deviancy Psychiatry A mental disorder characterized by '…recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving, 1. nonhuman objects; 2. suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner; or 3. children or other non-consenting persons, that occur over a period of at ≥ 6 months…(causing) significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning; sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the practitioner's societal norms


I get what you're saying but I don't think that having sex for fun is considered out of the norm in our society. I do agree that as long as no one is being hurt, sex is sex and I certainly have no problem with homosexuals.

Link



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


I don't think it is out of the norm either, I think the vast majority of sex is just for fun, but I'm saying homosexual sex is no different than heterosexual sex, except for the rare occasion of procreation. Therefore, nobody has any basis to criticize homosexuals if they themselves have recreational sex.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


The law does it all the time. They constantly try to figure out intent and state of mind. Was it premeditated? Is the person sane? Were they negligent or was it an accident? Etc. They're constantly trying to figure out the intentions and state of mind in so many kinds of cases. The law is expected to do just that.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


Those are all the same for everyone though. Added protected groups to the mix, overcomplicates, an already complex system no?

Obviously there should be a stiffer penalty for a cold blooded murder, as opposed to killing someone by accident. Adding another tier to the mix, that only protected groups can envoke never sat well in my mind.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join