Rutgers Student Commits Suicide Over Sex Tape

[madanthonywayne]

A freshman at Rutgers University (an 18 year old male) was secretely taped during a sexual encounter and part of the tape was then released on the internet. The victim is believed to have jumped off the George Washington bridge just four days later (Thursday, Sept. 23).

He was secretely filmed by two of his fellow freshmen Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei. The pair have been charged with invasion of privacy and face up to five years in jail.

Read the rest:

2 Rutgers Freshmen Charged For Secretly Making Sex Tape Of Another Student, Who Then Committed Suicide

Does the punishment fit the crime? Is five years in jail the appropriate punishment for this?

 

[adoucette]

Yes.
They secretly put a camera in his room, taped him having sex and then put it on the internet.
How is this any different than that guy who taped Erin Andrews via a peep hole and put those tapes on the internet?
She was just walking around nude and he got 30 months. In this case it's a bit more than just nudity.

Arthur

 

[scifes]

the legal system and political view support and kill for freedom, it is the right held high above all other rights people aspire for.

if you wanted to increase their punishment you have to higher the walls of privacy, that would eventually conflict with some freedoms, and the choice between them is made.

 

[joepistole]

Kids and young adults do stupid things. That does not excuse the behavior of these people. But it is a fact, and kids and young adults will continue to do stupid things no matter what laws we may make. These two kids are going to have to live with their act of stupididty for the rest of their lives...a suitable punishment if you ask me.

I think the larger issue here is what does this say about our society? No one should feel such shame so as to commit sucide over a sexual encounter involving consenting adults...that is the bottom line.

We as a society need to get over our sexual hang-ups. None of us should be ashamed for being sexual beings and expressing our sexuality. And specifically we need to get over our hang-ups with homosexuality. Homosexuals are just as real and important as any other individual in our society.

 

[adoucette]

Kids and young adults do stupid things.

This went beyond stupid all the way to criminal.

Arthur

 

[Pandaemoni]

I think this is fine. The crime is invasion of privacy, not murder, but the consequences of their crime can, if convicted, be taken into account in sentencing.

That the maximum sentence is 5 years does not mean (not by a long shot) that that is what they will receive, but when you commit a crime, you take the victim as they come. Some crimes against unstable or frail victims will have consequences beyond chat the criminal would have expected, and when you engage in criminal conduct you generally take on those risks to some degree.

The risk of a frail victim either falls on the victim's shoulders entirely, or partly on the criminal's as well. If I punch a man for no reason, and due to his congenital heart defect, he dies, he's not at fault at all while I am. Wile the real burden falls on my victim and his family, it's only fair that my punishment fit the harm I caused to some degree.

One can argue that the punishment should only fit the harm I reasonably expected to cause, and that I should not be held to account for improbably events that could not reasonably be anticipated...but that encourages people to commit crimes if they deem doing so would be "efficient" (if the benefits of the crime outweigh the reasonably foreseeable harms). While there is an "efficient breach" mentality in contract law, I don't see any appeal in extending it to criminal law.

It is true that the the two charged will live with this for the rest of their lives, but so will the families and other friends of the victim. Criminals may do some soul searching after any crime, and usually we offset their mental anguish against their punishment.

One could also argue in this case that invasion of privacy is, in effect, not a "real" crime, or at least a sufficiently abstruse crime that the criminals involved in it might not realize that there is any significant question of the ethics of their actions. The lack of a clear ethical proscription might then lead to a different standard of punishment. That is fair enough, if moot, but the place to make that argument would seem to be the legislature who passes the law, and not the prosecutors or courts who enforce it.

Personally I think invasion of privacy at least in the present case is a clear ethical violation and so I am not inclined to let the perpetrators off the hook. (Some slight caveat, I am largely taking the allegations in these articles to be true. Even doing that, it seems as if Molly Wei was less involved in the invasion than was Mr. Ravi, I am not sure whether anything she did warrants punishment. I think more evidence of her involvement would be needed to make her conviction fair.)

 

[Neverfly]

Agreed. I don't think the maximum sentence is too harsh considering that a life was lost.

 

[Cifo]

This is all very sad.

The Internet is very powerful; it is not a toy. Sounds like our legal system needs to reconsider the farther/faster/cheaper aspects of electronic media, specifically the Internet. Posting such a video on the Internet is similar to (but not exactly the same as) mass producing videotapes and mailing them to everyone in the world.

Normally, invasion of privacy, as with the related act of defamation, is a tortious act whose remedy is a civil action (lawsuit), not a criminal action, and could not result in incarceration. It is the apparent nudity and/or sexual content of the privacy in this case that violated criminal law. This is similar to pervs recording people in restroom stalls and changing booths or up skirt photos, etc where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If found guilty, they may also end up on a sex offender registry. A non-criminal invasion of privacy is typically what overzealous paparazzi commit (although not all invasions of privacy involve photos or videos).

Rutgers University is probably concerned for the part it may have played in the victim's death due to negligence (ie, failure to act) in at least two forms.

The first form is called "proximate cause". Apparently the victim was willing to live with the invasion of privacy if he could get another room. It seems that he asked the university's administration for a change of room, but was denied. This denial, if true, could be construed as the last straw. In legal terms, the "last straw" can equate to the "proximate cause" (the last act that contributed to the wrong). How he asked (if he did ask) is not exactly known.

The second form is called "respondeat superior". In this case, it means that, if Rutgers wants to run a university, then it must take reasonable measures to know the kinds of behavior that occur on campus, that it has policies/procedures/remedies in place for such behavior, and that it trains its staff on how to employ those policies/procedures/remedies.

You can be reasonably sure that every private school and every public school system is ensuring their policies and procedures sufficiently cover such eventualities.

 

[John99]

Agreed. I don't think the maximum sentence is too harsh considering that a life was lost.

The internet and cameras in everyones hands has made people forget that you cant just go around recording people. Even taking a photograph of another person and displaying it somewhere requires consent. The camera makers (and all the industry encompasses) is making a killing on selling cheap, small cameras to pepole who in the past didnt know how to even begin to take a photograph let alone full motion video was impossible for the average person only a decade or two ago. Now the way pepole get around the illegality of doing whatever they want with their cameras is because A: most people dont know it is illegal to display or publish another persons image without their consent and B: They dont have the means for someone to "go to bat" for them in a legal case C: The media is not interested in other peoles invasion of privacy.

As far as punishment, whatever the law states can be issued for punishment. Though i believe that anyone who takes their own life would, most likely, have some predisposition to do so. Bottom line is the person who took the video committed a crime and the sad part is if nothing happened no one would give a shit that this was a serious violation of a persons rights. Although the person who killed himself could have let it simmer for awhile then a big lawsuit would be on the table. Also they should look at who is hosting these sex videos. You need permission from both parties...or all parties involved otherwise a law is being broken.

 

[John99]

Rutgers University is probably concerned for the part it may have played in the victim's death due to negligence (ie, failure to act) in at least two forms.

It pretty much impossible for them to know what can\could transpire unless someone representative of the org. is in the romm 24\7. The web sites hosting these videos is another matter because htey should certainly know exactly what is on their servers 24\7.

I would imagine the web site that hosted the file would be very concerned, at this point. I have no idea how these sites get around consent laws.

 

[adoucette]

I think the whole "expectation of privacy" has changed with cell phone cameras and YouTube.
Today, there is no expectation of privacy if you go to a public event, do something at all interesting, and later find that you are in someone's YouTube video.

But, if you are in your room, with the door closed, then indeed you still have the expectaion of privacy and this recording/posting incident was clearly a violation of Civil and Criminal law.

And the people doing it knew it.

As to a site that hosted a video.

No, they are not responsible for content just like Google is not responsible for all the porn that shows up when people search for it.

Arthur

 

[Cifo]

it is illegal to display or publish another persons image without their consent

The justice system should someday include the ramifications of using the Internet in regards to the term "publish", which simply means to make public, whether for profit or not.

publish
vt.
[ME publisshen < OFr publier < L publicare, to make public < publicus, public]
1. to make publicly known; announce, proclaim, divulge, or promulgate

It pretty much impossible for [Rutgers] to know what can\could transpire unless someone representative of the org. is in the romm 24\7.

It's common knowledge that college students engage in sex, get drunk, do stupid stuff, etc and that college students take goofy, embarrassing photos/videos of each other and post them on the Internet. It might be reasonable to assume that these two could easily occur together. Most likely, a judge would allow a jury to decide this.

In any event, a lesson learned through unnecessary tragedy. The Internet is a tool, and not a toy.

 

[adoucette]

It's common knowledge that college students engage in sex, get drunk, do stupid stuff, etc and that college students take goofy, embarrassing photos/videos of each other and post them on the Internet. It might be reasonable to assume that these two could easily occur together. Most likely, a judge would allow a jury to decide this.

Except those activites are not illegal.

This was.

One doesn't expect the University to need to re-state the criminal code in its policy manual.

Murder for hire is illegal, but I doubt there's a university in the world that has a policy that prohibits murder for hire.

Arthur

 

[John99]

Audoucette, schools make policies and not laws. If laws are broken then it really matters little what the university has to say about it.

What Cifo suggests though is, in and of itself, a violation of privacy so that is impossible to institute.

 

[John99]

I think the whole "expectation of privacy" has changed with cell phone cameras and YouTube.
Today, there is no expectation of privacy if you go to a public event, do something at all interesting, and later find that you are in someone's YouTube video.

Big difference between someone panning across you at a football game and someone posting you having sex in private. Even still if the person being panned at the football game complains i think they are still obligated to blur that person out.

 

[Nasor]

The internet and cameras in everyones hands has made people forget that you cant just go around recording people. Even taking a photograph of another person and displaying it somewhere requires consent.

With certain very specific exceptions, it is not illegal in the US to take, display, or even sell pictures of people without their permission, so long as they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when the pictures were taken. Granted, in this particular case the guy did have an expectation of privacy. But if you want to take pictures of random people outside and display or sell them, it's perfectly legal.*

Note that if the photos are intended for certain types of commercial usage, companies often try to get people to sign releases. But there's not legal requirement to get such a release.

*With the possible exception of wacky, probably-unconstitutional local laws.

I think the whole "expectation of privacy" has changed with cell phone cameras and YouTube.
Today, there is no expectation of privacy if you go to a public event, do something at all interesting, and later find that you are in someone's YouTube video.

That's not a change. There has NEVER been an expectation of privacy when you're in public.

 

[John99]

With certain very specific exceptions, it is not illegal in the US to take, display, or even sell pictures of people without their permission, so long as they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when the pictures were taken. Granted, in this particular case the guy did have an expectation of privacy. But if you want to take pictures of random people outside and display or sell them, it's perfectly legal.*

Note that if the photos are intended for certain types of commercial usage, companies often try to get people to sign releases. But there's not legal requirement to get such a release.

*With the possible exception of wacky, probably-unconstitutional local laws.
That's not a change. There has NEVER been an expectation of privacy when you're in public.

It isnt that simple and it all depends if the person has a legal interest and the means to do something about it. Bearing in mind that laws vary from country to country but there is a reason people get releases signed and that is to protect themselves.

See from 3.1 down:

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

However, there are situations where photography can infringe on important social interests such as national security, protection of children, right of privacy, etc.

 

[John99]

Now see what it says about the photographers displaying a persons image in their windows etc. That is very relevant to this discussion because web sites are that store window.

 

[John99]

Though after reading the story i dont think the video itself was uploaded to a server. So then there is no issue.

 

[Nasor]

Now see what it says about the photographers displaying a persons image in their windows etc. That is very relevant to this discussion because web sites are that store window.

Most states don't have laws recognizing a person's right to control the use of their likeness. The person could sue you if they think your use if harming them in some way, but that would be a civil suit, not a criminal case. Good luck proving damages, unless there's an unusual set of circumstances. Perhaps if I'm using your image to falsely give people the impression that you endorse my product or something.