Ravi verdict: I can't live with it*

The press paints it as a "guilty" verdict, which to the uncritical eye it is, but while Ravi is guilty of invasion of privacy, he is not guilty on most of the bias intimidation questions.  And lets face it, it was the bias intimidation charge that was the focus of the entire thing.  Ravi is guilty of invasion of privacy and evidence tampering (no real question on the second, or the second, really, but the logic of going after them is open).  The jury largely finds against bias intimidation, but holds him liable on one of bias intimidation.  No one prosecutes this case as an invasion of privacy or evidence tampering case absent the bias charges.  In fact, absent the "victim" being gay, no one so much as blinks at this case.  I'm guessing this type of behavior - "peeking" into your own room - probably happens quite a bit. 

I later come to learn that because Ravi was found guilty of at least one of the bias intimidation charges, he could still get 10 years in prison.  It's outrageous that Ravi could get 10 years for a 5 second prank "peep" into his own room.  A case so poorly put together and fact barren that the prosecution essentially lost, but managed just enough to hook one count.  Sure, if you charge a guy with 50 counts of something, you'll probably manage to get the jury to convict on 1 of those counts.

I think prosecuting a college-age kid for what amounts to 3 to 5 seconds of "video chatting" his own webcam to view his room is a crazy standard to set.  The video cam was out in open display.  The roommate had to know what it could do.

Honestly, do we really want to live in a world where every prank, every immature and silly thing we do is a violation of the law.  Do we really want to live in a world where any accidental youthful misstep makes someone a criminal?

I would say no.  We shouldn't prosecute kids for "peeking" into their own living spaces, and we shouldn't prosecute kids for "peeking" into their neighbors house (nor should we prosecute the neighbor, if he/she happens to be naked).  I wasn't at the trial, but certainly from various press reports (and the jury's general verdict) it doesn't seem like teh the prosecution demonstrated a good bias intimidation case.


As an example of the roads we are travelling down: we have a nanny, and a video cam for watching... well, whatever, but mostly the babies.  If we were to turn it on and watch the nanny put the babies down for bed to monitor how she treats them, is that an invasion of privacy?  If not, how does it differ from the Ravi case?  We are monitoring our own area, with our own camera that is in plain view and known about by the nanny.  The two differences I see are that Ravi's roommate also lived in the space, making it his "private" area as well, and that its our nanny's workplace.  Flip that into a live-in nanny situation, and you've really clouded those differences, but I think you get the point.

In response to this case, New Jersey passed "anti-bullying" laws.  Is that really the answer?  First: will it stop any bullying?  Probably not.  I just don't see 12 year old kids who will forego bullying because of a state law.  Instead, what we have done is make conduct that is certain to happen illegal.  Second, almost everyone's conduct could be considered bullying at some point.  Partially because "bullying" is usually in the eye of the beholder - and thus the victim - but also because study after study shows that nearly everyone experiences bullying.  You are the bully today, the bullied tomorrow.

Long-short: If Ravi's roommate isn't gay and doesn't kill himself (for unknown reasons), this isn't even on any one's radar.

*after learning more about the verdict I changed the headline to denote that I can't live that result.  Also, I think "guilty" probably works as a headline if he was convicted on at least one bias charge.