New Jersey officials are dealing with a tragic suicide of a freshman from Rutgers University after Tyler Clementi was allegedly filmed illegally in a sexual encounter by fellow freshman students Dharun Ravi, 18, and Molly Wei, 18. In an example of the merging of tort and criminal law, the two students have been criminally charged with invasion of privacy.
Ravi and Wei are accused of placing a camera in the Clementi’s dorm room during a sexual encounter with another male. If true, it was an incredibly vicious act followed by releasing the images on the Internet.
In addition to the criminal privacy violation, Ravi is charged with two more counts of invasion of privacy for trying to use the hidden camera to view the same student during another sexual encounter just three days later in September.
Ravi is accused of streaming the first encounter on the Web and then promising another such live feed two days later.
It was too much for this young man. In his final Facebook entry, Clementi simply wrote “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.” He committed suicide just 72 hours after the story ran in the media.
These cases are commonly address in Torts under privacy actions, including the public disclosure of private embarrassing facts and intrusion upon seclusion. There is also intentional infliction of emotional distress. This is not a rare occurrence in tort. It is unfortunately all too common for such tapes to surface on the Internet or around universities after a couple breaks up. The result is usually a tort lawsuit as opposed to criminal charges.
However, some states have criminalized privacy violations. This case would clearly support the argument for a counterpart criminal code provisions, particularly after the victim took his life. Here is the New Jersey law:
2C:14-9. Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges
1. a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.b. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, “disclose” means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.
The law has only two affirmative defenses:
It is an affirmative defense to a crime under this section that:
(1) the actor posted or otherwise provided prior notice to the person of the actor’s intent to engage in the conduct specified in subsection a., b., or c., and
(2) the actor acted with a lawful purpose.
If convicted, Ravi and Wei face up to five years in jail. They could obviously also face tort liability. Indeed, I would recommend such a lawsuit in this type of case where the students are unlikely to spend more than a couple years. If proven, a civil judgment could force the students to continue to garnish their wages and send monthly amounts for many years to come — a constant reminder of the harm that they caused in this alleged senseless act.
Source: New York Daily News
Jonathan Turley
Pete:
I guess everyone has some of that. So you are saying they were brought up like that?
Or are you telling me I am wrong?
byron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I would ask why these 2 violated the individual rights of that young man? Why they thought it was OK to violate him like that, what did they learn in their homes and schools that would eliminate natural boundaries to that point?
This is a symptom of a larger problem in our society. But then I suppose this is the logical outcome when there is no standard of value and any thing goes.
Hopefully his friends will give these 2 the “beat down” they so richly deserve. They are punks, their parents must be really very proud.
Slarti,
Your old stomping grounds has made it to 48 Hours on the ID Channel……
“…but they caused a death even if that were not their intention….”
—————–
what was their intention?
when a drunk driver wipes out a family with kids in tow…is it intention that makes the difference? Age? Connections?
I don’t know, when laws become so complicated they can no longer be understood or implemented…I think we’ve advanced beyond ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ to new territory…which is actually pretty old territory….
Why isn’t their act involuntary manslaughter? I’m not a lawyer so maybe it’s obvious to those that know law, but they caused a death even if that were not their intention. What a terrible, mean thing to do. What a total lack of humanity.
Because this is close and personal I will reserve any and all comments….
Taken from above article,which was published in 08:
“People have a misconception,” she said. “Most people who do complete the act, they really don’t want to do it — they do it against their will. It is a breakdown of the emotional immune system. They don’t know how else to stop the pain. The pain is so intense, the only light at the end of the tunnel is taking your own life.”
FYI:
Study finds rural New Jersey has state’s highest suicide rates
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/study_finds_rural_new_jersey_h.html
Mespo,
Thanks … and to jonolan also.
This has been on the news here in the metro area mostly all day. And it came on the heels of this sad affair also,so much promise in both cases.
“Seton Hall honor student Jessica Moore, 19, was killed in the attack, police said. Two female Seton Hall students and two male partygoers were also hit by gunfire.”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/suspected_shooter_was_turned_a.html
I could not imagine being the parent in either one of these situations,and getting that phone call.So sad.
Blouise:
Not sure it meets any standard interpretation of a “sex crime.” It is a criminal invasion of privacy, but I see no lewd or lasivious intent from the facts revealed in the posting — only basic human indecency.
jonolan,
Ok … I guess, but don’t we all have an expectation of privacy not to have our sex acts made public no matter what the venue? (I’m not, of course, talking about illegal sex acts and law enforcement, court, etc)
I realize I’m exhibiting an ignorance of the law or perhaps a naivety but it’s hard to believe that the filming of a sex act without the permission of the person being filmed and then publicizing said film of sexual activity is not a sex crime in some form.
This could get even more interesting if considered to be a hate crime. That’s federal rap, yes?
Porn’s legal unless the subjects were minors. Hence it’s not a “sex crime.”
Also, given the huge number of- and apparent popularity of various “hidden camera” and “leaked sex tape” websites, I’m not sure that this could any longer be considered conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
Modern society certainly seems to tolerate it and even financial support it.
Then there’s the issue of whether or not the kid suicided over the release of the videos or over the media exposure the coverage of the original charges created.
Mespo,
How is this not a sex crime? Does it have something to do with the Criminal Code of the State? Doesn’t it fall into the realm of porn?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress by extreme and outrageous conduct seems a viable cause of action to me. Conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. d (1965) I think this fits the situation. This is likely unbankruptable assuming a civil judgment is rendered.
We all know that software can take red eye reflections out. Why couldn’t it detect the image of a penis? Couldn’t the browsers somehow license websites including medical information and somehow not show other images of penises? Maybe the owners or the colleges could opt in to the Internet without penis images except in medical contexts….
Ravi and Wei are now, themselves, fodder for every camera anywhere near them …
Exactly why are they not charged with a sex crime?
Ravi and Wei are despicable excuses for human beings.
Too bad this cannot be classified as a sex crime so that when they are convicted, they would have to register as sex offenders! That will teach them a lesson!!