Tyler Clement

            Clements death sparked a countrywide objection against bullying and especially over the social media. According to the prosecutors’ argument, it is clearly stated that Ravi’s actions were intended to intimidate Clement because of his sexuality as he was gay. This paper will, therefore, be subdivided into three parts where it will seek to discuss on whether Clements’s right to privacy was violated, whether the case is to be considered as a cyber or hate crime. It will also discuss the reasons as to why the offenders of the case were not legally charged with Clements’s death.

            Invasion of privacy is mostly regarded as a civil right violation and is therefore used during a civil court hearing. Ravi’s action towards Clement went beyond the border of human privacy and this prompted Clements’s suicide. Clements private moments were taken away from him and were used to intimidate him as his video was leaked online. Clement was unaware and also did not consent to the posting of is the video to the public and thus it is quite evident that Clements’s civil rights on privacy were violated (Foderaro 2010). In this case, Ravi, who was type perpetrator, was the subject of criminal charges since he broke the law in his quest to publicize Clements private information in the public media.

            Hate crime is referred to a crime where the victim is beleaguered due to discriminatory elements such as race, religion or even sexuality. Once a person is harassed by another person who thinks that the person in question is a homosexual, then the harassment is measured to be a hate crime regardless of whether the statement is true or not. Clements’s case is therefore considered to be a hate crime case since Ravi expressed bias intimidation against Clement with the intent of intimidating him following his sexual orientation (Foderaro 2010). However, it is important to note that defining hate crimes is difficult and this took the judges’ time to merely instruct the jury on the issues they had to address so as to reach a verdict.

                        Ravi’s crime was appalling, yet his conviction was lenient and very unconstitutional. It is therefore quite evident that an unjust law was used to rue Clements’s case and therefore the entire ruling was unfair as it allowed Ravi with all his terrible crimes to walk away free. The charges that Ravi was convicted of such as bias intimidation, was a perfect example of how the case was ruled unconstitutionally. The statute argued that the defendant would only be convicted if their victim, Clement reasonable believed that he was harassed due to his sexual orientation. This led to the dismissal of those charges and hence an unfair trial was administered. Prosecutors failed to charge Ravi for the death of Clement who left no justification for his suicide. The punishment to the offenders seemed too indulgent for the crime that led to Clements’s death. Therefore, legislators ought to establish constitutionally legal and clear laws (Hu 2010).

            In conclusion, it is important for the state to offer resources to education and advocacy institutions in an attempt to educate students on sexual orientation and how to deal with some of these problems and the importance of accepting their sexual orientation. This will enhance the growth of a less discriminated society.  

 

 

 

 

References

Hu, W. (2010, October 2). Legal debate swirls over charges in a student's suicide. The New York             Times, p. A15.

Foderaro, L. W. (2010, September 29). Private moment made public, then a fatal   jump. The        New York Times. Retrieved from:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html