More equal than others

BBC News reports:

A US student accused of using a webcam to spy on a homosexual encounter involving his room-mate is not a criminal, his defence lawyer says.

Steven Altman told jurors in closing statements that Dharun Ravi never recorded the encounter and that he did not act out of a hatred of gays.

...

In her closing statement, prosecutor Julia McClure told jurors there was abundant proof that Mr Ravi had a problem with Clementi being gay.

...
The former Rutgers University student could face up to 10 years in prison. However, in order to secure the maximum sentence prosecutors must prove he acted out of anti-gay sentiment.

So much for equality before the law.

Mug a man in the City out of anti-banker sentiment, and you will not face any special penalties. Foster anti-tycoon sentiment, and you will be cheered by Liberal Democrats. Voice anti-white sentiment or anti-male sentiment, and nobody will pay much notice. But speak ill of one of the groups favoured by the state, and the Thought Police will come knocking.

Daniel Hannan put it well in a recent article:

Part of the problem is the determination of lobbies and interest groups to keep themselves in business by fabricating new rows. Hence, for example, the ludicrous demands for hate crimes and other forms of separate legal categorisation. It is depressing to see pressure groups which spent decades honourably campaigning for the right to be treated equally now demanding the right to be treated differently.

UPDATE - 16 March 2012

It seems the Thought Police have secured a conviction:

A US student who used a webcam to secretly film his room-mate in a gay encounter has been found guilty of hate crime and invasion of privacy.
...
His room-mate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from a bridge in 2010.

The case attracted national attention, including comment from President Obama, and prompted anti-bullying measures.

Ravi was found guilty of 15 counts as a whole, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation, which is a hate crime.

More details are available in a linked nj.com article:

COUNT 1
4th Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
4th Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Clementi's guest, M.B.: GUILTY
(Observed Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact without their consent on Sept. 19)

Fair enough.

COUNT 2
3rd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 4th Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 19)
...
Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

There are any number of reasons why a person may be selected as the target of an offence. What if instead of being anti-gay, Ravi was actually gay himself, and invading Clementi's privacy for his own gratification? What if he was acting out of jealousy or disgust at some aspect of Clementi's character or background? Perhaps Clementi was rich, poor, Republican, Democrat, libertarian, communist, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, intelligent, mildly dull, attractive, ugly, tall, short, humble, arrogant, sporty, or nerdy. There are plenty of foul motives for invading someone's privacy, but the state of New Jersey singles out certain categories for protection: "race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" (NJSA 2C:16-1).

The indictment goes on ...

COUNT 3
3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Activated webcam so other people could view Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact on Sept 19.)
...
COUNT 4
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 19)
...
Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
...
Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

If Ravi had broadcast the encounter knowing that Clementi would be intimidated for having a small penis, or for being a premature ejaculator, or for simply being awkward in bed, he'd face no further penalty. If he'd been hoping to expose his roommate's masturbation, his preference for heterosexual S&M, or furry fandom, he'd only have to worry about the invasion of privacy charge. But because Clementi was a member of a favoured group, a 2nd degree offence is slapped on top of a 3rd degree offence ("bias intimidation is a crime one degree higher than the most serious underlying crime" - NJSA 2C:16-1).

None of this is to suggest that Ravi's behaviour was acceptable. It was clearly reprehensible, and most people would say it was especially so because of the element of discrimination. But it can't be right for the state to single out certain groups for special privileges and protection.

Justice must be blind.