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.

Miron on nuclear power and liability limits

Jeffrey Miron writes:

The recents events in Japan have, predictably, unleashed a new debate over the risks of nuclear power, with strong opinions on both sides.

I am not remotely qualified to judge whether the damaged Japanese reactors pose significant risks, but one point about nuclear power is beyond dispute: it always receives substantial subsidy from government. This consists of both direct payments toward the costs of building plants, along with insurance against full liability for accidents.

So a simple way to evaluate competing claims over safety is to eliminate both kinds of subsidy and find out whether the private sector really think nuclear power is profitable, if investors bear all construction and insurance costs.

It sounds reasonable enough, but I'm not sure how much I trust US courts to give reasonable damages. By most accounts, they are ridiculously over-generous.

For instance,

IN 2001, New York City was hit with a $14,000,000 judgment because a subway train didn't stop in time to avoid hitting someone who was lying on the tracks, apparently trying to commit suicide.

Ultimately, the courts are a branch of government, and the legislature and executive have a responsibility to ensure they behave responsibly. This shouldn't involve favouritism for "key industries" like oil and nuclear, but it does seem that some across-the-board limits on compensation are required.

Should the US punish BP shareholders?

This is the question posed in a recent Room for Debate article for the New York Times. Actually, they asked "Can the U.S. Punish BP’s Shareholders?", but there seems little doubt that they can; the real question is whether they should.

As usual, Jeffrey Miron is the voice of reason:

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is calling on BP to abandon the protection of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which limits BP’s liability under federal law to $75 million in damages, plus cleanup costs.

As horrible as the damage from the spill might be, abandoning the rule of law, which is what the administration’s proposals imply, is worse. BP has not been convicted of anything yet, nor is the magnitude of damages known, so BP should be free to operate as a legal company in the meantime. This might mean that, when judgments occur in future years, BP will be bankrupt and unable to pay. That is unfortunate, but it is what the rule of law requires.
...
The rule of law can have unpleasant consequences in specific cases. But abandoning that rule is worse because it means that politicians can reward the business or individuals they like without regard for consistency, fairness or economic efficiency. Businesses operating without rule of law learn that political connections, not good business decisions, are the path to profits.

The U.S. should not fix past mistakes, by government or BP, by punishing BP in inappropriate ways. The way to balance cheap oil and the environment is to hold BP accountable as much as possible under existing policies and then design better policies for the future.