Tyler Clementi and Unanswered Questions on Accomplice Liability

Tyler Clementi, Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei have all practically becomehousehold names. In case your memory needs some refreshing, Tyler Clementi was the Rutgers student who committed suicide after he was bullied for being gay. Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei were Clementi’s roommates, and the alleged perpetrators of the bullying that led to Clementi’s suicide.

It seems that the public is quick to demand that justice be served on Dharum Ravi and Molly Wei. It’s still not exactly clear how the events went down, but we do know that Ravi went into Wei’s room, borrowed her webcam, and used it to spy on Clementi’s sex life. This led to Clementi jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It’s not entirely clear what the degree of Wei’s involvement was. However, the likeliest scenario is probably that Wei was aware of what Ravi was doing, but did nothing to stop the scenario.

So assuming this is what transpired, Dharum Ravi is probably guilty of something. But what about Molly Wei? Is she guilty even though she arguably didn’t do anything? And if she is guilty, what amount of blame should we put on her?

This leads into an interesting question in law over how guilty you are when you just sit by and watch a crime unfold. You are without a doubt, morally responsible, yet it’s arguable that you were only “sort of” involved in the crime.

Criminal and civil law both deal with this situation differently. The following is a quick summary of the liability in each area:

1) Duty to act

It may come as a surprise to many people, but the majority rule in civil law is that you are not obligated to rescue anyone in danger (so note that this rule doesn’t apply to every jurisdiction, but just the majority of them). Where the majority rule exists, it applies to even the most extreme of situations.

There are some exceptions to this case. If there are certain pre-existing relationships between the one in danger and the “rescuer,” then the duty to rescue does kick in. So, the law does impose a duty to rescue between family members; landowners and their business customers (such as store owners); and employers/employees when employee is acting within scope of employment.

Furthermore, once someone does decide to intervene, then they are held to a standard of reasonable care in their subsequent actions. However, many states have also enacted “Good Samaritan” laws, which shield the rescuer from liability for any subsequent, negligent acts performed during the rescue.

2) Accomplice liability

In criminal law, the closest equivalent for liability in this situation would probably be accomplice liability. An accomplice is someone who aids in the commission of a crime. Once a defendant is found guilty of being an accomplice, then he is guilty of the entire crime and all foreseeable crimes committed, as if he had committed them himself.

The big question in accomplice liability is determining what level of activity the defendant must engage in before being found guilty of being an accomplice. Normally, just being present at the scene and witnessing the crime is not enough to find someone guilty of being an accomplice, even if it seems as though the person was agreeing with what was happening. Instead, there must be active involvement in some way in order to be liable. Common examples of this would be driving a getaway car, providing weapons, or signaling an approaching victim.

In Molly Wei’s case, we’re dealing with criminal law and thus, the question of accomplice liability. If the account we have of her thus far is true, then I don’t think there’s much she can be found guilty of. The law is about punishing physical actions, and mental thoughts alone are not really enough to make you guilty of a crime. Ultimately, Wei’s case will probably turn on intricate, factual details regarding exactly what she did with Ravi.

Some may be surprised at the apparent leniency of the law though. How can someone like Molly Wei possibly be innocent? How can the law, as another example, allow passerbys to go free if they idly watch a young girl drown in a shallow pool?

I would like to say that the law always achieves the seemingly just result. But I think part of the reason we can also get shocking results like these is because the law recognizes that all of us, at one time or another, have been guilty of doing something wrong. In all honesty, how many of us have taken at least an indirect, psychological role in the bullying of another person? How often have we all refused to help someone in trouble, not because we were scared to, but just because we were plain lazy?

If the law imposed fair punishment for all morally reprehensible crimes, then I bet all of us would be spending a lifetime in jail. Thankfully, the law recognizes that none of us are perfect beings. I don’t believe that what Molly Wei did was right, and I don’t think she should be going on with life as if Tyler Clementi’s suicide had never happened. At the same time, I don’t believe it’s the place of the law to be imposing these punishments on her either.