Underage Sexual Assault Victim Faces Jail Time...For Tweeting the Names of Her Attackers (UPDATED)

[Jorec]

That's profoundly fucked up. And if she goes to jail and her rapists(sexual assaulters) get to walk because of the plea, then that will the biggest perversion of "justice" that I have ever heard of.

"Yeah you were raped, but you DARE to reveal the names of your rapists?! You shall be jailed like the scum you are!! Mr. McRape and Johnny Molest you are free to go."

And then the two fuckers go to all their friends and boast about how the girl they raped went to jail instead of them.

Truly the law is without flaws!!

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Well she got a court order she probably should have followed it. I just don't understand why you would talk about this on twitter of all places.

 

[SecondPrize]

No sympathy for the offenders. If you don't want to be known for doing something terrible, then don't do it. Also, don't distribute pics.

 

[somonels]

Yup, that's how the system.

A side point to the escapist community: OP always refers to it as 'sexual assault.' You keep talking about sexual harassment.

 

[HardkorSB]

Title pretty much says it all.

In the face of all the other threads that have come and gone recently, I had to add another one. Not only because it strikes multiple issues at once, but because it also deals with ones we've mentioned seperately time and again.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/savannah-dietrich-twitter-sexual-assault-louisville-174732753.html

At the meat of this issue, as stated in the article:

A Kentucky girl who was sexually assaulted could face contempt of court charges after she tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers.

Savannah Dietrich, the 17-year-old victim, was frustrated by a plea deal reached late last month by the two boys who assaulted her, and took to Twitter to expose them--violating a court order to keep their names confidential.

Attorneys for the attackers asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for lashing out on Twitter. She could face up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine if convicted. The boys have yet to be sentenced for the August 2011 attack.

"So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys," Dietrich told Louisville's Courier-Journal. "I'm at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. If they really feel it's necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don't understand justice."

Dietrich was assaulted by the pair after passing out at a party. They later shared photos of the assault with friends.

On June 26, the boys pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Terms of their plea agreement were not released.

A hearing for the contempt of court charge is scheduled for July 30. Attorneys for Dietrich want it open to the media, while the boys lawyers want it closed.

Both the Gannett-owned Courier-Journal and Dietrich's attorneys "have filed motions to open the proceedings, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about what happened in her case," the newspaper said.

An online petition asking the judge to throw out the charges against Dietrich, launched Saturday, has already accumulated hundreds of signatures.

Part of me finds it sad to believe that this girl, who is a victim of a sexual assault, is going to see potentially more jail time than those who helped cover up sexual assaults, like those at Penn State. Furthermore, even as I pose to myself the scenario that the boys in this case might need protection from others, the fact that they took photos of the assault and distributed them amongst their friends makes me instantaneously lose any sympathy towards their protection.

Your thoughts?

OK but imagine this:
Some superhero Texas Ranger wannabe sees their names, looks up their addresses, goes there and just flat out shoots them.
Or an angry mob gangs up on them and beats them to death or hangs them.
It could happen and if it would, wouldn't the girl be partially responsible for that?

Plus, the case was closed, The verdict reached. She can appeal or something but telling everyone "Here they are, get them for me" (which is what she did by posting their names) is fucked up.

 

[LetalisK]

Are people assuming that sexual assault means rape?

Yes, because in a great many jurisdictions they are the same thing. It's often harder to find jurisdictions where they are two completely different crimes.

Hmmm, in the UK sexual assault can mean grabbing a boob, or slappinb a butt - when it's rape, we call it rape, even in court. I'm thinking that it was less than rape, considering they haven't been sentenced yet. I think the distinction has to be made, the court decided that it was fair to protect their identity, so that's what makes me question how severe the assault was. By hiding the facts of the case, people are expecting the worst, she herself is claiming that they protect rapists. I mean, what if she's just looking for attention after what could be a far less serious case of assault...

1. It was at a party with lots of witnesses.
2. There were 2 of them.
3. They shared photographs with friends.

Not a typical rapist MO, IMO.

Three things. First, the severity of the crime has nothing to do with why the identities were protected. Murderers do not get their identity protected...unless they're a minor.

Second, it was pled down to sexual abuse. Considering sexual abuse itself involves sexual contact beyond just simple groping, it's safe to come to the conclusion that a rape of some type occurred.

Third, that is exactly a rapist's MO! Especially ones that are still in the process of human development. Get/find girl drunk and passed out, mess around with her, brag to friends about one's sexual conquests. Even fully functioning adults brag about the criminal shit they've done.

 

[Zen Toombs]

she should have the freedom of speech to talk about what happened to her.

While I'm not pleased with this situation, it's not "freedom of speech". If the plea agreement was "noone can reveal who they are", she violated that. If the plea was "keep the record sealed", then she didn't. Freedom of speech is a different thing from contract law (or whatever this is exactly).

 

[Jorec]

OK but imagine this:
Some superhero Texas Ranger wannabe sees their names, looks up their addresses, goes there and just flat out shoots them.
Or an angry mob gangs up on them and beats them to death or hangs them.
It could happen and if it would, wouldn't the girl be partially responsible for that?

Plus, the case was closed, The verdict reached. She can appeal or something but telling everyone "Here they are, get them for me" (which is what she did by posting their names) is fucked up.

I'm pretty confident that lynch mobs don't exist anymore.

 

[brighteye]

This sounds like a pro-sexual assault judge, can we have the name please or is that also against the courts ruling ?

 

[Dastardly]

snip

It says she COULD face charges, and she COULD face jail time, and a whole lot of COULDS. Or it might be that the judge decides to be a bit lenient given the circumstances... though like she won't avoid punishment entirely.

I sincerely doubt she's going to see a ton of jail time. I'm not even sure about a fine. This is a case of someone looking at what she did (contempt of court) and then looking up the maximum penalty for that particular charge, and then slapping them together in an article.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Dietrich was assaulted by the pair after passing out at a party.

How does one pass out at a party? Me thinks alcohol may be afoot here! This whole situations seems like one idiotic decision after another. I'd certainly like to know how this jeapordizes the plea bargain. A sharp lawyer could get the whole things dismissed. This will not end well.

 

[NightHawk21]

Would someone explain to me what exactly the boys did. I would be nice if we knew exactly what the boys did. Regardless of that however I don't think she was in the write to say their names, and she definitely should not have done it now. It would've been smarter to wait until the end of the case and see what if any punishment they get, and then respond.

Still it would be nice to know what exactly the guys did. If they actually raped her, and are still being tried as youths, than that's messed up. Here in Ontario from 14 (I think) you can start being tried as an adult based on the severity of the crime. I have to imagine similar laws exist in the states, and the legal system there is not that messed up.

 

[Robert632]

Wow. You REALLY believe not allowing someone to publicly announce the names of two teenage idiots doing something idiotic is the same as RELEASING A TOTALLY RAPING RAPIST ZOMG!!?

So as long as you're under 18 actually raping someone only makes you an idiot, not a monster?

I did not say that the court is always right because that's just crazy. But, if she did wilfully and knowingly violate a legal court order, and if they can prove it, then she should be charged accordingly.

She shouldn't be sent to jail if they aren't.

Ok, so first you are assuming the outcome a trial that has not occurred, but let's ignore that for a moment because I need to point something out.

I don't agree with how those two boys were "charged". I think that was a crap-load of BS. However, that does not have any bearing on what she did. Should people be able to get off on charges due to the outcome of a case related only because the exact same people are in there, only with reversed positions? Is that really how justice is supposed to work?

Now I'm going to head off you pointing out that how the two boys were charged is not how justice is supposed to work either, and I agree with you. That was BS and is something that needs to be changed within the justice system. But that doesn't mean she gets off on doing something illegal.

Also, stop assuming she's going to jail. That case has yet to conclude (Or even really start), so we won't how she will be punished until then.

 

[nekoali]

In this case, I fully support her contempt of court. Trying to hush up and conceal the identities of the attackers in this case is nothing but contemptible. There is no question that what they did was wrong, through and through. This is not a case of 'well she regretting it the next day'. They raped her and photographed her while she was unconscious and then spread those stories around. Her identity and what happened is already out there in the public. How is it fair than that her attackers could turn around, be given a slap on the wrist and having their crime hidden? And I'm sorry.. if 17 year olds are raping someone, they should be tried as adults, period. This isn't some 'youthful indiscretion' here.