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

[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.

Actually, they aren't the same thing. Sexual Assault can mean anything from groping to assault (and possibly battery) in a sexual nature, to the further extent of being rape. Threatening to rape someone would be sexual assault, but not rape, for example. Groping a boob isn't rape, but is also sexual assault. In the specific case of Kentucky laws, it could mean sexual abuse (sexual contact without consent, degree varying on capability of providing content), sodomy (without consent), or even full blown rape. The label provided can be misdemeanor, not necessarily a felony.

Thank you for posting that link, since it reinforces exactly what I said. Only in 5 states do they differentiate between "Sexual assault" and "Rape", and even then in most of those sexual assault is used as a redundancy or aggravating circumstance to rape. In all other states, the terms are logically interchangeable for the purposes of discussion.

 

[LetalisK]

First, rape is different to sexual assault. (don't beleive me, go look at the kentucky laws.) They aren't rapists, they're terrible people, sure, but not as bad as that.

As above, no, rape is not different than sexual assault in most places and specifically in Kentucky. They do not use "sexual assault" at all.

 

[ArnRand]

First, rape is different to sexual assault. (don't beleive me, go look at the kentucky laws.) They aren't rapists, they're terrible people, sure, but not as bad as that.

As above, no, rape is not different than sexual assault in most places and specifically in Kentucky. They do not use "sexual assault" at all.

Yeah, I messed up there, sorry. They got convicted of sexual *abuse* though, which means not rape.

 

[balfore]

I actually live in Louisville, don't know the girl at all but I do know some of her friends.
She was not raped simply groped while intoxicated and she should not have listed their names. What they did was awful but she had no right to reveal minors name's in this case.

I simply want to relate this story to another example and this happened to a friend in Louisville. He was accused of rape by a girl who slept with him at a party, there was little to no evidence and couldn't even be taken to court, however the university he was attending did hear the case and expelled him because they didn't want negative attention. They did this simply because she accused him of rape even though both members were intoxicated. Currently many people can get away with just calling rape and this subject is horrible but people simply shouldn't abuse the system like that.

 

[Verzin]

hurrahs. More media coverage of laws getting abused. I dunno what the real story is, but this 'sounds' absolutely ridiculous.

more Depressing. yay.

 

[Yopaz]

I don't see a problem with them being named. If more people were named for their actions then people would stop doing dumb shit.

Oh no their life is ruined and they'll never get a job. Well fuck em I say they should have thought about that before sexually harassing someone.

snip

I disagree with you there friend. Some people like having a control on sex, just because you don't it doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you have a court order telling you not to do a certain thing then doing that exact thing is contempt of the court which is an act that can be punished by the judge. That is the problem with this thing, violation of a court order. If she gets punished over this matter I think she deserves it. What she has had to go through is horrible and I can't think of a punishment bad enough for any rapist. However she did do something that she shouldn't have when she decided to violate the court orderings.

 

[balfore]

My main problem with this though is that there are specific laws in place to help protect minors for mistakes they have made. I know specifically there is a movie out there called Boy A which is about a child who is tried and convicted of murder but they never reveal the name to help him live a normal life, this is based on laws that countries actually have in place.

Think of how much it could ruin someone's life if at the age of 16-17 if they were revealed by this girl. They were stupid and did the wrong thing, but that's what young people do make mistakes. If they have to live the rest of their lives never able to get a job because of one mistake and she revealed their names, she deserves to be punished.

I'm not saying in all cases sexual assault crimes names should not be revealed but in a scenario where, to my understanding, they groped and took pictures of a drunk girl, they should not have their lives ruined due to a dumb mistake.

 

[AgedGrunt]

The nature of a crime has to be ignored here, there are rules to follow or we'd be back to hanging people without trials.

By naming these perpetrators, she puts them, their families and loved ones at risk. These boys, described as minors, now face thousands of people that could potentially find where they live and murder them; this is not how justice works.

From the comments over the Internet, few people understand what contempt of court is or what rights are.

We live and die by our laws. We just can't go around making it up as we go along.

 

[LetalisK]

First, rape is different to sexual assault. (don't beleive me, go look at the kentucky laws.) They aren't rapists, they're terrible people, sure, but not as bad as that.

As above, no, rape is not different than sexual assault in most places and specifically in Kentucky. They do not use "sexual assault" at all.

Yeah, I messed up there, sorry. They got convicted of sexual *abuse* though, which means not rape.

They weren't convicted of sexual abuse in the sense you might be thinking of. They pled down to a charge of felony sexual abuse, which means they were initially going to be charged with either rape or sodomy. That's an important distinction here. Just because they pled to a lesser crime doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. Considering the circumstances, I don't see anything suggesting they did suddenly stop short of raping her. Edit: Quite the contrary, considering the actions of both the victim and the DA.

Edit to provide clarification x2.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

See, this is why I prefer being in space.

There isn't a bullshit justice system, it's just survival of the fittest.

You got it easy, all your problems can be solved with a headbutt.
Cases like this tend to involve big stupid jellyfish, so y'know, one up, one down...

Ich, it's stuff like this that really helps prove how FUCKED the criminal justice system is.

 

[salinv]

Actually, they aren't the same thing. Sexual Assault can mean anything from groping to assault (and possibly battery) in a sexual nature, to the further extent of being rape. Threatening to rape someone would be sexual assault, but not rape, for example. Groping a boob isn't rape, but is also sexual assault. In the specific case of Kentucky laws, it could mean sexual abuse (sexual contact without consent, degree varying on capability of providing content), sodomy (without consent), or even full blown rape. The label provided can be misdemeanor, not necessarily a felony.

Thank you for posting that link, since it reinforces exactly what I said. Only in 5 states do they differentiate between "Sexual assault" and "Rape", and even then in most of those sexual assault is used as a redundancy or aggravating circumstance to rape. In all other states, the terms are logically interchangeable for the purposes of discussion.

Sorry about that, you're right. I didn't realize that the charge had been clarified to specifically sexual abuse; I didn't notice your other post..

The point I was trying to get across was that the vernacular meaning of the term "sexual assault" most here were using was strictly correct but limited and I thought you were pushing that same definition. While, yes, rape is sexual assault in that it is included under its umbrella, my interpretation was that most people here seem to believe that sexual assault and rape were directly equivalent, when that is not the case. You know, all that square and rectangle business.

 

[viranimus]

Honestly she deserves more. It astounds me how we have basically written this "get out of responsibility for my actions" card related to alcohol and sex.

This was not the first time this girl had ever drank to excess.

She was fully aware of what happens when you drink to excess.

She was fully aware of what happens when you mix overfilled sexually frustrated boys and alcohol.

So purposely going to a place to get drunk and hang out with a bunch of horny drunken teenage boys is literally like taking your life into your own hands.

It doesnt excuse they boys actions, but it does explain part of why the sentence was so light.

The other reason is that all of these kids are still considered minors. Its a well known fact that in the US your "record" is wiped clean after you turn 18. That is why the attys wanted the gag order on the details of this. Its so as these kids who made mistakes are not punished for it for the rest of their lives. She forcibly took that away in a shit storm of twitter based conjecture that now will put these people up for public scrutiny and will always have that specter hanging over their heads as long as they remain in that community. And as we have seen many times in the recent past (Casey Anthony for example) public perception can not only trump jurisprudence, but quickly turn into a lynch mob armed with more pitchforks and torches than actual facts.

Yes I get it, that she will also have to endure the same of the assault, but again, she has to (even though she never will) have to accept that part of the blame is her own for leaving herself vulnerable to this. So sorry little girl, Just because you had a problem and the resolution did not go your way does not give you the justification for just doing whatever you want to even the score. Thats why you do not understand Justice.

And while Im at it.. What "rights" were taken away from her? Yes she lost a great many things with this whole ordeal, but what actual legal rights will she not be able to use again because of all this?

So All I can see when I read about this is a pissed off little girl who didnt get what she wanted lashing out and throwing an online temper tantrum. Her representatives(as in her family) agreed to the plea agreement. She breached that agreement. One has nothing to do with the other. It literally is as simple as that.

 

[LetalisK]

Actually, they aren't the same thing. Sexual Assault can mean anything from groping to assault (and possibly battery) in a sexual nature, to the further extent of being rape. Threatening to rape someone would be sexual assault, but not rape, for example. Groping a boob isn't rape, but is also sexual assault. In the specific case of Kentucky laws, it could mean sexual abuse (sexual contact without consent, degree varying on capability of providing content), sodomy (without consent), or even full blown rape. The label provided can be misdemeanor, not necessarily a felony.

Thank you for posting that link, since it reinforces exactly what I said. Only in 5 states do they differentiate between "Sexual assault" and "Rape", and even then in most of those sexual assault is used as a redundancy or aggravating circumstance to rape. In all other states, the terms are logically interchangeable for the purposes of discussion.

Sorry about that, you're right. I didn't realize that the charge had been clarified to specifically sexual abuse; I didn't notice your other post..

The point I was trying to get across was that the vernacular meaning of the term "sexual assault" most here were using was strictly correct but limited and I thought you were pushing that same definition. While, yes, rape is sexual assault in that it is included under its umbrella, my interpretation was that most people here seem to believe that sexual assault and rape were directly equivalent, when that is not the case. You know, all that square and rectangle business.

Well...they usually are. Legally, anyway. I get what you're saying though if you're talking about how these terms are used in common conversations in the media. Then sexual assault does have a more ambiguous meaning.

 

[salinv]

They weren't convicted of sexual abuse in the sense you might be thinking of. They pled down to a charge of felony sexual abuse, which means they were initially charged with either rape or sodomy. That's an important distinction here. Just because they pled to a lesser crime doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. Considering the circumstances, I don't see anything suggesting they did suddenly stop short of raping her. Edit: Quite the contrary, considering the actions of both the victim and the DA.

Edit to provide clarification.

Out of curiosity, where did you find out that they specifically plead down to the charge of felony abuse? The article only said they plead guilty to abuse and voyeurism, nothing of pleading down from a greater charge.

I guess I'm just being an unending optimist for "until proven guilty..."

edit: periods.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

The nature of a crime has to be ignored here, there are rules to follow or we'd be back to hanging people without trials.

No we wouldn't, don't be stupid. That makes no sense. Besides, 'merica pulls stuff like this and worse all the time and we haven't quite regressed to that level yet.

By naming these perpetrators, she puts them, their families and loved ones at risk. These boys, described as minors, now face thousands of people that could potentially find where they live and murder them; this is not how justice works.

The boys are rapists, Naming and shaming is something that would have happened later anyway, seeing as how they confessed. Who cares if someone kicks the crap or murders a couple of rapists and makes them suffer as this girl likely will for the rest of her life? Two less pieces of worthless human garbage in the world. That, over all, is a plus.

From the comments over the Internet, few people understand what contempt of court is or what rights are.

Duh. Most people haven't got a clue. However, Everyone understands that a girl who has been raped facing more jail time than the perpetrators is NOT justice, and that a case like this is a stupid one to make, considering the boys had already confessed BEFORE she named them. They would have been named anyway.

We live and die by our laws. We just can't go around making it up as we go along.

I believe that we change laws every now and again when we realise how out-dated and/or ridiculously circumstantial they are.

Bottom line: You want to talk about justice? This girl was sexually abused by these boys, and because, rightly so, she told her friends exactly who these people were, she is now facing a longer punishment than the rapists. If she goes to jail, that is a travesty of justice. That is what it all comes down to. Don't defend the legal system in cases like these, If theres any sense in the world this will be overlooked and the law altered.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

My main problem with this though is that there are specific laws in place to help protect minors for mistakes they have made. I know specifically there is a movie out there called Boy A which is about a child who is tried and convicted of murder but they never reveal the name to help him live a normal life, this is based on laws that countries actually have in place.

Think of how much it could ruin someone's life if at the age of 16-17 if they were revealed by this girl. They were stupid and did the wrong thing, but that's what young people do make mistakes. If they have to live the rest of their lives never able to get a job because of one mistake and she revealed their names, she deserves to be punished.

I'm not saying in all cases sexual assault crimes names should not be revealed but in a scenario where, to my understanding, they groped and took pictures of a drunk girl, they should not have their lives ruined due to a dumb mistake.

That's what young people do? I was young and made mistakes. I never sexually assaulted anyone though. Quite a difference between regular teenage mistakes and being worthless scum like these guys.

EXACTLY. You make a mistake, you own it, live with it. But making a mistake is not the same as sexually assaulting someone. You don't accidently rape someone. the argument that "She was drunk and at a part with boys, therefore it's her fault" Is stupid. Just because it was something that could happen, or was even likely to, does not take the responsibility from the people who committed the action. They didn't make a mistake. They deserve worse than they're getting, and as thick as this girl might have been, she doesn't deserve to go to prison for being a victim.