17-year-old sexual assault victim could be jailed

Link

Quote :

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

Shut up, bitch! Remember your place!!

Quote :

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.

The court order to keep their names confidential was to protect the children who committed the crime. The child against whom the crime was committed doesn't count.

Quote :

"There you go, lock me up," Dietrich tweeted after naming the perpetrators. "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell."

Nor should she.

Quote :

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.

So...she could wind up with a criminal record for telling the world about her attackers. Is it just me, or does that sound just a little bit WTF?

Quote :

"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."

I'm an adult, and I don't understand it any better.

Quote :

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

Oh, that makes the assault okay then.

Quote :

They later shared photos of the assault with friends.

You share the photos of your crime with friends, then complain when your identity gets out.

Quote :

"For months, I cried myself to sleep," Dietrich said. "I couldn't go out in public places."

All because a couple of asswipes thought it was okay to attack an unconscious girl.

Quote :

On June 26, the boys pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism.

And they admitted to it.

Quote :

"They said I can't talk about it or I'll be locked up," Dietrich tweeted after hearing, according to the paper. "So I'm waiting for them to read this and lock me up."

Why should a court order protect the perpetrator but not the victim?

Quote :

"[Protecting rapists] is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville," she added.

Sadly, it's not just Louisville.

Quote :

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.

I agree. The victim of a crime should not be required to keep silent.

There's an online petition asking the judge to drop the charges against the victim. And before anyone says, "Why bother? Online petitions don't work," let me say that sometimes they do work, and if nothing else, they help get attention.

Lady Anne wrote:

Quote :

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.

So...she could wind up with a criminal record for telling the world about her attackers. Is it just me, or does that sound just a little bit WTF?

No, Anne, it sounds a lot WTF?. "Crazy" doesn't even BEGIN to describe the kind of judicial mindset that thinks a sexual assault victim should be punished instead of the perp.

As shitty as this situation sounds, and I fully understand why she did what she did and she totally doesn't deserve jail for this, there's a reason why the court tried to keep the identity of the juvenile victims under wraps. Not just because the judge is an evil bastard who felt like picking on a poor little rape victim. I mean, isn't protecting the identity of juvenile offenders kinda standard procedure?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

As shitty as this situation sounds, and I fully understand why she did what she did and she totally doesn't deserve jail for this, there's a reason why the court tried to keep the identity of the juvenile victims under wraps. Not just because the judge is an evil bastard who felt like picking on a poor little rape victim. I mean, isn't protecting the identity of juvenile offenders kinda standard procedure?

Yes, it's pretty much the standard in teh UK anyway not sure about teh USA where, as far as I'm aware, each state does it a little bit different.
That said, and I'm prolly gonna get flack for saying this, but just because you are the victim of a crime does not mean can get away with committing one yourself which is what happened in this case.
She violated a court order and doing so is illegal, so fair or not she's going to be punished. There is really nothing else to say.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

As shitty as this situation sounds, and I fully understand why she did what she did and she totally doesn't deserve jail for this, there's a reason why the court tried to keep the identity of the juvenile victims under wraps. Not just because the judge is an evil bastard who felt like picking on a poor little rape victim. I mean, isn't protecting the identity of juvenile offenders kinda standard procedure?

Yes, it's pretty much the standard in teh UK anyway not sure about teh USA where, as far as I'm aware, each state does it a little bit different.
That said, and I'm prolly gonna get flack for saying this, but just because you are the victim of a crime does not mean can get away with committing one yourself which is what happened in this case.
She violated a court order and doing so is illegal, so fair or not she's going to be punished. There is really nothing else to say.

But with jail time? Jail time her attackers did not see? I mean, I agree that some kind of fine or something is in order, but the problem here is that.... I can really sympathize with this girl, y'know? Standing up to your attackers can be a very big step, and to some victims it can be an important step. Not only that, but her anger and frustration and pain is so apparent in all these quotes.

I think she needs help more than punishment.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

As shitty as this situation sounds, and I fully understand why she did what she did and she totally doesn't deserve jail for this, there's a reason why the court tried to keep the identity of the juvenile victims under wraps. Not just because the judge is an evil bastard who felt like picking on a poor little rape victim. I mean, isn't protecting the identity of juvenile offenders kinda standard procedure?

Yes, it's pretty much the standard in teh UK anyway not sure about teh USA where, as far as I'm aware, each state does it a little bit different.
That said, and I'm prolly gonna get flack for saying this, but just because you are the victim of a crime does not mean can get away with committing one yourself which is what happened in this case.
She violated a court order and doing so is illegal, so fair or not she's going to be punished. There is really nothing else to say.

But with jail time? Jail time her attackers did not see? I mean, I agree that some kind of fine or something is in order, but the problem here is that.... I can really sympathize with this girl, y'know? Standing up to your attackers can be a very big step, and to some victims it can be an important step. Not only that, but her anger and frustration and pain is so apparent in all these quotes.

I think she needs help more than punishment.

If the punishment for what she did is written into the letter of the law as jail time, then as bad for her as I might feel, because yes, I do sympathise, the law has to take it's course.

Standing up to your attackers is important yes, it's important step to recovering yes, but at the end of it, she committed a crime, willingly and in full knowledge that she was doing so, and will now be punished for it.

It might not seem fair, but it's the laws of the land where she is, beyond getting them changed, there is not much else anybody can, or should, do.

Somath Cegem wrote:

It might not seem fair, but it's the laws of the land where she is, beyond getting them changed, there is not much else anybody can, or should, do.

Well yeah. If the laws must be followed but can also be changed, then changing them is the only thing you can do about them.

Quote :

the law has to take it's course.

Ummm.... why?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

the law has to take it's course.

Ummm.... why?

You know what? No, I'm not going to sit here and spell this out to you. You are being vague, obtuse and are obviously trying to pick a fight and I really cannot be fucked.

Funnily enough I have better things to do than lecture an idiot over the internet, and now I'm gonna go do them.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

As shitty as this situation sounds, and I fully understand why she did what she did and she totally doesn't deserve jail for this, there's a reason why the court tried to keep the identity of the juvenile victims under wraps. Not just because the judge is an evil bastard who felt like picking on a poor little rape victim. I mean, isn't protecting the identity of juvenile offenders kinda standard procedure?

Yes, it's pretty much the standard in teh UK anyway not sure about teh USA where, as far as I'm aware, each state does it a little bit different.
That said, and I'm prolly gonna get flack for saying this, but just because you are the victim of a crime does not mean can get away with committing one yourself which is what happened in this case.
She violated a court order and doing so is illegal, so fair or not she's going to be punished. There is really nothing else to say.

But with jail time? Jail time her attackers did not see? I mean, I agree that some kind of fine or something is in order, but the problem here is that.... I can really sympathize with this girl, y'know? Standing up to your attackers can be a very big step, and to some victims it can be an important step. Not only that, but her anger and frustration and pain is so apparent in all these quotes.

I think she needs help more than punishment.

First of all, where did it say that her attackers won't be jailed?
Second, notice the words "up to". The 180 days in jail and a $500 fine is a maximum sentence. I'm not a legal expert, but from what I can find in ten minutes on Google, she may not face jail at all.

Somath Cegem wrote:

You know what? No, I'm not going to sit here and spell this out to you. You are being vague, obtuse and are obviously trying to pick a fight and I really cannot be fucked.

Funnily enough I have better things to do than lecture an idiot over the internet, and now I'm gonna go do them.

Said Somath, picking a fight and lecturing.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

the law has to take it's course.

Ummm.... why?

You know what? No, I'm not going to sit here and spell this out to you. You are being vague, obtuse and are obviously trying to pick a fight and I really cannot be fucked.

Funnily enough I have better things to do than lecture an idiot over the internet, and now I'm gonna go do them.

Man you're passive-aggressive.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just wanted you to elaborate on that statement. In my mind, law is there to provide social order and justice and the blind application of the law just because it's the way it is isn't just wrong but actually runs contrary to the spirit of the law.

So... no one wants to become enraged about how two chaps plea bargained their way out of any jail/juvenile correction facility time after sexually assualting an unconscious girl and taking pictures of it?

Or is that rage assumed?

Hot Cancer wrote:

So... no one wants to become enraged about how two chaps plea bargained their way out of any jail/juvenile correction facility time after sexually assualting an unconscious girl and taking pictures of it?

Or is that rage assumed?

Yeah, kinda funny how Mr. "the law must take it's" ITS, ITS YOU FUCKING MORON, LEARN GODDAMN ENGLISH "course" McGee neatly skims over that bit.

Quote :

"[Protecting rapists] is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville

Sure fucking sounds like it.

EDIT: From a more detailed article:

Quote :

Judge Dee McDonald admonished everyone at the hearing not to speak about what happened in court or about the crime

If that's accurate, then that seems extremely fucked. This girl who was sexually assaulted and then had pictures of the assault shown to God knows who can't talk about what happened to her??

Mr. Doobie wrote:

Man you're passive-aggressive.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just wanted you to elaborate on that statement.

I'm guessing any elaboration would run along the lines of BETCHES HAVE TO KNOW THEY CAN'T SPREAD RUMOURS AND RUIN GOOD MEN'S NAMES and he's not going to go there because I will stomp him.

AP reporting good news:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who defied a court order by tweeting the names of two teenagers who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her won't face a contempt charge.

David Mejia (meh-HEE'-yah), an attorney for one of the accused boys, says the motion to hold 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville in contempt was withdrawn Monday.

Mejia says the decision had nothing to do with public sentiment in the case, although an online petition campaign had garnered more than 62,000 signatures. He said there's no need for the motion now that Dietrich spread word about the case over the Internet.

Dietrich told The Courier-Journal she tweeted the names out of frustration with what she feels was a lenient deal for her attackers.

Trioculus wrote:

AP reporting good news:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who defied a court order by tweeting the names of two teenagers who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her won't face a contempt charge.

David Mejia (meh-HEE'-yah), an attorney for one of the accused boys, says the motion to hold 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville in contempt was withdrawn Monday.

Mejia says the decision had nothing to do with public sentiment in the case, although an online petition campaign had garnered more than 62,000 signatures. He said there's no need for the motion now that Dietrich spread word about the case over the Internet.

Dietrich told The Courier-Journal she tweeted the names out of frustration with what she feels was a lenient deal for her attackers.

Yay!!!

I don't give a fuck about the kids who assaulted her. Willingly doing a crime like that forfeits your right to privacy. I'm so glad she's not going to be punished for something she should be able to do anyway!

Quote :

Willingly doing a crime like that forfeits your right to privacy.

My response to this is a really big EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

Willingly doing a crime like that forfeits your right to privacy.

My response to this is a really big EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

we-ell it's kind of ironic that someone decided they had a right to privacy after they took pictures of themselves assaulting this girl and showed them to at least one other person

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

Willingly doing a crime like that forfeits your right to privacy.

My response to this is a really big EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

we-ell it's kind of ironic that someone decided they had a right to privacy after they took pictures of themselves assaulting this girl and showed them to at least one other person

Understood. This may be completely illogical and probably comes from my gut more than my head, but I'm a bit resistant to the idea of anyone deserving to have basic human rights taken away, y'know?

I can't say I'm exactly sad to know that any future wives or in-laws or whatever are just a quick Twitter archive search away from knowing what these guys did.

Hot Cancer wrote:

Or is that rage assumed?

Assumed.

I do think something needs to be done because she did break the letter of the law. That something is the tiniest possible slap on the wrist. Like, $30 fine. No apology, no jail time, nothing. Just a nominal fine.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Hot Cancer wrote:

So... no one wants to become enraged about how two chaps plea bargained their way out of any jail/juvenile correction facility time after sexually assualting an unconscious girl and taking pictures of it?

Or is that rage assumed?

Yeah, kinda funny how Mr. "the law must take it's" ITS, ITS YOU FUCKING MORON, LEARN GODDAMN ENGLISH "course" McGee neatly skims over that bit.

That is, unfortunately, part of the legal system and perfectly fine, might not like or even think it's at all fair, but that's just what it is and also loops back into my "if you don't like the law, try and get it changed" thing I mentioned up top.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mr. Doobie wrote:

Man you're passive-aggressive.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just wanted you to elaborate on that statement.

I'm guessing any elaboration would run along the lines of BETCHES HAVE TO KNOW THEY CAN'T SPREAD RUMOURS AND RUIN GOOD MEN'S NAMES and he's not going to go there because I will stomp him.

Actually I'll just point back to the my primary post.

I wrote:

That said, and I'm prolly gonna get flack for saying this, but just because you are the victim of a crime does not mean can get away with committing one yourself which is what happened in this case.

And that not letting the law run it's course is what got her in this mess in the first place, weather the judge has now drop the charges or not, it's a bloody daft thing to do.


So is this the part when I get stomped or what? It's been a while so I'm kinda forgetting the standard event progression.

I love you, honey. *










*If you're wondering if I might mean you, I don't. The person in question knows.

rae wrote:

Hot Cancer wrote:

Or is that rage assumed?

Assumed.

I do think something needs to be done because she did break the letter of the law. That something is the tiniest possible slap on the wrist. Like, $30 fine. No apology, no jail time, nothing. Just a nominal fine.

Well, a $30 fine might as well be no punishment. So I don't really see the point in that. To be fair, I can see Somath's view on this that Contempt of Court is Contempt of Court and we can't pick and choose which laws we obey. At least not if we want to live in a society where laws mean anything.

But the original ruling appears so fucked to me, that I don't really feel that "yeah, she totes deserves jail and/or a large fine for that" is right either, and I think that that shithead & friend (seemingly*) getting away very lightly with sexual assault is a bigger moral (right word?) injustice, even if the letter of the law might disagree. And I'm normally relatively inflexible on matters of law and order.

Well, at least she hasn't got in any trouble.



*Considering the fact that we don't know what the plea bargain is and why it was accepted. Although if we did, I suspect that it would be representative of a much larger issue when it comes to sexual assault cases that's probably been discussed to death on this board and its predecessors.

Quote :

So is this the part when I get stomped or what? It's been a while so I'm kinda forgetting the standard event progression.

So does it make you feel good to play the victim or is this just some kinda weird compulsion?

Quote :

That is, unfortunately, part of the legal system and perfectly fine, might not like or even think it's at all fair, but that's just what it is and also loops back into my "if you don't like the law, try and get it changed" thing I mentioned up top.

While she rots in prison, just getting worse and more likely to be a criminal herself when she gets out, and her attackers go on to college and maybe date-rape some girls at frat parties and think it's all in jolly good fun. So much for justice and social order...

^Doobie not looking for a fight.

You two should skip the foreplay and just go ahead and fuck. [/obviouscommentsueme]