17-year-old sexual assault victim could face charges for tweeting names of attackers

[Linkabel]

So I've been following this story since I saw on the Associated Press but since I can't find the link I'll put the Yahoo one:

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.

http://news.yahoo.co...-174732753.html

This story has so many issues from First Amendment issues, rape victims rights, rights of criminals, and how the system works.

I think she does have the right to talk about the identities of the guys since they are obviously involved in the assault that she suffered through.

Though there is the issue of following court orders and there being consequences. Still she does say that the prosecutors made a deal without her knowing which is kind of weird since they do talk with the families with what is going to be the outcome before actually coming to a deal.

And there is the fact that some juvenile records are open to the public and names of the offenders are not confidential (in some states).

Also if the judge does decide to hold her in contempt I suspect the appeals could take this court to the Supreme Court but I'm not a legal expert so I don't know about this.

What's your take on this? What do you think might happen to her?

[Sami]

While I don't have any sympathy towards the rapists, and I'd be incredibly frustrated with the plea deal as well... she did break the law by exposing their names.

It sucks and they totally deserve it, but the law's the law.

[Johnny Boy]

While it is the law, I don't give two shits for those disgusting rapists. If somebody ends up tracking them down, beats them up, or worse they deserve it.

[Solkia]

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.

Um, I'm sorry, what? 180 days? That's half a year, can she really be held that long for being in contempt of court, especially when the sentence of the 2 boys hasn't even been given?

Even if she can, that's some serious bullshit.

[Linkabel]

Um, I'm sorry, what? 180 days? That's half a year, can she really be held that long for being in contempt of court, especially when the sentence of the 2 boys hasn't even been given?

Even if she can, that's some serious bullshit.

That's what I think too, though I have the feeling the judge will just give her the fine and no jail sentence. I wonder if the hearing is going to be open court or it's going be closed.

[Shoot em up Capbusta]

Even though she did break the with her tweets I still find it fucked up that they are so quick to throw her in jail and not the little fuckers who sexually assaulted her.

[Linkabel]

Even though she did break the with her tweets I still find it fucked up that they are so quick to throw her in jail and not the little fuckers who sexually assaulted her.

I was surprised about this too, though a friend that is studying this said that contempt hearings are actually faster than trials. Though saying that even him said that this one seemed a little bit too fast.

I have to give it to the girl though in that she was brave in what she did even if it meant going to jail.

[Yoko/葉子]

I don't care if the jerks get incinerated, decapitated, disemboweled, shot, impaled etc, why they don't get punishment is beyond me.

[Mangoaxe5]

why they don't get punishment is beyond me.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's a problem on both sides.

When it comes to these cases the courts would want to keep the identies of the prosecutor and the defendent private probably so that the media doesn't go on a fritz about the case and potentially demonize either one before the verdict is out, and it's overwhelmingly the one accused of rape who could get their reputation ruined before they determine whether they're guilty or not and it's even worse if they were falsely accused of rape.

Now I'm definitely not saying she falsely accused anyone of rape, but that's a very big reason why those names are kept private so that the news doesn't get its hands on it and turn it upside-down, so she damn well had no business tweeting those names in the first place since it violated that protection. However, that said it's equally ridiculous for said rapists to get away with the act due to a contempt of court especially if they were found guilty of the crime. That's just stupid in its own obvious way unless someone with a better understanding of law can fill me in as to how this works. I honestly don't see any justification unless they were to have been found innocent.

Also, this is a strange mention of the courts punishing someone for violating the defendant's anonymity. Back when I frequented the MRA sites, it was said that the victim's identity was kept safe while the accused had their names revealed before they were given a verdict and had the reputation damaged as a result.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Diz]

Why they focus on the revealing of names instead of rape is rather silly. If need be, punish her after sentencing and throwing the rapists to jail. Law is law, but I find it pathetic how the rapists' identity is protected, victimized and prioritized more than the victim herself. That is, if the rapists' identities are correct, though she gave the impression that she might have directly known them.

... Next time I should read the article before posting though. x3

[blackherox]

Cause the Justice system is fucked up.

I was always under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty.

[Mangoaxe5]

I was always under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty.

True but sometimes there are cases where people who are clearly guilty get off on all charges like OJ.

Also it seems like the justice system is more interested in handing out plea deals then punishing criminals nowadays.

[Linkabel]

It's a problem on both sides.

When it comes to these cases the courts would want to keep the identies of the prosecutor and the defendent private probably so that the media doesn't go on a fritz about the case and potentially demonize either one before the verdict is out, and it's overwhelmingly the one accused of rape who could get their reputation ruined before they determine whether they're guilty or not and it's even worse if they were falsely accused of rape.

Now I'm definitely not saying she falsely accused anyone of rape, but that's a very big reason why those names are kept private so that the news doesn't get its hands on it and turn it upside-down, so she damn well had no business tweeting those names in the first place since it violated that protection. However, that said it's equally ridiculous for said rapists to get away with the act due to a contempt of court especially if they were found guilty of the crime. That's just stupid in its own obvious way unless someone with a better understanding of law can fill me in as to how this works. I honestly don't see any justification unless they were to have been found innocent.

Also, this is a strange mention of the courts punishing someone for violating the defendant's anonymity. Back when I frequented the MRA sites, it was said that the victim's identity was kept safe while the accused had their names revealed before they were given a verdict and had the reputation damaged as a result.

Well the identities of the victim and the defendant are most of the time public (the reason why you most likely don't see the victim's name in the news is because of ethics and rules the media has but it's not because of the law). Now there are cases when the courts do protect the identities of the victims, for example the Kobe Bryant case when the girl that was accusing him of rape. Her name only came out because of a clerk mistake and because blogs where publishing her name on the internet (the media did not reveal her name at first but then they ran with it since pretty much the whole world already knew her name).

Now juvenile defendants identities are usually public too except in some cases. In this case the identities of the defendants are being kept private because of the plea agreement which means they will most likely plea guilty to the crime.

Though the problem is if the court can tell this girl if she could reveal the identities of the guys that did this to her. Remember if they reached a plea agreement that means they will get punished because of what they did and have accepted that they did it.

I kind of see the point she is making though. Remember she will carry this event all her life, and the identities of the defendants are being kept private so they won't carry the stigma for the rest of their adult lives. Though maybe this was the only way the prosecutors could get them, and it doesn't help that they are not revealing what the agreement was.

[Tornado]

I'm honestly not seeing what the problem is at all. If the agreement of their plea deal was that their names were not revealed until sentencing, and she pulls shit like this, you know what could (and in all likelihood would) happen now? They're going to walk for it.

Take this sentence:

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

And apply it to any sexual assault case where the facts are not absolute and the chance exists where those being charged are not guilty. Think of the character assassination that tweeting "Person X sexually assaulted me and the courts don't want you to hear about it" would do. Think of how much it would absolutely destroy any media impartiality when it comes to covering the trial.

That is why the law is the way it is, and that is why I can't help but roll my eyes at that little snippet.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[Linkabel]

I'm honestly not seeing what the problem is at all. If the agreement of their plea deal was that their names were not revealed until sentencing, and she pulls shit like this, you know what could (and in all likelihood would) happen now? They're going to walk for it.

Take this sentence:

And apply it to any sexual assault case where the facts are not absolute and the chance exists where those being charged are not guilty. Think of the character assassination that tweeting "Person X sexually assaulted me and the courts don't want you to hear about it" would do. Think of how much it would absolutely destroy any media impartiality when it comes to covering the trial.

That is why the law is the way it is, and that is why I can't help but roll my eyes at that little snippet.

They are not going to walk away from this, they are going in front of a judge to get sentenced next month regardless if this happened. What the defendants are asking is that she should get punished too for violating the court order.

This is the issue:

Juvenile court is closed in Kentucky to protect the confidentiality of defendants, but Dietrich has consented to the media’s presence at her contempt hearing, which is allowed under state law.

The 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 and a right to a public hearing on the contempt charge.

The boys’ attorneys, however, have asked the court to continue the order barring Dietrich from speaking to the media about the assault case or allowing the newspaper or anyone else to witness the contempt hearing.

Like the second article says many law experts agree that maybe the court restricting is too over-reaching but that most likely she will get punished for tweeting the name of the defendants. Though the issue at hand now is if her right to tell the public what happened to her on her contempt hearing on July 30th is more important than the privacy of the guys that sexually assaulted her and spread pictures of what happened.

[Tornado]

They are not going to walk away from this, they are going in front of a judge to get sentenced next month regardless if this happened.

Because the victim of a crime violating a gag order isn't grounds for easy appeal from the defendants?

What the defendants are asking is that she should get punished too for violating the court order.

Which she should, because:

This is the issue:

The issue is that she was mad that the probable punishment that they are going to get wasn't what she thought they would deserve (which, as harsh as this will sound, her opinion on the matter is irrelevant) so she broke the law and intentionally gave away their names. And so far she's getting off lightly for it, because if public sentiment wasn't wrapped around her finger the defense attorney's plea for contempt charges wouldn't have been gotten rid of.

Like the second article says many law experts agree that maybe the court restricting is too over-reaching but that most likely she will get punished for tweeting the name of the defendants.

I already explained and gave an example of why those laws are in place. Simply saying that people disagree with me doesn't mean anything.

Though the issue at hand now is if her right to tell the public what happened to her on her contempt hearing on July 30th is more important than the privacy of the guys that sexually assaulted her and spread pictures of what happened.

No. The issue right now is that she thinks her rights to tell the public what happened to her outweigh the rights of the accused just because she doesn't like the punishment they are getting, and because she refused to follow a court order she might get penalized for it. If you want to have a gag order removed so you can talk about the case to the press, you file a motion with the court and/or appeal to a higher court and have it rescinded. It isn't as if you have no options to let your story known.

You do not knowingly go against the order by Tweeting details of the case and then go straight to the press complaining because the court is coming after you for doing it, and that is what she did do.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[Pawn]

Another issue with exposure is how the public will react to the families of the defendants. Although I can't sympathise with the accused, I do with the relatives.

[Linkabel]

The issue is that she was mad that the probable punishment that they are going to get wasn't what she thought they would deserve (which, as harsh as this will sound, her opinion on the matter is irrelevant) so she broke the law and intentionally gave away their names. And so far she's getting off lightly for it, because if public sentiment wasn't wrapped around her finger the defense attorney's plea for contempt charges wouldn't have been gotten rid of.

I still think you are stuck on that she tweeted the names of the defendants. She knew she was going to get punished and while she did have ways to appeal the decision she chose not to. Now the coin is on the other side in that she is the defendant and they are the victims. Now it's her right to have a public trial against the guys right to keep their identities secret (which both are legal under their state law). Now the dilemma is which right is more important.

I agree with you that these laws are in place to protect juvenile defendants (cause adult cases are open to the public) the right to have a chance of a fair trial and avoid character assassination. Though she tweeted their names after they accepted the plea agreement which means they already accepted they are guilty. The only thing they want to avoid now is for people not to know they sexually assaulted this girl.

And remember a plea agreement is between the defendants and the state, not the defendants and the victim. The victim broke the plea bargain not the state.

Plea agreements are hard to appeal and usually only work if the defense lawyer mislead the guilty party into thinking this was the only way or something similar. When you take a plea agreement you have to tell the prosecutor what you did and then to the judge in the sentence hearing. So if you already spilled the beans about what you did and you understood the plea agreement you don't have much grounds to appeal.

Remember all the defendants want now is not to get out of the punishment but to keep the trial of the girl closed to the public.

[KittyNakajima]

It seems the charges have been dropped against her.

http://news.yahoo.co...cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3

She dodged a very scary bullet right there. I feel bad for her. She was violated AND they took photos of the act. A plea deal because they're minors doesn't negate that at all. I take it that they must have gotten off with a slap on the wrist if she was that heated to put them out to dry like that on Twitter.

On the other hand, given the nature of social media, she was essentially setting them up to be victimized. Like, those who shall not be named and Anonymous level. I know it's not right, but I say fuck it. If those guys were able to violate her personal space to the degree they did, I say they deserve whatever they get online for it.

Edited July 24, 2012 by KittyNakajima

[Johnny Boy]

Well it's good she won't be thrown in the slammer. Now I can only hope the two little bastards that raped her will get what's coming to them and get butt fucked in prison.

[Linkabel]

It seems the charges have been dropped against her.

http://news.yahoo.co...cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3

She dodged a very scary bullet right there. I feel bad for her. She was violated AND they took photos of the act. A plea deal because they're minors doesn't negate that at all. I take it that they must have gotten off with a slap on the wrist if she was that heated to put them out to dry like that on Twitter.

On the other hand, given the nature of social media, she was essentially setting them up to be victimized. Like, those who shall not be named and Anonymous level. I know it's not right, but I say fuck it. If those guys were able to violate her personal space to the degree they did, I say they deserve whatever they get online for it.

I was expecting her to get a less harsh punishment but this is better! It's a good thing that they dropped the charges against her. Like the defense lawyer of the boys said since the names of them are already public there was really no point in the contempt charges (I also like how he said it wasn't because of public opinion...yeah right).

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicizing their names may create problems for them in the future.

"There's always that possibility and in any type of scenario like this you run that risk," he said. "Now whether both these boys can overcome those hurdles, it's too early to determine that."

Maybe they should have thought of that before they sexually assaulted her it doesn't matter if they are not adults.

Edited July 24, 2012 by TheBlueWind

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well it's good she won't be thrown in the slammer. Now I can only hope the two little bastards that raped her will get what's coming to them and get butt fucked in prison.

So...defeat rape with more rape?