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

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 7:29 PM GMT
    Interesting story...post your opinion, do you think she has the right to name her attackers and go against the court order? I lean towards yes.

    http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/blogs/lookout/savannah-dietrich-twitter-sexual-assault-louisville-174732753.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 9:14 PM GMT
    Im all for it!.. Her posting it that is..

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



    Sorry, you fuck up.. you get exposed. Maybe that might actually deter you from pulling that crap again!
  • Neurons

    Posts: 537

    Jul 23, 2012 9:16 PM GMT
    I'm on her side for this, even though she's technically in the wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 9:20 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidIm all for it!.. Her posting it that is..

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



    Sorry, you fuck up.. you get exposed. Maybe that might actually deter you from pulling that crap again!


    This! Public Shaming makes a great, non-violent deterrent.

    In the good old days, they did public floggings, pillory, hangings.

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 23, 2012 9:22 PM GMT
    The article doesn't offer much explanation, but I'm guessing that since the attackers are juveniles, they have privacy protections adult offenders wouldn't have. Normally this would be to prevent the media from tarnishing under age criminals. This is interesting case, though. Clearly, there is a flaw in the justice system when a victim can't speak out. This could be a landmark case, if both parties pursue it far enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 9:26 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidThe article doesn't offer much explanation, but I'm guessing that since the attackers are juveniles, they have privacy protections adult offenders wouldn't have. Normally this would be to prevent the media from tarnishing under age criminals. This is interesting case, though. Clearly, there is a flaw in the justice system when a victim can't speak out. This could be a landmark case, if both parties pursue it far enough.
    Maybe if we quit 'protecting' these little angels they wouldn't pull such heinous crap!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 9:26 PM GMT
    That seems like a weird court order that she also has to keep her mouth shut. Usually when juveniles records are sealed and kept confidential, it's the responsibility of the court and officials not to leak. The victim should be free to say whatever they want. I mean really - does the victim not posses any rights here? Yeah smart move, court - order a 17 year old girl to keep her blabber mouth shut about boys who assaulted her. GENIUS. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Albeit...my opinion is that she never should have been ordered to keep her mouth shut. Buuuut....she clearly knew what she was doing and the penalties for that. There might have been a better way to pursue. But then again, the most effective way isn't always the lawful one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 10:16 PM GMT
    The thing is that as of this moment, the plea bargain was submitted. The case still isn't resolved until the judge accepts the plea bargain. While they have submitted a plea of guilty, they are still not actually guilty yet.

    What the girl did was remove the chance that the judge could have revoked that bargain. Not that the judge WOULD, but she did break the rule and the chain.

    And actually, the proper way for her to have had that changed was to petition the court for an adjustment to the gag order. Not for her to Tweet it.

    Just because she was "less" wrong does not make her not wrong. She still broke the rule so she should be punished.

    In true civil disobedience fashion though, the appeal could also remove the gag order, so I do not believe the girl was amoral in doing it, just uncivil.
  • jhill2456

    Posts: 285

    Jul 23, 2012 10:18 PM GMT
    There was a gag order on this case issued by a judge. The fact of the matter is convictions and pleas can be overturned for things like this. I understand the young lady's frustrations, but that does not give her the right to violate the judge's order.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 24, 2012 12:28 AM GMT
    Wait a second....she's the victim and she wasn't part of the plea deal. She didn't yield her First Amendment rights in the deal. The court is out of order!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 1:27 AM GMT
    Update:

    [url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120723/NEWS01/307230081/Contempt-motion-withdrawn-sexual-assault-victim-Savannah-Dietrich-who-tweeted-attackers-names?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1[/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 4:56 AM GMT
    JP_Crankworthy said
    HottJoe saidThe article doesn't offer much explanation, but I'm guessing that since the attackers are juveniles, they have privacy protections adult offenders wouldn't have. Normally this would be to prevent the media from tarnishing under age criminals. This is interesting case, though. Clearly, there is a flaw in the justice system when a victim can't speak out. This could be a landmark case, if both parties pursue it far enough.

    I agree. When the state concluded a plea deal with the two rapists, it apparently included a gag order. But the girl was not included in this decision, even though she was made subject to the gag order.

    I take her side on this. They essentially bargained away her rights without her consent or representation.


    This and I'm totally behind her right to speak out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 2:21 PM GMT
    What bugs me most about this entire situation is the bandwagon of righteousness. Legality is not right or wrong. It is legal. There is no room for discussion for weather or not the boys deserved her releasing their names. The fact of the matter is that there is a gag order. She violated that gag order. She should be punished.

    I know that extenuating circumstances make what she did right, but it doesn't make it legal. Just as there are stupid laws, there are sometimes stupid court orders. But when those are violated, the police can still hold you accountable. Until such time as the law, and this case the court order, are repealed, then the punishment for a violation stands.

    I know the severity of their offense makes it hard to step back, but imagine if what they did was steal her bike. If the court order was for her to not say who stole her bike, would you still be so inflamed?

    Or what if the gag order was in regards to a fiscal matter, such as a patent war. Again, in such a case she would still be RIGHT in stating their names, but she would also be fined for violating that gag order.

    To take into account the outlaying circumstances at the indictment phase in a legal proceeding ignores a fundamental principle in our legal system. It is an independent crime. It may have arose from that situation and during the litigation it can and should be brought up, but to say "Oh, it is okay, they wronged you," is akin to saying I have the right to steal your bike because you killed my brother.

    In addition, the victim's rights to being part of the deal is only applicable to a civil case, not a criminal case. In a civil case the plantif, meaning Ms Dietrich, would have had sueing powers and thus had sole bargaining powers. But it is a criminal case in which the gag order was levied. The state purses the charge. The prosecutor has bargaining rights. They normally consult the victim. But not always. If one has a problem with that, then that is another matter that needs to be discussed with your representative.

    And I reiterate, pulled from the article dcblue was kind enough to post:
    Neither Dietrich nor her attorneys have publicly revealed details of the plea agreement. The teens are to be sentenced next month, and the judge has the power to accept, reject or modify the terms of the proposed agreement.

    That means that she was also violating a standard juvenile court procedure of maintaining confidentiality until the proceedings are closed. At such time it is established if the names are open or closed to the public. She basically did not want to wait a month to see if the judge would accept the punishment.

    Again, I am not debating if she was right. I am stating that her actions were illegal.

    PS: It was sexual assault, not rape. Those are different crimes of the same nature. It is still deplorable, but it is also not the same thing.
    And everyone seems to forget that she was drinking heavily, underage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 2:39 PM GMT
    GO FOR IT! Why protect such sleaze as this? I'm on her side! I do not feel sorry for the attackers in any way shape or form! When you're man enough to do the crime, man up, grow a set & do the time! Man, this is heinous! Life must be a big bowl of cherries, the boys enter a guilty plea on my BIRTHDAY! No one has the right to hurt you, no one asks to be raped; in all due saying, NO means NO! If the OP is not interested in having sex with you, go out & find some willing piece of ass!
  • Latenight30

    Posts: 1525

    Jul 24, 2012 2:46 PM GMT
    Haven't we learned what happens when things get swept under the rug. These kids need to be labeled as predators. Evil is evil. It can not be cured, it can not be fixed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 2:59 PM GMT
    dcblue saidUpdate:

    [url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120723/NEWS01/307230081/Contempt-motion-withdrawn-sexual-assault-victim-Savannah-Dietrich-who-tweeted-attackers-names?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1[/url]



    [url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120723/NEWS01/307230081/Contempt-motion-withdrawn-assault-victim-Savannah-Dietrich?odyssey=mod|mostview[/url]





    Contempt of court charges withdrawn.