135 replies to this topic

[Hum]

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.

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

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.

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

more

[thechronic]

The little twats need naming. Good on her.

[Charisma]

Well, that's just BS all around. I don't blame her one bit.

[+articuno1au]

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that they are kids and the court specifically ordered that their names be suppressed.

[thechronic]

Yes lets because they committed a crime that they knew was wrong and should face consequences.

[+Xenosion]

I understand her frustration, but from a legal point of view, what she did was illegal. I do hope the charges get thrown out though. I'm really curious why the attackers got off so easily.

[Charisma]

articuno1au, on 23 July 2012 - 15:11, said:

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that they are kids and the court specifically ordered that their names be suppressed.

Yes, she's a kid too and these two guys ganged up on her and traumatised her, probably for life. She has a point--if they put her in jail for that and don't end up doing anything to the attackers, that is severely messed up.

[billyea]

thechronic, on 23 July 2012 - 15:12, said:

Yes lets because they committed a crime that they knew was wrong and should face consequences.

The consequences are determined by court. In our society, you listen to the court.

[+articuno1au]

And so they shall.

The judge will throw their asses in gaol for however long the LAW deems necessary.

That is, as a society, what we view to be the acceptable and right way to do things. She has ignored the directions of a judge.

What's more she has done so knowing full well that what SHE was doing was wrong as well.

I'm sure she won't get hit to hard for the contempt of court charge. She was obviously under emotional stress at the time, but what she did was just as wrong as what those kids did.

[Cheatyface]

articuno1au, on 23 July 2012 - 15:11, said:

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that they are kids and the court specifically ordered that their names be suppressed.

They're lucky her father didn't kill them instead. I would have.

[DocM]

I understand what she did, but she was subject to a court order which she violated so....

Also, most states have laws that keep the names of juvenile offenders secret unless they are charged as an adult. It's likely the judges order was to enforce such a policy.

[Mathachew]

Maybe they can work out a plea deal? The severity of the crimes are night and day, but if those scumbags could get a plea deal for rape, surely she could for doing a moral service in identifying her attackers?

[+articuno1au]

Morally right isn't defensible :\

If you shot Hitler in the head, it's still murder despite the fact the guy was an ENORMOUS scumbag (I'd use more descriptive language, but it turns it in to stars )


I'm really torn on this one. While I feel the judge should go lightly on her because she was obviously traumatised by the event, I also think that she disobeyed a judge and as a society we can't allow that for any reason (beyond what the judge feels is reasonable). If she gets hit with 180 days in gaol, I'll feel sorry for her, but I won't think that it's the wrong answer..

[vanx]

If the court specifically ruled to keep their names confidential, she had no right to disclose them no matter how much morally acceptable she thinks she is. She is not above the law. Hopefully, she will get sufficiently long jail sentence to knock some sense into her.

[+Spirit Dave]

articuno1au, on 23 July 2012 - 15:11, said:

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that they are kids and the court specifically ordered that their names be suppressed.

Your sarcasm sickens me. EVERYONE should ignore those facts and name and shame the freaks of nature. Evil little a**holes. Sorry but in this instance, the law vs the people's thoughts should be in favour of the agreement of almost everyone... ie: drop the case and give those kids the beating they deserve. Btw, 17 year old's are not kids. They're fully able to be responsible for these abhorrent acts of sick behaviour.