Girl May Be Charged ForTweeting Boys Names Who Assaulted Her

[Charisma Veteran]

I just can't believe how willing people are to throw away the democratically implemented system we have :\

People's sense of moral justice tends to kick in when these situations arise. The justice system is not always so just, and personally, I'm glad enough folks have alarm bells ringing in their minds/hearts to feel that this was wrong. Shows we still have some compassion and human spirit, and aren't all robots/zombies kowtowing to the system.

[articuno1au]

Yeah, the bit that ****s me is everyone disregarding mine (and others) acknowledgement of that exact point and attacking us whilst doing so.

I must say, I'm a particular fan of the guy who decided to change the meaning of words and phrases without bothering to tell anyone. He's just great!

[argonite]

People's sense of moral justice tends to kick in when these situations arise. The justice system is not always so just, and personally, I'm glad enough folks have alarm bells ringing in their minds/hearts to feel that this was wrong. Shows we still have some compassion and human spirit, and aren't all robots/zombies kowtowing to the system.

I too, do appreciate that most people here are not condoning the actions of the criminals.

[Matthew_Thepc]

Apparently half the people in this forum support the criminal rather than the victim, because apparently the criminal doesn't have any wrongs. They just need to be "better understood" :rolleyes: . Same thing goes in the world.

sorry, I think you're responses are being posted on the wrong thread O.O nobody said anything about being better understood...

please include quote's from the thread when you refer to something that was apparently said earlier in the thread.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

pfft, legal.. smeagol....

naming and shaming should be allowed for nasty crimes.

[Anibal P]

Those scumbags should have been tried as adults, NEVER should rapists avoid being named over something as ridiculous as their age, it's still rape, but their records will be clear once they hit 18. Now some real justice can be had because everyone in the town knows who the rapist scum are and can't hide behind the "juvenile" tag anymore

[Matthew_Thepc]

Those scumbags should have been tried as adults, NEVER should rapists avoid being named over something as ridiculous as their age, it's still rape, but their records will be clear once they hit 18. Now some real justice can be had because everyone in the town knows who the rapist scum are and can't hide behind the "juvenile" tag anymore

so then she should have tried to bring this up with the judge and/or gotten laws changed so that they could be charged as adults. violating the judge's order did nothing to help her. There were much better ways she could have gone about this.

[Buttus]

it wasn't right what she did, but it might protect someone else from having the same thing happen...

[Anibal P]

so then she should have tried to bring this up with the judge and/or gotten laws changed so that they could be charged as adults. violating the judge's order did nothing to help her. There were much better ways she could have gone about this.

Doesn't matter, the little scums names are public now, all that matters. Most likely the stupid plea deal had that it be covered up and hidden as a juvenile charge

[Shadrack]

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.

Because if you are under the age of 18 you can pretty much get away with anything at least once. "you are under 18 you won't be doing any time" as the Offspring song goes.

[Charisma Veteran]

Because if you are under the age of 18 you can pretty much get away with anything at least once. "you are under 18 you won't be doing any time" as the Offspring song goes.

If that's the case, then she shouldn't do any time--she's also under 18...

[leesmithg]

The little twats need naming. Good on her.

Wrong.

The U.S.A. has a similar judicial system to Britain.

Innocent to proven guilty.

She could get time for contempt.

[Matthew_Thepc]

Doesn't matter, the little scums names are public now, all that matters. Most likely the stupid plea deal had that it be covered up and hidden as a juvenile charge

no, that's not all that matters. That's like me enslaving someone, then saying "he's my slave now, all that matters"

I honestly don't understand your point at all.

[scratch42069]

Yeah, the bit that ****s me is everyone disregarding mine (and others) acknowledgement of that exact point and attacking us whilst doing so.

I must say, I'm a particular fan of the guy who decided to change the meaning of words and phrases without bothering to tell anyone. He's just great!

You want to know when people started disregarding? When the comparison between the two was made. Primarily the "she's just as guilty for what she did" argument. Of course she's guilty in a court of law, she violated a gag order. No one is saying she isn't. It's the moral aspect people are looking at, not the legal aspect. If people didn't look at morality Ghandi's words would be hollow and some of the not so pretty things from the past like slavery would still be going on.

[articuno1au]

it wasn't right what she did, but it might protect someone else from having the same thing happen...

Yes, but the judge weighed that up in deciding whether they should be named or not..

If that's the case, then she shouldn't do any time--she's also under 18...

That's not quite what was said. I do agree that the charge ought drop off her rap sheet when she turns 18 though.

Wrong.

The U.S.A. has a similar judicial system to Britain.

Innocent to proven guilty.

She could get time for contempt.

Yet another problem with her action :\

You want to know when people started disregarding? When the comparison between the two was made. Primarily the "she's just as guilty for what she did" argument. Of course she's guilty in a court of law, she violated a gag order. No one is saying she isn't. It's the moral aspect people are looking at, not the legal aspect. If people didn't look at morality Ghandi's words would be hollow and some of the not so pretty things from the past like slavery would still be going on.

Go and actually read what I said. "It wasn't as harmful as what was done to her, not by a long shot, but it was equally WRONG.".

She broke the law, they broke the law, thus they are both WRONG. Again, it's an absolute. There are not shades of right and wrong.. Their actions were clearly much worse, and I've said this in the same sentence.

Feel free to actually READ the words. I also addressed the morals to laws thing :\

Seriously..

[Xoligy]

I will never understand why people will commit crimes and then the justice system will say "lets hide there names so they can continue there lives and be happy while the person who suffered continues to suffer". I say good on her for naming and shaming, if they didnt want to be known as a sexual abusers then they shouldn't of done it.

Btw ive not read anything in this thread other than the original story and will not, but i do not what she has done wrong times might be changing but hiding peoples names for crimes like this is wrong and people should know what they have done. "But this will ruin there lives" yeh so, they obviously were not going to amount to anything if this was there idea of fun.

[Hurricane Andrew]

She should make sure she asks for a Jury trial. No jury will convict her.

[articuno1au]

There is no trial.. He's only obligated to allow her to appear, he doesn't even have to listen to what she says so long as there are no natural justice issues.

The judge decides her guilt and imposes a penalty.

[argonite]

You want to know when people started disregarding? When the comparison between the two was made. Primarily the "she's just as guilty for what she did" argument. Of course she's guilty in a court of law, she violated a gag order. No one is saying she isn't. It's the moral aspect people are looking at, not the legal aspect. If people didn't look at morality Ghandi's words would be hollow and some of the not so pretty things from the past like slavery would still be going on.

In the same respect, nobody who is saying the girl should be punished for her actions is actually saying what SHOULD be done (morally)*, just that what WAS done (legally) was justifiable under our current system.

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread shares a similar belief and there's some misunderstanding.

* Since morals are subjective, there are probably some people who are arguing that punishing her is correct morally as well. I don't agree with them, but my opinion is subjective as well.

[scratch42069]

Yes, but the judge weighed that up in deciding whether they should be named or not..

That's not quite what was said. I do agree that the charge ought drop off her rap sheet when she turns 18 though.

Yet another problem with her action :\

Go and actually read what I said. "It wasn't as harmful as what was done to her, not by a long shot, but it was equally WRONG.".

She broke the law, they broke the law, thus they are both WRONG. Again, it's an absolute. There are not shades of right and wrong.. Their actions were clearly much worse, and I've said this in the same sentence.

Feel free to actually READ the words. I also addressed the morals to laws thing :\

Seriously..

Where did I say you personally said that? You asked why your points were disregarded and you also got an answer. That is the general overall feel in this thread isn't it not? Some feel she did the right thing and others do not?

[articuno1au]

Where did I say you personally said that? You asked why your points were disregarded and you also got an answer. That is the general overall feel in this thread isn't it not? Some feel she did the right thing and others do not?

"You want to know when people started disregarding? When the comparison between the two was made. Primarily the "she's just as guilty for what she did" argument."

In a reply to me, about a statement I made and on the tail of sentence directly responding to a question of mine. Even on an exceedingly literal reading of what you said, you still insinuated me by way of the group of people maintaining the point of view I share.

Not an unreasonable or unlikely reading of what you said.

If it wasn't your intent to refer to me, then fair enough. You did however directly refer to me.

[Fezmid Reviews]

Those scumbags should have been tried as adults, NEVER should rapists avoid being named over something as ridiculous as their age, it's still rape, but their records will be clear once they hit 18. Now some real justice can be had because everyone in the town knows who the rapist scum are and can't hide behind the "juvenile" tag anymore

Yeah, except for one simple fact -- it wasn't rape, it was sexual assault which are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Doing something as (relatively) harmless as kissing someone without permission is considered sexual assault and is hardly rape. I don't know why the OP put rape in the subject line, but that's not what the article says.

[bj55555]

Plea deals are between the prosecution and the defense. This girl is the victim of the crime. I don't see why she would need to abide by any part of that deal. She should be allowed to shout these ********' names from the rooftops.

[articuno1au]

The order wasn't made as part of the plea deal.

The order was made by the judge. That's why she needs to honour it.

[Vykranth]

The judge who will be sentencing those boys next month has the power to accept, modify or reject the terms of their plea agreement. So there is potential to harsher justice.

Besides, no one is asking this question: why did the district/state/federal attorney propose such plea bargain terms? In Kentucky, sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony. Has the prosecution not had enough evidence to charge them with rape in the 1st degree which is a Class B felony and carries harsher penalties?

The question regarding the federal attroney proposing a plea deal and the amount of proof available is also a good question.

I re-read the article and there is something that I did not pay much attention first but now bothers me.

Quoting the article,

"They got off very easy," Dietrich, who says she was unaware of the plea agreement before it was announced in court, said in her interview with the newspaper.

How come the victim was not aware that a peal deal was bargained between the lawyers and the prosecution?

Again, quoting from the article,

Dietrich was assaulted by the pair after passing out at a party. They later shared photos of the assault with friends.

...

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

Even if there is no mention to be DNA evidence coming from a rape kit (the kit used by doctors to get sexual fluids from victims after a rape), it still looks like there is enough evidence to qualify this as rape. I cannot help but wonder if the prosecution or attorney are trying to minimize the case because, as she went to a party, got drunk to the point to pass out, they think she was just a 'slutty teen' so they do not prosecute the case as harsh as the case should require.