Rape victim faces charges for naming her attackers. Something wrong here.

[gsdx]

A girl in Kentucky was faced with contempt charges because she went online and exposed the names of the teenage boys who sexually assaulted her. Do victims of sexual assault have the right to publicly name their attackers?

When Savannah Dietrich heard that the two boys who sexually assaulted her and then posted photos of the crime online had entered a plea bargain and would be facing little to no jail time, she was shocked and mad, so she went onto her Twitter account and exposed her attackers identities.

But because her assaulters were minors and because the state of Kentucky forbids the disclosure of juvenile identities, the boys made a motion to charge Savannah with contempt, which meant she would face penalties of $500 USD and up to 180 days in jail.

Though the boys eventually dropped the contempt charges, it's frightening to learn that they still had the legal authority to further victimize their victim.

Do victims of sexual assault have a right to publicly name their attackers? | Sympatico.ca News

The instant they posted pictures of their crime online, these boys removed any sort of privacy or anonymity they might have enjoyed under the law. Not only did they identify themselves, they identified their victim. Maybe not by using names (I don't know if they did), but at least visually, and anyone who knows them can identify them.

I agree with Savannah when she writes, "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, I don't understand justice."

I don't understand a justice system that would allow guilty criminals to press charges against their victims, and I don't understand a justice system that works to make it harder for future victims to feel comfortable coming forward.

If the boys could share a picture of her rape online and face little to no consequences, then surely Savannah has the right to share their names. Seeing how the boys shamelessly spread pictures of themselves committing a crime, who's to say they won't do it again.

 

[MissAnne]

Horrible. Criminals always seem to have more rights.

 

[BigDestiny]

Why the hell are criminals continued to be protected by the law just because they are underage? This makes no sense to me.

I was going to mention the whole innocent until proven guilty thing, but then I remembered that that would apply to adults as well. So you've got me. IMO either everyone's name should be published or no one's should be. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the law can explain it.

It's interesting that my first thought when I saw this thread was that it was in Pakistan or somewhere in the vicinity. I was shocked to see it was Kentucky.

 

[gsdx]

This liberal culture of protecting the criminal needs to stop.

I used to watch Law & Order all the time when A&E broadcasted quality programming instead of the sh... crap they broadcast now. It used to bug the hell out of me when there were rape cases. Even with serial rapists, their previous history wasn't allowed to be mentioned in court in case it influenced the jury, but the victim was fair game.

The criminals always seem to have more rights than the victims.

 

[looseliam]

I know there are laws prohibiting law enforcement disclosing the name of juvenile defendants and plaintiffs. Unless under a direct court-order, I see no prohibition from the victim naming his or her aggressors, especially after they've pleaded guilty to the crime.

It's a bit like a grand jury. Those directly partaking in the grand jury (judges, lawyers, jurors) are prohibited from discussing it. Witnesses, however, are under no such obligation.

I hope those little cunts get what's coming to them.

As for trying them as juveniles, I have a problem here: if they're 'adult' enough to rape someone, they're adult enough to stand trial as such.

 

[birddog7]

Horrible. Criminals always seem to have more rights.

A lot of this is due to lawyers making so much money from criminal defense. The criminal justice system in the U.S. is nothing but a money funneling system for the lawyers. It's all crooked, and amounts to nothing but how much one wants to spend to get off the hook after committing a crime.

 

[JayHawk]

All rape is about control not sex and these twats are still seeking to control the victim.

It is not reported BUT I would hope the prosecutor and the judge in the case ensured the fucking perps that their pleas and bargains would be thrown out if they persisted in the petty charges for letting the world know what creeps they are in life.

I think whether it be a plea or a guilty charge the names and pictures of sex crimes perpetrators should be broadcast near and wide to all via all viable means, social media, Cable, broadcast, newspapers... you fucking name it. Those crimes have the highest recidivism rates and the lowest of life's perpetrate them.

 

[Benvolio]

The prosecution accepted a guilty plea to avoid trial. We don't know what the boys said or how good the proof was. The fact that they agreed to a plea does not establish that the case was provable. The attorneys probably wanted to spare her the stress of trial. The plea agreement involved a relatively light sentence and an restraining order prohibiting disclosure. She violated it and deserved punishment.without the agreement she would have had the stress and notariety of trial. Juries are often reluctant to find guilt in hrape cases, in part because the often involve "he said she said "evidence with little supporting evidence. Then too juries are reluctant to ruin the boys lives when the actual injury to her may be minimal. Without the restraining order they may not have been willing to plead.guilty.

 

[gsdx]

Then too juries are reluctant to ruin the boys lives when the actual injury to her may be minimal.

The trauma of rape is minimal? That is something she will carry with her for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. Meanwhile, the boys have already laughed it off by posting it on the internet. And now, with the plea bargain, they got away with it, and they will fuck up another young lady's life knowing they can get away with it again.

'Minimal' indeed.

 

[Ninja108]

You can find their names online easily. I have no problem with their names being put out there. These punks violated her and humilated here,they shouldn't be able to hide who they are.
If nothing else,I would want my loved ones to know these two are a danger.

 

[BigDestiny]

Did you miss the part where the 2 turds shared pictures and vids with other people? Did you also miss the part where they pled guilty in court?

Oh yeah, may be these 2 very innocent boys are a victim of the liberal media, or something like that.

You just skimmed through my post until you found a word you didn't like, correct?

At no point in my post did I say they were innocent, I'm just curious as to the reason behind banning the publication of the names of minors. Apparently I came to the wrong place to wonder about it.

 

[BigDestiny]

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

The idea behind not releasing the juvies' names is to give them another chance with the assumption that they didn't know what they were doing.

In some cases, this makes perfect sense. I wouldn't want to be held responsible for, say, spray paint the school's wall when I was a kid 20 years ago.

The problem comes in when minors are protected for things that are obviously NOT stupid mistakes, like raping someone while video recording and taking pictures of the event and then bragging about it to people afterward.

When I was taking law back when, my law professor grilled into us that we should always always always look at both faces of the law, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is just that, the exact wording of the law. The spirit of the law is what the law is intended to do.

This is why Bill Clinton did not violate the letter of the law but he certainly violated the spirit of the law. Yes, technically speaking felatio was not listed in the list of things that are defined as sexual relation. But come on, does anyone seriously believe felatio is not sexual contact?

Unfortunately, and my professor mentioned this as well, too many people (judges, lawyers, cops, etc.) get too caught up in the letter of the law and forget the spirit of the law. Protecting convicted minors from public scrutiny is meant for stupid mistakes. It's one of those kids will be kids kinda thing. Raping a girl and then bragging about it is not a stupid mistake.

No problem. Thanks so much for the legal information. I agree with you that this isn't a stupid mistake that should be forgotten about once time is served. And I forgot to mention how relieved I am that the contempt charges against the victim were dropped. That was just nuts.

 

[Kulindahr]

Being underage should not shield anyone from certain crimes. What's worse is sex offenders are 4 times as likely to repeat their sex crimes.

You were doing fine till this. The fact is that of all crimes, sex offenders are the second least likely to repeat -- behind murder.

 

[Kulindahr]

A lot of this is due to lawyers making so much money from criminal defense. The criminal justice system in the U.S. is nothing but a money funneling system for the lawyers. It's all crooked, and amounts to nothing but how much one wants to spend to get off the hook after committing a crime.

Yes -- it's not about catching criminals, it's about manufacturing them, to keep the system running and the money flowing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Those crimes have the highest recidivism rates and the lowest of life's perpetrate them.

No, they don't. That's a lie Scalia wrote in one of his opinions, but the fact is that sex criminals are second least likely of all to reoffend. It's also being established over and over that the very laws which treat offenders as "scum" drive re-offense. Both those are from the Bureau of Justice. The US DoJ reports that of sex offenders who did prison time, they are as a population less likely to commit any crime in the future than the general prison population.

Those who both complete treatment and keep their registration current are actually safer to others than the typical college male (though having been to some fraternity parties, I'm not sure that says much).

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with the word "rape" is that it doesn't mean much any more.


Example: I know a guy who was drugged at a party where ID was being checked by off-duty police, who was convicted of rape. What happened? He passed out, and two underage girls (14) pulled his pants down and "rode" him. He knew nothing about it; he just woke up and wondered why his pants were down.

It didn't matter that the police had verified their ID. It didn't matter that he was unconscious: he was the adult, and therefore it was all his responsibility.


Example: I met a guy who at his 18th birthday party met a girl and had sex with her. All the attendees were supposed to be qt least 18, verified by both ID and parental statements. He got convicted of rape, in spite of a law saying that relations up to three years difference are not legally actionable -- because the DA argued that since she was not his GF, thus there was no relationship.

She had ID. She consented. Her parents knew the sort of party it was, and consented to her presence.


Example: a college guy at a party was making out with a chick. They ended up watching a movie together with her laying on top of him. For somehow, he ejaculated during the movie, and it soaked through his pants and got on her clothes. She was humiliated because of the stain, and said he tried to rape her. Because theoretically she could have been impregnated through their clothes, he ended up convicted.


"Rape" can be committed by people who are unconscious, who have consent from both partner and parents, who kept everything in their pants.

 

[looseliam]

^ I've a story, too:

My mother worked with this really nice guy who just happened to have finished serving 5 years for statutory rape. He and all his friends went out to a bar on his 21st birthday. He met a girl, took her home, did the deed - she was 16. Instead of the parents disciplining their daughter for being out after curfew, most likely lying where she was, under-aged drinking, having a fake ID, going to a bar, having sex they instead decided this guy was to blame, pressed charges and the rest, they say, is history.

So now this guy has to register along side people who fuck babies, and had to change careers because as a sex offender he couldn't work in direct contact with patients.

That's the only side I heard. Who knows. There may be more to it. I think he just had a shitty attorney. Were I a juror on a trial with the above circumstances, I couldn't never vote to convict.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I've a story, too:

My mother worked with this really nice guy who just happened to have finished serving 5 years for statutory rape. He and all his friends went out to a bar on his 21st birthday. He met a girl, took her home, did the deed - she was 16. Instead of the parents disciplining their daughter for being out after curfew, most likely lying where she was, under-aged drinking, having a fake ID, going to a bar, having sex they instead decided this guy was to blame, pressed charges and the rest, they say, is history.

So now this guy has to register along side people who fuck babies, and had to change careers because as a sex offender he couldn't work in direct contact with patients.

That's the only side I heard. Who knows. There may be more to it. I think he just had a shitty attorney. Were I a juror on a trial with the above circumstances, I couldn't never vote to convict.

Under some state law, some of those facts couldn't have been presented to a jury -- bizarre, but true.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994

"For a sex crime". Given that other parts of that site show that sex offenders are less likely to commit a new crime than the general population, the comparison here is on sex crimes: of all those released from prison, those who were there due to sex crimes are four times as likely to be arrested for a sex crime than the others -- or were, in 1994.

 

[Ninja108]

There are many people on sex offender lists who don't need to be there and never should have been convicted of a crime in the first place.
This isn't one of those cases. They had sex with a girl who was passed out and then passed the video of it around for all to see. THey deserve to be on whatever list there is.