Judge wants to throw sexual assault victim in jail for publicly naming her attackers

[Pickle Juice]

Why not? They pled guilty. And I doubt their future education will be compromised anyway. I'm sure there are plenty of universities like Penn State who will be glad to give these rapists all the educational opportunities that traditionally accrue to the privileged members of their socio-economic class.

Poor little baby rapists will be juuust fine.

 

[das_nut]

Not sure how I feel about this either. Should people be able to rape others and send out pictures of the rape everywhere or not? Poor rapists being outed

Do you know that us hippie liberal ACLU-types really don't get our kicks from protecting sexual abusers and other scum? It might appear that we are sympathetic to them, but really, its about protecting the average Joe Schmoe who may be accused of a crime. It's the slippery slope argument - if it's okay to violate a court order and discuss a court case when the defendant is scum, it's going to be much easier to push for violating a court order when the defendant is just an average person who may be innocent or where the crime is trivial.

 

[Ansciess]

I think an exception ought to be made about naming convicted sexual assaulters. I think it's in the public (women's) interest to know if someone has a history of committing these crimes.

 

[das_nut]

But is she in trouble for naming the sexual assaulters? Or is she in trouble because she discussed the plea deal that was accepted? Most of the articles that turns up about this makes it sound like the former, but it could be the latter.

False information is often a problem with discussing cases in the media. After all, look at this thread's title - "Judge wants to throw sexual assault victim in jail...". Actually, according to the link story, it's the attackers' lawyers who asked for a contempt hearing, not the judge.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I think an exception ought to be made about naming convicted sexual assaulters. I think it's in the public (women's) interest to know if someone has a history of committing these crimes.

Well there are sex offender registries, but I think they vary from state to state. In this case there is an issue because the rapists are minors, and a deal was struck in order to get them to plead guilty. Maybe what she did isn't even against the laws of her state, and wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the plea bargain.

 

[Freesia]

Do you know that us hippie liberal ACLU-types really don't get our kicks from protecting sexual abusers and other scum? It might appear that we are sympathetic to them, but really, its about protecting the average Joe Schmoe who may be accused of a crime. It's the slippery slope argument - if it's okay to violate a court order and discuss a court case when the defendant is scum, it's going to be much easier to push for violating a court order when the defendant is just an average person who may be innocent or where the crime is trivial.

It can be debated whether this young woman was in contempt of the court or not. But the question can be asked: were the men in contempt of the crime and the justice system itself when they showed the photos around? Why is it ok for them to admit to their crime and not her? In my opinion they outed themselves, the woman just put it on a slightly bigger platform.

 

[das_nut]

Where are you getting "rapist"? They were convicted of sexual assault, not rape. While sexual assault is a disturbing, serious crime, it is not the same as rape.

 

[Pickle Juice]

It can be debated whether this young woman was in contempt of the court or not. But the question can be asked: were the men in contempt of the crime and the justice system itself when they showed the photos around? Why is it ok for them to admit to their crime and not her? In my opinion they outed themselves, the woman just put it on a slightly bigger platform.

It's the good ol' boy network trying to protect the bright futures of these fine upstanding young men who only gave her what she was asking for anyway. She might not otherwise have been bound to keep from naming them in public if it weren't for the plea bargain. She is clearly in contempt of court. The question is whether she actually ought to be punished with a fine or being thrown in jail.

If I were her I'd go to jail, and then maybe they'd make my story into a blockbuster movie.

 

[Freesia]

But the men were in contempt of the justice system when they thought their crime was such a joke that they spread pictures of it around. If I was the young woman I would counter sue that they were the ones originally in contempt.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Where are you getting "rapist"? They were convicted of sexual assault, not rape. While sexual assault is a disturbing, serious crime, it is not the same as rape.

Oh, it was only sexual assault??? That makes it all ok then.

You do know that plea bargains usually work because they reduce the charge? They have no bearing on what those rapists actually did to that woman.

 

[Freesia]

Where are you getting "rapist"? They were convicted of sexual assault, not rape. While sexual assault is a disturbing, serious crime, it is not the same as rape.

So if you try and have sex with someone who is unconscious and unresponsive, it is not rape?

The mind boggles.

 

[das_nut]

So if you try and have sex with someone who is unconscious and unresponsive, it is not rape?

Where was it reported that they raped her while she was passed out?

But the men were in contempt of the justice system when they thought their crime was such a joke that they spread pictures of it around.

Was the gag order in place when they passed the photos around?

Oh, it was only sexual assault??? That makes it all ok then.

Which part of "sexual assault is a disturbing, serious crime" don't you understand?

Really, I don't like defending these two scumbags. It's like being against the government torturing a terrorist mass-murderer. Who cares, right? Except that when this becomes the norm for other convicted individuals, some of who won't be scumbags. Or when it affects innocent people - like this judge, who is being accused of wanting to throw a victim of sexual assault in jail, when the actual news story says no such thing.

 

[Freesia]

“I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it,” she said. “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.”

The boys have not yet been sentenced.

I see her as a very brave young woman who is taking a stand. I hope that people will see that it is easier for a rape victim to be jailed than a rapist, and they will start to think that something is very wrong with that.

 

[Ansciess]

Where are you getting "rapist"? They were convicted of sexual assault, not rape. While sexual assault is a disturbing, serious crime, it is not the same as rape.

What constitutes sexual assault v. rape? If they stick a bottle in her, is that rape? I don't know if sodomy is technically considered "rape" either, but most people would consider it so.

The victim calls them rapists in the article.

 

[das_nut]

What constitutes sexual assault v. rape? If they stick a bottle in her, is that rape? I don't know if sodomy is technically considered "rape" either, but most people would consider it so.

Checking the law, if they lifted up her shirt and touched her breast, that would be first degree sexual abuse, not rape. Taking photos of an act of sexual abuse of a minor and passing them around would most likely be a violation of child porn laws. Which makes me wonder if that's the charge that was dropped in return for the plea deal, since I cannot see how they could be guilty of sexual abuse and not child porn.

Penetration of someone with a foreign object would probably be a state-by-state case to determine if it legally qualified as rape. Depending on how state laws were written, the gender of the attacker or victim may also determine if it was rape or not. IMO, I'd call it rape, and would call for the laws to be changed in every state to reflect this.

ETA: Speaking of state laws to be changed, it appears that Kentucky is one of those states.

 

[das_nut]

And I don't really feel good about defending these attackers. I don't think anyone here agrees with the plea bargain deal especially considering what few details we know about the crime.

But she's publicly complaining about an ongoing sealed court case. These individuals have yet to be sentenced, and now she has caused media pressure to bear on this case, potentially affecting the outcome of that sentencing. She has taken the law into her own hands. To say that is right for her to violate the court order just because we empathize with her is a slippery slope. In addition, I would feel that it would be wrong for participants in other sealed juvenile court cases to take actions that would potentially influence the outcome. If I said it was correct for her to do so here, then I would be a hypocrite, and I'd rather not embrace hypocrisy in our legal system.

This is a very unpopular position here, and I realize that. But I don't think that people we empathize with should face one set of rules, while everyone else should face a different set of rules. That's not justice. That's a mob.

 

[K-II]

Not really clear on what she was prevented from saying or why. Also... *ahem*

I am 'Enery-the-8th, I am; 'Enery-the-8th I am, I am!

 

[led.boots]

I can understand why she feels violated,

Me too.

 

[Forster]

And I don't really feel good about defending these attackers. I don't think anyone here agrees with the plea bargain deal especially considering what few details we know about the crime.

But she's publicly complaining about an ongoing sealed court case. These individuals have yet to be sentenced, and now she has caused media pressure to bear on this case, potentially affecting the outcome of that sentencing. She has taken the law into her own hands. To say that is right for her to violate the court order just because we empathize with her is a slippery slope. In addition, I would feel that it would be wrong for participants in other sealed juvenile court cases to take actions that would potentially influence the outcome. If I said it was correct for her to do so here, then I would be a hypocrite, and I'd rather not embrace hypocrisy in our legal system.

This is a very unpopular position here, and I realize that. But I don't think that people we empathize with should face one set of rules, while everyone else should face a different set of rules. That's not justice. That's a mob.

I agree with you. Don't like being in the position of defending these types of people but I think vigilantism can be far worse. Does anyone doubt that these boy's lives are now in danger? Whether they should be or not is IMO another discussion, it's also a decision for the courts/justice system to determine the proper punishment. If the punishment is too lenient work on the system to get it changed.

 

[mlp]

I agree with you. Don't like being in the position of defending these types of people but I think vigilantism can be far worse. Does anyone doubt that these boy's lives are now in danger? Whether they should be or not is IMO another discussion, it's also a decision for the courts/justice system to determine the proper punishment. If the punishment is too lenient work on the system to get it changed.

Their lives are not any more in danger than the life of any adult sexual offender, and those names are not only published, but become part of a permanent, easily accessible online registry.

These guys were operating under the advantage of being legally classified as "juveniles" at the time they sexually assaulted the girl. That's the only thing that made their identities legally protectable, an advantage that they did not see fit to extend to their victim, when they not only sexually assaulted her, but publicized their assault.

The law being what it is, IMO the appropriate thing to do is for the judge to find her in contempt but to also fine her $1, or whatever the minimum fine is that the judge has discretion to impose.

And then I would like to see the law protecting the identity of juvenile offenders to be modified so that, in cases of crimes against a person, a juvenile offender is deemed to waive his right to anonymity if he publicizes his crime.