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

[Forster]

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.

My main worry (not that I'm all that worried) is that are all the "facts" in the case known and also out there?

 

[mlp]

My main worry (not that I'm all that worried) is that are all the "facts" in the case known and also out there?

What facts are you concerned about?

If this girl misrepresented what was done to her when she went public with their names, I expect that the guys' lawyers would be filing a suit for defamation and/or slander instead of just demanding that the court cite her for contempt.

 

[Calliegirl]

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.

I agree with this, with one minor change.

 

[Forster]

What facts are you concerned about?

If this girl misrepresented what was done to her when she went public with their names, I expect that the guys' lawyers would be filing a suit for defamation and/or slander instead of just demanding that the court cite her for contempt.

None necessarily in this case, I'm just thinking more generally and trying to think up scenarios where a "right to publicly call out offenders", accuse them of wrongdoings (true or not true) in an act to try and extract public retribution outside of the legal/court system. Reeks too much of vigilantism for my liking.

Again, not that I would lose too much sleep if rapists/murderers etc faced vigilante justice, I'm just more concerned about potential innocents facing vigilante justice.

 

[Freesia]

Sending around photos of a rape/sexual attack, reeks a bit too much of vigilante behaviour for my liking.

 

[mlp]

Our system with respect to juveniles is very arbitrary. On the one hand, a preteen may well be tried for murder as an adult, while someone else who is barely under the legal age to qualify as a juvenile can rape or kill someone and not only serve a minimal sentence but have a clean record as an adult.

 

[Forster]

Sending around photos of a rape/sexual attack, reeks a bit too much of vigilante behaviour for my liking.

Vigilante, no, criminal and abhorrent yes. You do know what the term vigilante means, no?

 

[mlp]

None necessarily in this case, I'm just thinking more generally and trying to think up scenarios where a "right to publicly call out offenders", accuse them of wrongdoings (true or not true) in an act to try and extract public retribution outside of the legal/court system. Reeks too much of vigilantism for my liking.

Again, not that I would lose too much sleep if rapists/murderers etc faced vigilante justice, I'm just more concerned about potential innocents facing vigilante justice.

Well, these guys had already pled out, so legally they are not "innocent." Again, they are being afforded special protection because they qualify as juveniles, protection which no one else is afforded, and which they did not extend to their victim and her identity.

 

[Forster]

Our system with respect to juveniles is very arbitrary. On the one hand, a preteen may well be tried for murder as an adult, while someone else who is barely under the legal age to qualify as a juvenile can rape or kill someone and not only serve a minimal sentence but have a clean record as an adult.

It is messy and many times unjust, does this warrant taking the law into one's own hands?

 

[Freesia]

When a group of people try and destroy someone via some means? That can happen physically or psychologically. And I think that this can be easily called "vigilante".

 

[Forster]

Well, these guys had already pled out, so legally they are not "innocent." Again, they are being afforded special protection because they qualify as juveniles, protection which no one else is afforded, and which they did not extend to their victim and her identity.

So... that makes what she did okay? It's understandable, no doubt, but it's a perfectly okay thing to do?

 

[mlp]

It is messy and many times unjust, does this warrant taking the law into one's own hands?

See my post #40 above for my opinion.

ETA: Absent whatever gag order the judge imposed, I don't think that what she did was illegal. The laws concerning not releasing the names of juvenile offenders generally apply only to public officials and officers of the court (the lawyers). To some extent, they may also apply to news media, but in some areas I think not even that - media don't publish the names because of their own policies.

ETA: And if she were my kid, I'd be proud of her.

 

[Forster]

When a group of people try and destroy someone via some means? That can happen physically or psychologically. And I think that this can be easily called "vigilante".

No, vigilantism is taking the law into ones own hands, unless there is a component to trying to extract justice trying to destroy someone on it's own merits doesn't IMO qualify.

 

[Freesia]

They may not have been taking the "law" into their own hands, but they were punishing her for violating an unwritten law in their eyes: being a woman who had drunk too much alcohol and was vulnerable.

They considered that because she was in this position that they had the right to decide she wasnt worthy of all the laws and rights that would protect her. So they used technology and other means to try and destroy her after the attack, almost to taunt her that they were above the law because they were rich boys with numerals after their names and their daddies could afford the best lawyers in town so they never had to be accountable for anything they did.

So being in positions of power that they were and being able to afford legal protection that their victim could not, and also being protected by a centuries-old pro-white-male legal framework, they tried to destroy her, she spoke out about it, and she is accused of "vigilante behaviour". Well maybe she didnt feel like waiting 30 years for the laws to change.

 

[Forster]

They may not have been taking the "law" into their own hands, but they were punishing her for violating an unwritten law in their eyes: being a woman who had drunk too much alcohol and was vulnerable.

They considered that because she was in this position that they had the right to decide she wasnt worthy of all the laws and rights that would protect her. So they used technology and other means to try and destroy her after the attack, almost to taunt her that they were above the law because they were rich boys with numerals after their names and their daddies could afford the best lawyers in town so they never had to be accountable for anything they did.

So being in positions of power that they were and being able to afford legal protection that their victim could not, and also being protected by a centuries-old pro-white-male legal framework, they tried to destroy her, she spoke out about it, and she is accused of "vigilante behaviour". Well maybe she didnt feel like waiting 30 years for the laws to change.

I didn't realize they posted pics in response to her posting pics to get back at her, my bad.

 

[mlp]

The guys' attorneys have withdrawn their motion that she be held in contempt: http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...hdrawn?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

 

[jeneticallymodified]

she knew the rules or boundaries of the legal agreement, she did what she wanted to do, or what she felt was the right thing to do, regardless of that knowledge, so now let her do the time and try and move on with her life. in her place i might well do the same thing.

she did have other options though- she could have legally fought to get the order overturned... for example.

 

[mlp]

she knew the rules or boundaries of the legal agreement, she did what she wanted to do, or what she felt was the right thing to do, regardless of that knowledge, so now let her do the time and try and move on with her life. in her place i might well do the same thing.

she did have other options though- she could have legally fought to get the order overturned... for example.

Her public defender is in fact trying to get the gag order vacated or modified.

Just to clarify - she was not party to the agreement.

 

[Pickle Juice]

So... that makes what she did okay? It's understandable, no doubt, but it's a perfectly okay thing to do?

Yes. As was already noted, we do have sex offender registries, so it's not like the notion of making the identities of sexual offenders public never existed before she did this. She may have been in contempt of court, but she wasn't wrong to do it. And it's not like she's preying on innocent young boys. If you don't want the world to know you are a rapist, one of the easy ways to avoid this is to not assault drunk, unconscious women.

 

[das_nut]

The guys' attorneys have withdrawn their motion that she be held in contempt: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120723/NEWS01/307230081/Contempt-motion-for-sexual-assault-victim-Savannah-Dietrich-who-tweeted-attackers-names-withdrawn?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

Well, at least she won't have to deal with any possible penalties, and considering what she's been through, it's a blessing for her, but I don't like the idea of how actions in this case seem to be affected by all the media attention. It isn't justice when the legal system is swayed by whoever gets a sympathetic newspaper story, even if (as in this case) we feel bad for what this poor girl has been through.

I'd rather have a legal system where everyone is treated equally, regardless of what the media says. The media has gotten the story wrong before, and the media will get the story wrong again. Fame or infamy shouldn't affect how the legal system operates.