Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims

GoldFour4

How strange is this ? The two guys put photos of her online after she passed out, she names them on twitter and is now in trouble !

Last summer, 16-year-old Savannah Dietrich went to a party, had some drinks, and passed out. Then, two acquaintances sexually assaulted her, took pictures, and forwarded them to their friends. News of the public assault tore through Dietrich’s Louisville high school. Dietrich was forced to “just sit there and wonder, who saw, who knows?” The public humiliation culminated this June, when her assailants struck a plea deal on charges of felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism that Dietrich felt amounted to a “slap on the wrist.” And the court had an order for Dietrich, too: Don’t talk about it, or risk 180 days in prison and a $500 fine.

First, Dietrich cried. Then, she logged online. "There you go, lock me up," she tweeted to a couple hundred Twitter followers, outing her assailants by name. "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.” These men had made their assault on her public. Now, they had convinced a court to keep it all under wraps. “If reporting a rape only got me to the point that I'm not allowed to talk about it, then I regret it,” she wrote in a note on her Facebook wall. “I regret reporting it.”

Public officials and victim’s advocates have long grappled with the question of why more than one-half of rape victims do not report the crime to police. Rape trials can be long, grueling, humiliating, stigmatizing, alienating, and ultimately difficult to prove. But as Dietrich's case shows, the criminal justice process can also rob the victim of control over her own narrative. Reporting to official channels often means keeping quiet in social ones. Even when the story hits the press—as is the case of the local Louisville report on Dietrich, now 17—the accused rapists’ names often remain unpublished.

Now, young victims like Dietrich are "reporting" the assault directly to the people who need the information most—other women living in these rapists' communities. And they’re risking their own names and reputations in order to bring their assailants out into the open. In 2010, 19-year-old American University student Chloe Rubenstein took to Facebook and Twitter to out two men on campus she said had victimized several of her friends (“ATTENTION WOMEN,” she wrote. “They are predators and will show no remorse for anyone.”) In 2007, a group of women at Portland’s Lewis & Clark College, led by sophomore Helen Hunter, created a Facebook group calling one of their classmates a “Piece of S--- Rapist.” When the administration caught wind, it suspended the man for just a semester. But five years later? Google his name, and the online rape allegations still register as the fourth hit.

The tactic has its risks. Women who report rapes through unofficial channels can be shamed for making public claims that have not been proven in a court of law—or else for ruining the reputations of “boys” who have made "mistakes." Dietrich faces jail time. Rubenstein fielded late-night threatening phone calls from her rapists’ friends. Victims with even less social clout—Dietrich is white and middle-class, and is speaking out with the help of her family and legal counsel—can expect even less support. But the costs of staying silent are high. In her Facebook note, Dietrich said that her attackers gave “people the impression that it’s okay to do that to me … making me look like a whore and increasing my chances of getting raped again.” We know that the majority of acquaintance rapists are repeat offenders. When campus and criminal processes fail to catch these predators, social media can provide a powerful patch.

Last night, Dietrich unlocked her Facebook page to the hundreds of strangers—myself included—who have requested to make her a “friend.” They have flooded her wall with offers of financial support and links to Change.org petitions calling for justice in her case. Of course, Dietrich is also fielding spammy notes from strangers with dogs for avatars (“since they took pictures isn’t this child pornography?”) and all-caps rants about the sex offender registry.

But here, Dietrich is the editor of her own story. She has the power to delete the comments she doesn’t like and promote the ones she does. Thanks to a few brave tweets, a 17-year-old rape victim is now curating an international conversation about sexual assault in America. She’s created a public Twitter account to represent her new online role. And she’s speaking out not only about the details of her own assault, but the ways that the justice system is failing others like her. “All I am hoping for out of this is to get not only justice for myself but to future victims,” she wrote in response to one commenter offering of financial support. “The laws that protect criminals shouldn’t cross over and take away victims rights. Victims rights should come first. And thank you.”

Love this video that sourcefed made about it.

Handsome Bob

Ah, if they were publicly gloating about assaulting this young woman I don't get why she had to be gagged? Especially since these fine young chaps seemed to actually take photographic evidence of their own crimes and not only take them but circulate them. I mean they effectively outed themselves.

Hande hoche!

They don't seem the smartest.

Chuck Stone

The sexual offenders should be in prison and she should be allowed to choose to tell the entire world of their identities if she wants.

Poor girl.

Boombastic

If the judge had to have done their job properly, there would have been no need for this girl to do this.


She is dead right. They filmed and circulated her being assaulted and then cry foul when they get named.

mauzo

Jesus i couldnt even read the whole thing.

In my opinion, she done the right thing. I would have done the same

Biggins

Just to be clear:

* Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
* Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

The above article is a bit unclear in this.

IF they were found guilty previously then I have no hesitation in saying that they deserve all they get and should be exposed to the public (if only) so that they (the public) are aware of these characters when eventually they might get out of a term sentence!

If the girl is just posting their names into the public domain, saying they did something terrible without (absolute) proof and/or a a court sentence upon them, without finding them previously guilty for the crime they are supposed to have done, then I would say she would be wrong just to post names in the public domain and slate them.

I am NOT saying I don't believer her assault/rape.

I am saying that any person just should not wake up the next day and possibly see their name/reputation slandered so easily and without some amount of legal justification.

mauzo

That does absolutely nothing for rape victims. Its already hard enough to tell someone, let alone prosecute them and then be told to keep hush? CRAZY

humbert

Thread title still confuses me.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

...
why exactly weren't they done for child porno too? the article kinda glossed over that

17 year olds who have taken pictures of themselves hve been done for producing child porn and these lads raped somebody and put their picture online...

Wilberto

Biggins wrote: »

Just to be clear:

* Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
* Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

The defendants actually pleaded guilty and were sentenced. But, I'm guessing because they pleaded guilty straight off, they got off with a "slap on the wrist"

Tombi!

I'm a bit confused. She said she got drunk and passed out, fine.
Then there was a video of this that was shared.

Was the video shown in court?

In either case, surely everyone that saw the video would have known the girl was unconcious and realized that the two guys were assaulting her?

humbert

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

...
why exactly weren't they done for child porno too? the article kinda glossed over that

17 year olds who have taken pictures of themselves hve been done for producing child porn and these lads raped somebody and put their picture online...

I've only heard of that happening in Britain.

Boombastic

Biggins wrote: »

Just to be clear:

* Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
* Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

The above article is a bit unclear in this.

IF they were found guilty previously then I have no hesitation in saying that they deserve all they get and should be exposed to the public (if only) so that they (the public) are aware of these characters when eventually they might get out of a term sentence!

If the girl is just posting their names into the public domain, saying they did something terrible without (absolute) proof and/or a a court sentence upon them, without finding them previously guilty for the crime they are supposed to have done, then I would say she would be wrong just to post names in the public domain and slate them.

I am NOT saying I don't believer her assault/rape.

I am saying that any person just should not wake up the next day and possibly see their name/reputation slandered so easily and without some amount of legal justification.

They plead guilty. They were charged with felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism.

Tombi!

humbert wrote: »

I've only heard of that happening in Britain.

Bit off topic but I know a case in America with a girl sending a photo of herself and she would have been 14 or 15, she was charged with producing child porn and then distributing it to her boyfriend.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

humbert wrote: »

I've only heard of that happening in Britain.

pretty sure it's happened stateside several times too but im not going to google in case my internet search history ever becomes the subject of a court case

NegativeCreep

Just because you were raped doesn't mean you are exempt from the law. Why should she get away with what she did? Writing "there you go, arrest me" or something like that probably wasn't the smartest thing to do either :L She doesn't have the right to tell people who did it and it's simple as that :L

Killer Wench

Unfortunately, people have the wrong idea about our justice system. When a criminal commits a crime, they are violating the social contract with the community; it is a crime against the people. A prosecutor is responsible for sharing the victim's story, but they are prosecuting on behalf of the people. Individual victims can find justice through civil courts. Without victims, there would be no crimes, and there are definitely initiatives by legal organizations to increase the voice of the victim, but it remains the prosecutor's discretion whether to charge an individual with a crime and for what crime they are to be prosecuted for. As a victim, her action may have been empowering and healing, but it was a form of vigilantism that was outside the administration of justice.

humbert

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Bit off topic but I know a case in America with a girl sending a photo of herself and she would have been 14 or 15, she was charged with producing child porn and then distributing it to her boyfriend.

Perhaps the age of consent is different then.

titan18

Juvenile court too, so becomes even more problematic in regards to naming who's involved.

Also, can set a dangerous precedent if allowed to get away with it, as there'd be others who might name people online saying they've raped them, but have not been convicted in court.

What she did was stupid imo.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

humbert wrote: »

Perhaps the age of consent is different then.

the age of consent is 16 in england isnt it? but im pretty sure you have to be 18 to take noodie pics

Washington Irving

"Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims"

For naming victims?

Sheeps

Biggins wrote: »

Just to be clear:

* Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
* Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

The above article is a bit unclear in this.

IF they were found guilty previously then I have no hesitation in saying that they deserve all they get and should be exposed to the public (if only) so that they (the public) are aware of these characters when eventually they might get out of a term sentence!

If the girl is just posting their names into the public domain, saying they did something terrible without (absolute) proof and/or a a court sentence upon them, without finding them previously guilty for the crime they are supposed to have done, then I would say she would be wrong just to post names in the public domain and slate them.

I am NOT saying I don't believer her assault/rape.

I am saying that any person just should not wake up the next day and possibly see their name/reputation slandered so easily and without some amount of legal justification.

They plead guilty.

Biggins

Wilberto wrote: »

The defendants actually pleaded guilty and were sentenced. But, I'm guessing because they pleaded guilty straight off, they got off with a "slap on the wrist"

If they were found guilt or admitted their crime(s) then she SHOULD gave the right to expose them then.

There is an additional catch though!
What was their ages?
If under 18 or whatever that country/state juvenile limit is, there might be further restrictions legally in place to limit exposure of young offenders - and those laws she might have broken.

Its just a point to possibly be aware of (and maybe not applicable in this case).

humbert

Killer Wench wrote: »

Unfortunately, people have the wrong idea about our justice system. When a criminal commits a crime, they are violating the social contract with the community; it is a crime against the people. A prosecutor is responsible for sharing the victim's story, but they are prosecuting on behalf of the people. Individual victims can find justice through civil courts. Without victims, there would be no crimes, and there are definitely initiatives by legal organizations to increase the voice of the victim, but it remains the prosecutor's discretion whether to charge an individual with a crime and for what crime they are to be prosecuted for. As a victim, her action may have been empowering and healing, but it was a form of vigilantism that was outside the administration of justice.

If she reported something that was untrue she'd be guilty of libel/slander.

Further censorship seem very difficult to justify and IMO when the law and justice diverge breaking the law is completely justified.

GoldFour4

humbert wrote: »

Thread title still confuses me.

She could be fined or jailed for naming the two lads who did it. I don't get the confusion ?

titan18

Biggins wrote: »

If they were found guilt or admitted their crime(s) then she SHOULD gave the right to expose them then.

There is an additional catch though!
What was their ages?
If under 18 or whatever that country/state juvenile limit is, there might be further restrictions legally in place to limit exposure of young offenders - and those laws she might have broken.

Its just a point to possibly be aware of (and maybe not applicable in this case).

It's applicable in this case, she's 16, they seem to be 16 too, and it was tried in a juvenile court

humbert

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the age of consent is 16 in england isnt it? but im pretty sure you have to be 18 to take noodie pics

I really couldn't say
<_<
>_>

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

Did she even make these claims?

I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

Did she even make these claims?

I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

Well she was passed out. There was pictures. And rape doesn't only have to involve one thing. Oral rape is still rape so... yeah.

childsplay

Jesus H Christ, the world has gone feckin' nuts :mad:. These types of stories are getting far too common for my liking. And why is it that young men seem to get the benefit of the doubt more often than girls.....that just plain enrages me:mad::mad::mad:. Just because men have penises doesn't mean that they should get away with awful behaviours. Now I'm making sweeping statements I know but that's my view of it all and it makes me mad and some might even say cynical.

Fair play to this young woman though. She is sticking it too her attackers and taking a stand. That must be incredibly hard considering the situation. I salute her bravery and courage.

titan18

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

Did she even make these claims?

I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

They pled guilty to sexual assault, not rape, it seems from reading

humbert

malachyscott wrote: »

She could be fined or jailed for naming the two lads who did it. I don't get the confusion ?

I assume she's guilty of naming the perpetrators, there is only the one victim?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Well she was passed out. There was pictures. And rape doesn't only have to involve one thing. Oral rape is still rape so... yeah.

Rape in the legal sense requires penetration. Even so, you can still sexually assualt someone without rape, and it's still a serious crime, so why was there no trail for at least one of those accusations?

Someone said they plesaed guilty - to what? And what was the sentence?

Biggins

titan18 wrote: »

It's applicable in this case, she's 16, they seem to be 16 too, and it was tried in a juvenile court

That might be the crux of the matter - if the case was held "in camera".
A pain for her in this case - but "in camera" cases are there also to protect other victims also so its a double edged sword at times.

There is also the fact that the culprits might have been passing around explicit images if my reading is right?
That too would by most modern states, be illegal also despite their age.

I still find it hard to read above in the article (badly written if that was a reporter) where it states they were convicted.

NegativeCreep

childsplay wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, the world has gone feckin' nuts :mad:. These types of stories are getting far too common for my liking. And why is it that young men seem to get the benefit of the doubt more often than girls.....that just plain enrages me:mad::mad::mad:. Just because men have penises doesn't mean that they should get away with awful behaviours. Now I'm making sweeping statements I know but that's my view of it all and it makes me mad and some might even say cynical.

Fair play to this young woman though. She is sticking it too her attackers and taking a stand. That must be incredibly hard considering the situation. I salute her bravery and courage.

Just because women have tits doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for their actions. She got justice and then still felt the need to identify the (probably) underage perpetrators. Which is apparently against the law. She broke the law and that's that.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Rape in the legal sense requires penetration. Even so, you can still sexually assualt someone without rape, and it's still a serious crime, so why was there no trail for at least one of those accusations?

Depends on the state or country.
But after some googling I did learn from here:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/510-00/chapter.htm

Rape could technically have happened.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

childsplay wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, the world has gone feckin' nuts :mad:. These types of stories are getting far too common for my liking. And why is it that young men seem to get the benefit of the doubt more often than girls.....that just plain enrages me:mad::mad::mad:. Just because men have penises doesn't mean that they should get away with awful behaviours. Now I'm making sweeping statements I know but that's my view of it all and it makes me mad and some might even say cynical.

Fair play to this young woman though. She is sticking it too her attackers and taking a stand. That must be incredibly hard considering the situation. I salute her bravery and courage.

Whereas if you drink so much that you black out, you are absolved of all responsibility?

Chuck Stone

The boys pleaded guilty on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Dietrich says she was unaware of a plea agreement until just before it was announced in court.

The teens are to be sentenced next month, and the judge could reject or modify the terms of the proposed agreement. When Judge Dee McDonald admonished everyone at the hearing not to speak about what happened in court or about the crime, Dietrich said she cried.

Source

If it's a legal issue that they can't be named by their victim then it's a dumb law that protects convicted sex offenders and this girl is brave for ignoring it.

Dumb laws deserve to be ignored.

Boombastic

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Rape in the legal sense requires penetration. Even so, you can still sexually assualt someone without rape, and it's still a serious crime, so why was there no trail for at least one of those accusations?

Someone said they plesaed guilty - to what? And what was the sentence?

They plead guilty to felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism

The sentence given wasn't reported

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas if you drink so much that you black out, you are absolved of all responsibility?

im 99% sure you've jumped down peoples throats in the past for "victim blaming" .....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Depends on the state or country.
But after some googling I did learn from here:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/510-00/chapter.htm

Rape could technically have happened.

Splittign hairs. Either she was assualted and why wasn't there a trial? Or she wasn't and what is she claimign she was (if hse even claimed she was)?

You don't claim someone sexually assulted you and then NOT take them to court.

humbert

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas if you drink so much that you black out, you are absolved of all responsibility?

In this case, yes, absolutely.

Killer Wench

humbert wrote: »

If she reported something that was untrue she'd be guilty of libel/slander.

Further censorship seem very difficult to justify and IMO when the law and justice diverge breaking the law is completely justified.

They plead guilty to felonies of sexual abuse, correct? Not knowing their ages, but knowing enough about sex offenses, sex offenders will be required to register as such for the remainder of their lives. They will not be able to live within certain limits of schools and public areas; when they relocate, they will have to re-register with the new jurisdiction. This will affect their jobs, impact their reputation in the community, and dog them for the rest of their lives. If they are 16, that means that they are facing 60/70 years of being a social outcast. The rape is a heinous offense and publicly broadcasting the act is reprehensible, but I wonder if a 16 year old is the same person at 76?

This was an extreme case in which the boys posted photos of her. However, there was a recent case in which a young woman accused a high school friend of raping her in the stairway. He had been promised an athletic scholarship to a big time university, and instead, was pressured into accepting a plea agreement that led to him being imprisoned for 5 years. After his release, the "victim" sent him a friend invite on facebook. He accepted and she asked him to meet up for coffee. They met and she confessed that she made false allegations of rape because she wanted to sue the school. She and her mother had received a million dollar settlement. This guy served time in prison, had to register as a sex offender, and had his reputation shattered because a girl made false allegations for money. Luckily, there was a happy ending for him. But, what if she had made these allegations during this time when facebook is so easily accessible?

Biggins

Like it or not - she did break the law it appears.

...Judge Dee McDonald, who presided over the case, included a confidential order to keep the names of the victims and criminals out of the press. This outraged Savannah who then tweeted...

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/why-most-americans-hope-savannah-dietrich-keeps-talking

childsplay

Originally Posted by Ikky Poo2
Rape in the legal sense requires penetration. Even so, you can still sexually assualt someone without rape, and it's still a serious crime, so why was there no trail for at least one of those accusations?

Here's the Irish definition of rape. It is clearly not just defined as penetration of the vagina without consent.

Common Law rape

This is defined in section 1 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981(as amended). It says that a man commits rape if he has sexual intercourse with a woman who does not consent and, at the time, he either knows that she does not consent or is reckless as to whether or not she consents. Common law rape can only be committed by a man against a woman. However, a woman may be found guilty of common law rape as an accessory, if she has assisted a man to commit rape. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

Section 4 rape

This takes its name from Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. It involves penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis (known as Section 4(a) rape), or penetration (however slight) of the vagina by an object held or manipulated by another person (known as Section 4(b) rape).

Section 4(a) rape can only be committed by a man, against either a man or a woman. Section 4(b) rape can only be committed against a woman, but by either men or women. The maximum penalty for both types of rape is life imprisonment.

Chuck Stone

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas if you drink so much that you black out, you are absolved of all responsibility?

So you think she has to accept a potion of the blame for being sexually assaulted, having it photographed, and passed around?

Is that what you're saying?

titan18

Biggins wrote: »

That might be the crux of the matter - if the case was held "in camera".
A pain for her in this case - but "in camera" cases are there also to protect other victims also so its a double edged sword at times.

There is also the fact that the culprits might have been passing around explicit images if my reading is right?
That too would by most modern states, be illegal also despite their age.

I still find it hard to read above in the article (badly written if that was a reporter) where it states they were convicted.

They haven't been sentenced yet. They pled guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. I presume they had to cos of evidence and they hope to get off with a smaller punishment. As it's still an ongoing case, the judge rightly told the girl to not speak about it, and as it's a juvenile case, it holds more weight.

The girl says she can't say what the plea deal punishment was because of a court order it seems, but decided to break the other aspects of that order.

That's all I can gather about it so far.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

im 99% sure you've jumped down peoples throats in the past for "victim blaming" .....

I'd need a specific case, (not denying it). In any case, people are goign to blame in a case like this. Just to be clear, though, this is more a case of me trying to find out what they actually did. Information is vague at best.

humbert wrote: »

In this case, yes, absolutely.

If there was rape, I agree. There is responsibility to not get hammered drunk though and black out. As I said before, if you don't want embarrassing pictures of yoruself passed out at parties on the internet, there is an easy way around that, and that's not blaming. That's just advising responsibilty.

humbert

Biggins wrote: »

Like it or not - she did break the law it appears.

It was established from the outset that she broke the law?

mauzo

Just because she didnt say no, doesnt mean she was saying yes.
Of course being passed out absolves her from responsibilty!!!! She had no say in the matter!