Talk vs action

[Gob]

A Kentucky teenager is facing contempt of court charges for tweeting the names of the two teens who pled guilty to sexually assaulting her, in a case that inspires questions about the uses of social media in the legal system.



Seventeen-year-old Savanna Dietrich tweeted the names of the boys in response to the frustration she felt over her attackers plea bargain.

Now, Dietrich could face an $US500 ($481) fine and up to 180 days in jail for the act if she is found guilty of being in contempt of the court.

Her contempt hearing is scheduled for July 30.

According to Dietrich, the sexual assault occurred when she passed out at a party last year. Her attackers then molested her, and they also allegedly videotaped the incident and shared it with their friends online.

After Dietrich visited police with her parents, the juvenile defendants were charged with first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism, reports the Louisville Courier Journal.

But Dietrich says she was extremely unhappy with the "slap on the wrist" plea bargain her attackers were given. Enraged, she took to her Twitter account determined to publicly expose the boys for their act.

"They said I can't talk about it or I'll be locked up," one of her tweets read. "So I'm waiting for them to read this and lock me up. F--k justice.

"Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville."

She reiterated in a Courier Journal interview that she was fully prepared to pay the price for her actions.

"I'm at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it," Dietrich told the Louisville paper.

"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 courtroom repercussions of Twitter use have made the news before: in April, a New York judge ruled that prosecutors do not need to obtain a warrant to subpoena citizens Twitter accounts, reported Mashable.com.

[Sean]

Good on her!

I doubt that a judge would be stupid enough to jail her for this. Imagine the public backlash...

[Scooter]

The names of juvenile defendants are not supposed to be publicized. The fact that she was the victim doesn't give her special privileges. And perhaps she needs to learn that exacting private vengence isn't the way the justice system works.

[Gob]

And maybe the justice system needs to learn that sexual assault is a far more serious crime than naming criminals.

[Lord Jim]

And maybe the justice system needs to learn that sexual assault is a far more serious crime than naming criminals.

One would hope that wouldn't be neccessary....

If these punks didn't get jail time, I agree with Sean that it's highly unlikely that the judge would be so tone deaf as to toss the victim in the pokey....

But of course, stranger things have happened....

[The Hen]

Would she have been able to appeal the apparent leniency of the sentence?

If not, I can understand why she felt so frustrated in what she considered insufficient retribution to her sexual violation and public humiliation.

if she could have .....

[Sue U]

Would she have been able to appeal the apparent leniency of the sentence?

No. This is the State's prosecution, for an offense against the State, not her personal claim.

The names of juvenile defendants are not supposed to be publicized. The fact that she was the victim doesn't give her special privileges. And perhaps she needs to learn that exacting private vengence isn't the way the justice system works.

I don't think there is any per se rule about not naming juvenile defendants, and juvenile offenders generally can move to have their records expunged (or at least sealed) after attaining majority. Moreover, it's not the Court or the prosecutor that's identifying the defendants, it's a private citizen.

The young woman in the story is apparently being cited for contempt, presumably for violating a court order, not for violating any statute prohibiting naming a juvenile defendant. Nowhere in the story does it say what the terms of the order were or why, or whether she was even a party subject to the Court's ruling. But in any event, such an order would make little sense. If the young woman chose to file a civil action against the young men for bodily injury, emotional distress, etc., she would be perfectly free to name them and describe their actions in the complaint.

[Big RR]

Thanks Sue; that's what I thought as well. The courts ordinarily close juvenile proceedings to the public, and the press will generally not disclose the names of juvenile offenders (just as they usually will not disclose the names of the vicitims of sexual assault, but there is not any blanket ban on the disclosure.

I guess it's possible that the court imposed some sort of gag order, but that would be fairly extraordinary and I would wonder why it was imposed.

[Rick]

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/610-00/340.PDF

An old article but still on point

[Sue U]

That's informative, keld, but I don't see anything in the statute that would prohibit this young woman from tweeting the names of the young men who assaulted her. She is not dosclosing any court records and moreover is specifically entitled to information concerning adjudication/disposition under KRS 610.340(1)(b). The attempts by Kentucky -- and by this judge in particular -- to keep all aspects of juvenile proceedings secret is disturbing.

[Rick]

I didn't know how to interpret it, however as posted in the article evidently this is not the 1st.

The attempts by Kentucky -- and by this judge in particular -- to keep all aspects of juvenile proceedings secret is disturbing.

I don't disagree...

[Gob]

Common sense prevails...

A Kentucky teenager frustrated by light punishment for two boys who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her was spared from having to face a contempt charge for naming them on Twitter in violation of a court order.

The case of Savannah Dietrich, 17, quickly gathered supporters nationwide who were upset that the victim of an assault could be punished for speaking out against her attackers.

The girl turned to Twitter after she said she was frustrated with what she felt was a lenient plea deal. The judge had ordered no one to speak about the case, which was in juvenile court.

On Monday, attorneys for the boys dropped their motion to charge her with contempt. David Mejia, an attorney for one of the boys, said the decision to withdraw the motion had nothing to do with public sentiment and online attention to the case.

He said the purpose of the motion had been to enforce the law that protects juveniles and their actions from disclosure.

"The horse is out of the barn," he said. "Nothing is bringing it back."

The Associated Press does not generally identify victims of sexual assault, but Dietrich and her parents wanted her story to be made public. She gave her account to The Courier-Journal newspaper in a story published on Saturday.

She has not responded to the AP for comment and her lawyer, Emily Farrar-Crockett of the public defender's juvenile division, did not immediately return telephone calls.

Jeff Dion, deputy executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, said victims who feel cheated by the justice system sometimes file civil lawsuits in an effort to get information in the public, but social media has turned that on its head.

"It's all about giving victims a voice," Dion said.

In one day, an online petition on Change.org had garnered 62,000 signatures in support of Dietrich's action.
"When I read it, I was appalled and outraged and thought, 'Somebody has to do something about this. Who is going to do something about this?'" said Elizabeth Beier, 22, of Cockeysville, Md., who started the petition even though she doesn't know Deitrich. "Everyone wants this girl to have peace and time to recover and not another trauma like jail time."

Beier said the two women have not spoken, but she congratulated her.

"I think what she did was very brave by coming forward ... and I think a lot of people who may have been victims or survivors of assault and didn't get the justice they deserve probably see themselves in her," she said.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said the motion to withdraw the contempt of court charge was "a huge victory not only for Ms. Dietrich, but for women all over the country."

Deitrich told The Courier-Journal that after the sexual assault, the boys posted photos of the attack on the internet.

"These boys shared the picture of her being raped with their friends and she can't share their names with her Twitter community? That's just crazy," O'Neill said.

The Courier-Journal reported that the boys were charged with first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism, according to information in a court motion the newspaper filed asking Judge Dee McDonald to allow the paper to see motions filed by attorneys for Dietrich.

The teens pleaded guilty to those charges in late June, though Dietrich and her family told the newspaper they were unaware of the plea bargain and recommended sentence until just before it was announced in court. The attack occurred in August 2011.

Dion said the Kentucky law on gag orders in juvenile cases presupposes that information revealed came from reading the court record. In Dietrich's case, he noted, she was the victim, and she had independent knowledge of the crime.

"And I think a restriction or gag order on a victim creates some First Amendment issues," Dion said.

He added that prosecuting a victim "sends a terrible message."

"We created victims' rights out of a recognition that we need victims to come forward in order for our justice system to work," he said. "Really, what do they get for that?"

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicising their names may create problems for them in the future. (fucking diddums.)

"There's always that possibility and in any type of scenario like this you run that risk," he said. "Now whether both these boys can overcome those hurdles, it's too early to determine that."

Klein said it's possible, but unlikely, that prosecutors would make the same contempt charge against Dietrich. Both sides will still be bound by the confidentiality of the juvenile court proceedings.

"I think her behaviour will dictate whether it's the end of it or not," Klein said. "If all the parties abide by the confidentiality of juvenile court, then I think that's the end of it."

Bill Patteson, a spokesman for the Jefferson County Attorney's office, said he could not comment because of the confidentiality on juvenile cases.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... z21aA5KsVK

[rubato]

The court cannot legally prevent her from describing an event which occurred in her immediate presence.

Period.

Fuck y'all.

yrs,
rubato

[Beer Sponge]

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicising their names may create problems for them in the future.

I should hope so. If their lives are inconvenienced by their own actions, fuck them. I hope this follows them all through their lives.

[Scooter]

The entire point of having a juvenile justice system is so that doesn't happen. If we don't care about that, then let's try all five year olds as adults.

[Gob]

I thought the entire point of having a juvenile justice system was to give justice to minors.

[Scooter]

And that is accomplished by recognizing that minors are not simply miniature adults, that their minds are not fully formed and so they lack an adult's ability to appreciate the full ramifications of their actions, and that consequently they should not be treated as if they were adults.

[Gob]

Anyone old enough to be pissed at a party, and sexually molest a drunk girl, and then to put the videotaped incident and share it with their friends online, does not merit that protection.

[Scooter]

The fact that they were tried as juveniles says otherwise.

[Guinevere]

The court cannot legally prevent her from describing an event which occurred in her immediate presence.

Period.

Fuck y'all.

yrs,
rubato

Yes, it absolutely can. And while a court cannot literally put a gag in her mouth, it can make her suffer the consequences of failing to comply with a court order.

Scooter has this exactly right -- the point of a juvenile justice system is to, hopefully, teach these kids lessons in ways that will not drag them down for the rest of their lives -- because we understand that as a matter of physiology and development kids can't and don't aways handle themselves like adults. I don't necessarily think rape is fairly classified as a "juvenile" crime, but until the legislature says otherwise, that is the process that is in place.