"A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who was upset by the plea deal reached by a pair of teenagers who sexually assaulted her is now facing a contempt charge for tweeting their names in violation of a court order." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kentucky-teen-faces-charge-naming-attackers-16828307#.UAt-vKCWqYQ Quick synopsis: The girl, Savannah Dietreich went to a party, got very drunk, passed out, and two gusy entertained themselves and guys have for a long time. But, this is the brave new world so these sterling young men took photos. Ms. Dietreich woke up and wasn't aware of what had happened. A few months later people were talking about photos on the internet. The boys were arrested and Ms. Dietreich says the was so ashamed she became a recluse. As is quite common, the attorney for the boys went to the prosecutor representing, not the girl, but the state and they made a deal. The girls says she wasn't aware of the deal until just before it was announced in court and that's fairly standard, too. The judge ordered everything about the case kept quiet. Ms. Dietreich decided she wasn't going to keep quiet. So, she went to the internet and posted the story, including names and details of the plea agreement. Now, the attorney for the boys is insisting she be found guilty and punished for exposing the names of his worthy clients. Now, if this case went to the Court of PF, how would you find. Is the girl Guilty or Not Guilty in the Court of PF?
Good post PT., definitely thought provoking. Legally, she defied the court order, and should face the consequences. Although I certainly understand the 'why' of her defiance. *sigh* Too bad there isn't a mechanism in place to have all kids this age to read of incidences of this nature, hopefully giving them a wake up call of the negative consequences of irresponsible behavior and absence of exercising good judgement to begin with.
Shes guilty, no doubt about it. Just cause a crime was committed against her doesnt mean shes allowed to commit a crime.
Why does the prosecutor get to bargain away her right to free speech? In commercial law that would be equivalent to two parties in a three-party law suit being able to cut the third party out altogether. I hope the prosecutor is squirming on the hot seat of public opinion now!
I'm only saying guilty because I don't think this would go to a traditional jury trial. She violated a court order, so that usually involves an immediate punishment. So, for all practical purposes, she's guilty. It's a pretty messed up situation, but the law has to be administered consistently for it to be worth anything.
She only cared for the photos so i guess guilty. Bad things happen to you when you drink that much in a party and there is no excuse for 17 year olds to not know it.
I have always found it quite sickening to see society prosecuting men over women's public embarrassment. This sounds like a case where everyone got drunk, had a good time, and then one of them regretted it after becoming sober (the woman as in most cases). For some odd reason, this gives her legal grounds to charge the men with rape or sexual assault on the grounds that she was drunk and as a result, could not consent. Now if these guys took the photos and started posting them on the internet, I think that could constitute charges against them. However, I don't think sexual assault or rape would be fair charges. Something along the lines of putting up photos of her without her consent.. Maybe an argument in a civil court worth some $$ in mental damages or something like that..
Where do you read this into the article? Is having sex with an unconscious woman a case of everyone having fun?
I did not read the link, just the OP's cliff notes. If the girl had been raped while unconcious, then yes, they should be charged. It does not mention in the OP that the men had sex with her while she was unconcious. Could a case be made that it was not rape because the men were drunk were not mentally capable of understanding what they were doing? If so, why not. If a woman can not give consent while drunk, then why is it that men can do something not usual while drunk? If they just took pictures, then I dont think they should be charged with anything other than putting her pictures up without her consent.
Most men's junk doesn't work when they are that drunk. They demonstrated that they did not consider themselves to need the victim's consent for anything they did.
Shes Guilty but then again... the guys should have not done that to her, if they didnt want to be put out there like that then they shouldnt have done it to her. if I was her I probably would have done the same thing to warn other people about the 2 guys who did that to her so everyone knows to watch out for them and be aware of what they might do.......
The difference is you are still responsible for any crimes committed while you were intoxicated which is not the same as giving consent to something legal. I do somewhat agree with you, it is a grey area that some malicious men and women do use to their advantage. I also do believe that some personal responsibility is still applicable when you choose to get obliterated. However I do think you getting raped or taken advantage of while passed out is ok or should be tolerated. I am certain no man would want such done to him when passed out either. The article only refers to the attackers as boys and teens. The girl was a minor, can charges like distribution of child porn be brought against the boys if they too were minors? It seems with the limited info given the law failed this girl, however despite that injustice, I do agree that the victim should face repercussion for violating a court.
All parties in this situation are acting irresponsibly. Why would a woman, willingly get so drunk that she passes out with a few guys who would numerically and physically put her in a situation of submission? Women are allowed to be stupid, and men are allowed to be drunk and horny in the presense of an attractive girl. When will there be accountability on both sides in situations like this?
The girl got raped ... I think she probably walked away with some lessons learned, one of them being to not put yourself in vulnerable situations. They guys who raped her walked away learning that their reprehensible behavior would only get them a slap on the wrist. What if a man passed out drunk and three other men raped him? Would the victim be equally responsible for what happened? What if a man passed out drunk and three women decided to violate him with objects, than take pictures and post them on the internet? Raping or violating someone is not just poor judgement, or being irresponsible or stupid.
I don't think they should be severly punished. They were drunk as well so they were not in their right minds. Unless you have proof that these guys ganged up on women while sober and raped them? Actions on both sides were influenced heavily by alcohol. Just as a woman can not give concent when drunk, neither can a man. Not saying they should not be punished at all, but it should be realized that their actions were heavily influence by alcohol.
You mean in this case? Not sure I have enough details to make that call. In my opinion if she was passed out, they raped her, and then posted it on the internet distribution of indecent images of a minor should have applied. Good people, drunk kids or not do not do this types of things. Furthermore if they didn't post the pictures/ video that night they had sobered up by the time they did. Which means they are just alcohol infused jerks but complete (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bags period. You are accountable for your actions drunk or not, again giving consent is different than physically harming someone. The punishment may be less severe perhaps being inebriated may be a consideration for the judge's sentence, but I don't agree with it equating to a slap on the wrist when it is something like rape or murder. They chose to get get drunk, they chose to violate someone, they chose to continue violating that person by posting what they did to her.
Not guilty. The law is the law, which isn't justice. I hope when they prosecute her, she takes every opportunity to tweet, text, email and vocalize their pathetic names to anyone and everyone. And I hope her friends and family do the same.
Here's the interesting thing that seems to be missing from the debate. The boys were being punished, however as part of that plea negotiation, their names were not to be released to the press. They were still getting punished. However the girl decided that she would also post their information everywhere. The interesting thing here is, does this invalidate the plea arrangement? Do the boys just get to walk now because of what she did?
I find it outrageous that a judge could order a victim to keep quiet about a crime that was committed against them.
