Rape victim faces charges for naming her attackers

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- 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.
The Associated Press does not normally report the names of sexual assault victims, but Dietrich and her parents say they do not want to shield her identity and want her case to be public.
The boys' attorneys have asked a judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for violating the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the judge's order not to speak about it.
Dietrich told the paper she was assaulted in August 2011 by two boys she knew when she passed out after drinking at a gathering. She learned months later that pictures of the assault were taken and shared with others.
"For months, I cried myself to sleep. I couldn't go out in public places," she told the newspaper, as her father and attorneys sat nearby. "You just sit there and wonder, who saw (the pictures), who knows?"

Savannah Dietrich, 17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Faces Charge For Naming Attackers

At first, I felt as though it was wrong of her to violate the court order to keep the names of her underage rapists protected. After reading the article, I've changed my mind. They didn't mind sharing what they did via photos, so I'm with her.

I will not name the boys as I believe it may violate BGP rules, but my understanding is that both are Lacrosse players at a very big Louisville Private school and both play on travel teams as well working on getting college schollys.

The boys should have thier faces plastered on billboards and castrated in public. She has every right to do what she did.

Gag order the officials involved, but the victim should be able to tell the truth to whoever she wants unless she agreed to the plea agreement.

How was a plea agreement reached without her consent? Is that possible? Did her lawyers make a plea deal without her consent? Is that a female judge also? Is this an incredibly good defense lawyer at work?

I guess I have a lot of questions as to how this happened.

Why is her name allowed to be publicly known but the judge won't allow the boys names out? This is just weird.

Originally Posted by PurplePride92

Why is her name allowed to be publicly known but the judge won't allow the boys names out? This is just weird.

I believe she put her name out there which would make the difference I guess. The boys names need to be plastered everywhere and if she didn't agree to the plea deal it should be withdrawn. I always thought the victim was consulted but I guess not.

I think the victim is consulted but it's up to the prosecution to ultimately make the deal.

Originally Posted by True blue (and gold)

Savannah Dietrich, 17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Faces Charge For Naming Attackers

At first, I felt as though it was wrong of her to violate the court order to keep the names of her underage rapists protected. After reading the article, I've changed my mind. They didn't mind sharing what they did via photos, so I'm with her.

Maybe the judge should just give her a slap on the wrist like the two boys received.

It makes me want to that the names of juveniles are not released. If they can do the crime, then they should have their names PLASTERED from every telephone pole. These boys had the nerve to take and share pictures, I have no sympathy for their stupidity........post the names Jumper_Dad.

Originally Posted by PurplePride92

How was a plea agreement reached without her consent? Is that possible?

If the victim's consent was required for a plea deal, would any pleas ever get worked out? I haven't met many victims who are willing to give their assailant a lesser punishment to promote the court's efficiency.

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...S01/307200106/

Originally Posted by 75center

I believe she put her name out there which would make the difference I guess. The boys names need to be plastered everywhere and if she didn't agree to the plea deal it should be withdrawn. I always thought the victim was consulted but I guess not.

Consulted, yeah sure, but there's no way that every crime can sit on victims' approval for a plea deal. How many plea deals would there be?

This hearing isn't about whether or not she should have the right to reveal the boys' names. That ship has temporarily sailed. There was a gag order and instead of asking to have it vacated, she violated it. You don't get to violate judges' orders.

Should it be vacated here? I'd like to think so. The crime of sexual assault is inherently adult in nature and despite my belief that juvenile defendants are protected for very good reason, I'm more than willing to waive that based on what little I know about the case.

According to the girl, the charges have been dropped but the boys are now pursuing a civil claim against her...

Originally Posted by ColonelCrazy

According to the girl, the charges have been dropped but the boys are now pursuing a civil claim against her...

Wow. As if they already haven't done enough to her.

David Mejia, an attorney for one the boys indicates in a Courier-Journal interview that the contempt motion (which the boys initiated) has been withdrawn because the case has since gone global:

“What could contempt do now?” Mejia said in an interview. “Seems like a rather useless exercise doesn’t it?”

edit

Originally Posted by ColonelCrazy

According to the girl, the charges have been dropped but the boys are now pursuing a civil claim against her...

I understand why they might want to do this...but, in the process, isn't it going to just put their names out there even more? I mean, a civil claim can't hide names the way a juvenile record can, can it?