Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
(Updated below.)
I think the following story out of Kentucky is an interesting one. Savannah Dietrich, a seventeen-year-old, is the victim of a sexual assault. Last August, she was assaulted by two boys she knew after she passed out at a party. It wasn’t until months later that Dietrich learned that pictures of her assault had been taken and shared with other people.
The victim told a newspaper that she cried herself to sleep for months. She added, “I couldn’t go out in public places. You just sit there and wonder, who saw (the pictures), who knows?”
According to the Courier-Journal, Dietrich felt frustrated by what she thought “was a lenient plea bargain for two teens who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her and circulating pictures of the incident.” She took to Twitter and named her attackers. She also tweeted, “There you go, lock me up. I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell” and “Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”
Dietrich is now facing a possible jail sentence. The attorneys for the boys who pleaded guilty to her assault have asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold her in contempt for publicly naming her attackers. Dietrich stands accused of violating “the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the court’s order not to speak of it.” If charged with contempt, Dietrich could receive a “potential sentence of up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.”
Jason Riley of the Courier-Journal wrote: “Legal experts say such cases are becoming more common, in which people are communicating more frequently through social media and violating court orders not to speak.”
Greg Leslie, who is the interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Virginia, said, “In the past, people would complain to anyone who would listen, but they didn’t have a way to publish their comments where there would be a permanent record, like on Facebook and Twitter, for people to see worldwide.” He continued, “It’s just going to happen more and more.”
“So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys,” Dietrich told the Courier Journal. “I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. 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.”
Dietrich claims that she and her family “were unaware of the plea bargain and recommended sentence until just before it was announced in court — and were upset with what they felt was a slap on the wrist for the attackers.” Dietrich said. “They got off very easy … and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end.”
Emily Farrar-Crockett, one of Dietrich’s attorneys, said that her client had looked at the laws of confidentiality before she tweeted her comments. Crockett said that Dietrich “tried not to violate what she believed the law to be” by not tweeting about what happened in court or what was in court records.
Greg Leslie said he thinks that Dietrich should “not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That’s a wide-ranging restraint on speech. By going to court, you shouldn’t lose the legal right to talk about something.”
Not all legal experts agree with Leslie. Ohio media law specialist David Marburger said that even if the judge might be limiting freedom of speech with an order, “it doesn’t necessarily free you from that order. You have to respect the order and get the judge to vacate the order or get a higher court to restrain the judge from enforcing the order.” And Jo Ann Phillips, head of Kentuckians Voice for Crime Victims, said that she “doesn’t blame Dietrich for standing up for what she felt was an injustice, but said she should have gone about it another way.”
“This (assault) could affect her for the rest of her life and the fact that she said, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,’ you have to applaud her,” Phillips said. “But you also have to respect authority.”
“ … She should have gone to a victims’ group or her local legislator and fought for the right to speak out.”
What do you think? Was Dietrich wrong to name her accusers publicly? Do you think Dietrich has the right to speak out about what happened to her?
UPDATE: The motion to hold 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville in contempt was withdrawn on Monday.
SOURCES
Assault victim’s tweets prompt contempt case (Courier-Journal)
Savannah Dietrich, 17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Faces Charge For Naming Attackers (Huffington Post/AP)
Agree with rafflaw’s reply to Josephine. Some people have no compassion and some have no clue. Some have neither, and Josephine seems to fall into that category.
After thinking about it, I think the most interesting argument is the public’s right to know about violent rapists in their community. Why can’t the public be aware of such persons in their midst and if it takes the victim to exercise her 1st Amendment rights (which would trump the statutory right of accused to confidentiality) so be it. Dismiss the case on constitutional grounds!
Otteray,
I read a Daily Kos post about Savannah Dietrich late last might. Here is an excerpt from and a link to the piece:
Public safety would argue their names should be known. There is a well-documented pattern of escalating violence with predators. Sexual predators are also notorious recidivists. By naming her attackers, Dietrich is also protecting herself after having been let down by the justice system. She has legitimate concerns about her safety from these guys. Here’s why. The attackers, whose names appeared in the comment section of the article about this story on the New York Post website, are both lacrosse players on a local Louisville team. When you read their profiles knowing what you know now, they are downright chilling.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112667/-Sexual-assault-victim-facing-jail-time-for-publishing-attackers-names
Shame on you Josephine.
Mespo, I can see making the juvenile court proceeding ITSELF confidential; however, the EVENT itself can never be made confidential. The victim is free to talk about it as much as she likes and she just doesn’t have to mention any court proceedings. Nobody can shield an event in the real world from public view simply by going into the Juvenile Court and making it the subject of a case there.
it’s the same as allegations that an attorney violated the canon of ethics. If you take him up to the Board on Professional Responsibility, perhaps those proceedings PER SE are confidential (and perhaps not) and perhaps you have to keep his misconduct a deep dark secret to the extent that you are not to say that you have reported him to the BPR. HOWEVER< the confidentiality of what he actually DID cannot thereby be shielded. That is the client's decision, to reveal or not to reveal. Confidentiality and privilege belong to the CLIENT and she can give it up and tell the world what the attorney actually did, or choose not to, according to her own wish. The act of reporting the misconduct to the BPR does not then reach out beyond its own procedure, and cloak the entire thing in a new kind of confidentiality that the client cannot waive even if she wants to. Wouldn't that be a scandal? "You only control the privacy of your relationship with your lawyer until and unless he violates the ethical code and you report him for that. After that, HE HAS CONFIDENTIALITY that YOU CANNOT VIOLATE!" wouldn't that be a silly little situation?
A raped woman may not have the right to reveal what went on in court. She DOES have the right to reveal what went on in the rape. Furthermore, if the boys don't like what she's saying, they should SUE HER FOR SLANDER HA HA HA HA HA HA TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE AND SHE WILL GET A JURY HA HA HA HA HA HA HA and the trial will be public HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Oh stop it, it hurts, I can't breathe!!
Josephine, that is not correct.
Read In Re Gault.
Facebook support page for Savannah https://www.facebook.com/Freedom4Savannah
It’s late; apologies for some of the grammatical shortcomings in my comment.
Francine, I am not in the legal profession so I won’t comment on what you wrote even about the application of the law in this case, not that I don’t understand what you wrote. I do object to you making some personal statements afterward. Your admonishment as to what parents should teach their girls sound self-righteous and blame the girls for being raped (or whatever term you prefer; I think of rape as a forceful sex act on another person without that person’s consent). Surely you must know that all of us parents DO teach our girls and young women to be careful. Surely you must know that young people will still do that they do and get them in trouble, sometimes. Surely you must also know that many rapes don’t have anything to do with the way a girl dresses. As the parent of a daughter who was raped after she too was drunk, I felt like I failed as a mother. I now realize I shouldn’t beat myself up about this any longer. I just wish I had beaten up the young man who took advantage of her. I am sure that some boys and men do get accused of rape unfairly and I find that terrible. As far as I can tell in this article there is no reason to believe these boys DIDN’t rape her. They not only did that but they posted the photos of it on a public site. I may not be as smart a woman as you are but I find and agree with asiago above and many of the other commenters who support the young woman. I wish my own daughter would’ve done the same thing.
Sometimes justice needs to be challenged and I believe it is time to challenge it in this case.
Comments on a blog:
Vermont Grandma 2012-07-22 13:32
It doesn’t appear that Judge Dee McDonald would have had jurisdiction over victim Savannah Dietrich; Dietrich was not a party to the proceedings before the Court. As such, no jurisdiction for the judge to order any non-party that they could not discuss/disclose the CONDUCT the perpetrators of the sexual abuse and voyeurism engaged in & their names.
The juveniles’ attorneys asking the court to hold Savannah Dietrich in contempt appears to be overstepping and witness intimidation as they surely know that Savannah Dietrich is a VICTIM, not a party. These attorneys know that under Kentucky court rules (KRCP 43.09) and statutes (KRS 610.060 (5)) victims have a right to be present at juvenile court hearings. & They know that juvenile court RECORDS are confidential and shall not be disclosed. This does not preclude disclosure of the FACTS that brought their clients into juvenile court. The Court cannot diminish Savannah Dietrich’s 1st amendment rights re the FACTS of their client’s conduct & their names.
& these lawyers know their client-perpetrators have not yet been sentenced in juvenile court. Pure intimidation. A complaint to the Kentucky licensing entity re their conduct would appear to be in order. Perhaps, as well, a complaint to the judicial conduct board re Judge McDonald if s/he did, indeed, tell non-parties who were present at this juvenile hearing that they could not discuss the criminal conduct itself.
——–
+2 # readerz 2012-07-22 21:18
According to a book on victims’ rights by the A.C.L.U., you are entirely correct. Legally, according to the U.S. Constitution (not just Kentucky), a victim is “society,” but the person who actually was assaulted is only a “witness.” The “witness” had no gag order. Not only does the victim have no rights, but the judge has no rights to add to the assault, insult to injury.
These boys were so proud of what they did until the law got involved. Bragging about it to their friends.
So, now they want to hang their heads in psuedo shame and hide out and keep their names out of the public sphere?
Now they realize it could affect their future prospects. it has nothing to do with the girl, only efforts to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions. .
Some news outlets are now saying the Daily Kos web site was the source of the outing of the boys identities. I highly doubt that, although there were a couple of diaries up today on DKos about the time this one appeared. Here is the news story from The Greenwich Diva news outlet:
http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/savannah-dietrich-faces-jail-time-for-naming-boys-who-raped-her/35993/
Josephine,
The FACT is, the “boys” proudly disseminated the photos of their rape, themselves. Do you dispute that?
Once they have done this, why would anyone grant them any confidentiality? They have demonstrated that confidentiality does not matter to them.
Josephine,
Where do you get your facts that this victim was making it up or crying foul? I have seen no such facts. You also may want to double check your latin translation.
This is such a mute discussion. Absolutely NO ONE besides the alleged victim and those people directly involved with the case know the details. Children are arrested on probable cause; if there is a chance they did the crime that they are accused of, then they are guilty, period!!! In the juvenile court there is no trial, so no matter what, the kids have to plead guilty. Most plead “no lo contendre” which means, THE COURT WILL NOT ALLOW ME to plead innocent, so i will take the least charge possible, but I am not admitting guilt. But a guilty plea still gets entered, and then the public sees that “they admitted it!” Such BS – learn the law if you are going to comment on stories like this. Also, do the pictures even exist? Did she see the pictures? Who and how many people saw the pictures? Did any of you see the pictures????? They would have had to be shown before the arrest-without question. If the court had the pictures of the alleged assault, those boys would have gotten a lot more than a slap on the wrist. Rape is a serious crime and those charged with rape go to jail for a long time, and should. That’s why in the adult court they have to have evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not denying victim’s rights, compassion, or anyone’s dignity by any means, but in the juvenile system, all a girl has to do is cry rape and the boy goes to jail-period, end of story. She, or her friends, can hit the media with the misuse of words, lies and sensationalism to exaggerate what, if anything, actually happened. It could be that her life has been so affected because she does not remember what happened and has to rely on what people have told her happened. That’s the most damaging thing, not knowing. But ahaaa, she doesn’t have to because she can lie and change her story multiple times to the police, and not be held accountable for lying under oath. Forget the Freedom of Speech thing!!! I know this because I lived it.
Bottom line is that parent’s need to teach their kids not to drink, passout, and wear clothing that leaves them half naked if they do. They also need to teach their kids to profoundly respect another person, regardless of the circumstances. If that’s the way it was, then there would be no such cases. By the way, has anyone looked up what constitutes rape??? This word is used way to often to sensational what could just be voyeurism, not rape the way the public understands rape. When someone is truly raped, there should be no question of what happened, and it is a despicable crime. The public does not understand the legal definition of the word. Nor does the public ever actually hear the boys side of the story? How dare anyone judge and condemn these boys without knowing the facts on both sides. Many of you have no right to make some of the comments that have been made.
Shame on you….
Cheryl:
“It is not fair that she lost her right to privacy and protection but they get to keep theirs. She’s right – there’s something wrong with justice in this country.”
*********************
You’re right Cheryl it’s not “fair,” it’s legal. Fair depends on whose ox is gored, thus it might seem fair to you that she violated the confidentiality of the juvenile system, but it would seem unfair to the accused who have a legal right to confidentiality. That’s why “Fair” doesn’t cut it at the courthouse in most situations. Legal implies a consideration of the rights of everybody, not just folks we like. “Legal” has had centuries of experience to develop its principles and yes they work pretty well if you see it in action and know what you’re seeing. Thus there may be less wrong with “justice” than there is with some people’s understanding of “justice.”
If you read above you’ll notice I’d hold our talkative victim to account for breaching the law. I just wouldn’t punish her severely given the circumstances.
Let’s see, it’s ok for them to post pictures of her that were taken during the assault but it isn’t ok for her to out them as the attackers? No matter the punishment they received, those pictures cannot be taken back. People have seen them and people know who she is and what happened. It is not fair that she lost her right to privacy and protection but they get to keep theirs. She’s right – there’s something wrong with justice in this country.
too bad the “boys” who assaulted her weren’t black. then they would have been tried as adults and gone to big boys prison and she would not be in trouble for telling their names.
Raf, Elaine, Mike, Gene,
Great selection of stories this weekend.
Elaine M.
See my above response. If pictures of the assault have already been put on the public domain, I don’t understand what the complication is.