Excerpt: "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."
Savannah Dietrich said ‘I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living hell.' (photo: Sam Upshaw Jr./The Courier-Journal)
Girl, 17, Faces Charges for Naming Attackers
22 July 2012
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.
Savannah Dietrich of Louisville told The Courier-Journal she is frustrated by what she feels is a lenient deal for her attackers. After posting the names on Twitter, Dietrich wrote, "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell."
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?"
Dietrich's attorneys want her contempt hearing open to the media, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about her case and to a public hearing.
The boys' attorneys, however, have asked to keep the hearing closed.
The contempt charge carries a possible sentence of 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.
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.
She could not say what the proposed punishment was because of the court order, but said she feels like it was a slap on the wrist.
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.
"They got off very easy ... and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end," she said.
Afterwards Dietrich tweeted, "They said I can't talk about it or I'll be locked up. ....Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville."
David Marburger, an Ohio media law specialist, said Dietrich should have tried to get the courts to vacate the gag order rather than simply violating it.
But Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Dietrich should "not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That's a wide-ranging restraint on speech."
Leslie said this sort of issue is becoming more common.
"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 said.
Dietrich said she just needed to stand up for herself. "I'm at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
|
17 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Breaking rocks in the hot sun, as a suitable punishment, comes to mind after reading of the anguish this person has gone through.
The message of asking a gal, seems to have not percolated from parent to offspring in this case.
She passed out topless after a throwing up violently from alcohol poisoning....th ey only took pictures, noone touched her.
The boys were forced to plea guilty to sexual abuse and voyeurism because it has fewer repercussions than child pornography charges they'd get otherwise...
Stuck between being called the child molesters and rapists.... what the hell are you gonna do ... who'd have fought that snapping some pics on their cellphones would lead to this.... What teen wouldn't have done the same?
It was only when she heard about the pictures MONTHS later and decided to take legal actions.
The Courier Journal, who originally published the story, is facing a lawsuit for publishing false allegations because Dietrich used the words "rapists" and such when interviewed. She was not raped and the media now is painting the boys charged as rapists.
Maybe these 'boys' will think before they ever again take advantage of a drunk girl.
Then perhaps we can put up posters of the boy-perps all over town for those who don't have Facebook and Twitter.
This is one brave and healthy-minded young woman!
Shame on the court, for charging her with contempt, they don't deserve the office they hold, which is to serve the public, impartially.
One day earlier, she had been taken to an emergency room, following her being Tasered, in very close range, numerous times, by cops, as she was face down on her motel room bed and handcuffed. She cryingly showed me some of the burns she'd suffered, and explained that no charges had been made, no advisement of rights. She, and two other young men, also Occupiers, had, the previous night, rented the motel room near the Occupier's park, to get out of the freezing cold. Crying, she told me: "We hadn't done anything wrong."
Fearing for their daughter's safety, her parents decided not to pursue an action against the city. Understandable, since our expectations for justice prevailing, in this and so many other cases, appear now to be unfounded. Google: Colorado Springs Independent, Jan. 21, 2010, "No Peace or Justice" - no investigation of blatant torture/brutali zing by cops went forward, similar to the keeping open of Guantanamo, no investigation/p rosecution of so much more.
Tragic but true, rule of law is in the toilet, barely able, by good jurists, to be kept from being totally flused away. Kudos to this young woman and her family to having the courage and determination to challenge such injustice. Ain't easy.
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-perpetra tors 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.
I agree totally that complaints to the Kentucky licensing entity is in order, maybe even a petition for a review of Judge McDonald's rulings in genera is in order. Participation in this type of intimidation certainly calls her record into question.
In any event, Ms. Dietrich IS the victim and in no way should what happened to her and who was involved be silenced. This would be victimizing the victim and yet another unmerited act against women in general.
Thank you, Vermont Grandma for your comment.
The boys hat to plea guilty to sexual abuse and voyeurism because it has fewer repercussions than child pornography charges they would get for snapping her pics on their cellphones.
It was only when she heard about the pictures MONTHS later and decided to take legal actions.
The Courier Journal, who originally published the story, is facing a lawsuit for publishing false allegations because Dietrich used the words "rapists" and such when interviewed. She was not raped and the media now is painting the boys charged as rapists.
Basically she's embarrassed and angry about the photos thus why she took legal action only when they came out months later. Whiteness that were with Dietrich the entire night who assisted her while throwing up said she wasn't raped.
That said many things may constitute first degree sexual assault to include any sexual act performed when one is unconscious...w hich could be as simple as kissing another or as complex as masturbating upon a sleeping person.
In any event there are juveniles those charged. They were not charged as adults...so yes in juvenile court the names are quite often kept from public knowledge....it is part of the judicial process, and for cause it is thought necessary to do so...it is not arbitrary.
It was ruled that the names be kept not disclosed(for reasons we are not knowing)...thes e could perhaps(totally conjecture) be two boys from a singular minority group in a town that is quite racist, with many incidents of violence related to this ...so there may be actual cause for the judiciary to do so...to prevent from harm the defendents.
We can conjecture and go on and on..but really we don't know.
We do know the judge ordered all names be kept confidential which is within his rights as a juvenile court judge...and she went on twitter and named them...so contempt...it was ordered by the judiciary in court of law and she was a party in the proceeding. Order must be maintained to try cases.
You need to read more closely.
In the first place, the judge's name is "Dee" McDonald and unless I am quite wrong, this is a woman's name and a female judge.
In the second place, I object to plea bargaining without the knowledge of the victim. This is the system overstepping its boundaries and becoming abusive in its own rights.
In the third place, it is one thing to protect juveniles who may have mitigating circumstances and some question re their culpability, but these juvies copped to their culpability, so there is no question here. In this case, where there is clear culpability, the only reason for protecting these defendants is a bias for the protection of males over protections for the female victim. Such bias has no place in a court of law and Judge McDonald should know better and have more conscience.
As for protecting the defendants from harm, their parents should have brought them up better and they should have considered their arrogant and condescending behavior toward this girl BEFORE they allowed themselves such freedoms at her expense. If these male defendants had been brought up to be gentlemen instead of pigs, they would have moved in to protect her and not seen an opportunistic scenario for their own amusement and her abuse. Shame on them and I hope they get what's coming to them.
With Penn State still so raw. I cannot imagine what the Judge was thinking but I hope it cost them a Job in the future.
No Morals. Boys get away with it now what will they see fit to get away with in College at their Parents monetary expense?
And finally, she was NOT a party to the proceedings, she was the victim. The law was moving against these perpetrators not against Ms. Dietrich. Would a store owner who had his establishment bashed in and stolen from be prosecuted? No, he would just be there to give an account of the unlawful behavior of the defendants.
One thing is really clear, the attitude that women are second class citizens without rights or protections all the way from the attorneys asking to protect what these males have done, to McDonald's complicit gag order, to McDonald's charging of the defendant. At what point is the VICTIM to be afforded the protections of the court? At what point should the public be advised they have predatory males in their midst? At what point do the defendant's right of free speech re what happened to her; her history, become her rights? This society needs to stop pandering to the sovereignty of males and finally get around to giving females equal rights and equal rights of protection under the law.
***
I wonder if anything would change if the parents of male juveniles, who behaved in these kinds of ways, were faced with fines and/or jail. Why aren't they being held responsible for teaching their sons to NOT behave like this?
At the same time, given the kind of culture we live in, where many parents are doing their best just to survive, "parenting" (or socialization) oftentimes takes place in front of the tv, at movies, watching video games, in their peer groups, and what have you. In cases such as this, who is truly responsible for this kind of behavior.
If it takes a whole village to raise a kid, then shouldn't the whole village be held responsible for the consequences of juvenile behavior?
As I've mentioned before, when one is up to one's ass in alligators, it is hard to focus on one's original intention of draining the swamp. This kind of behaivior is a symptom of a much larger problem, and the question, as always, is where does one begin?
Perhaps supporting the telling of the truth is one good place to start.
Now, if a child chooses wrong after he has been taught they have to take the proper consequences. Many kids will do what they want in spite of their upbringing.
These days there is no "village" and no one wants to be any part of one. People are indifferent. So, now, we are talking about Society and the way of life today. Many of these things are a result of the way things have become.
Finally, in most states, parents do pay the consequences of their children's behavior, if no more than to pay for their stay in the juvenile system. Yes, parent's pay "child support" to the state for the child's "incarceration"!
Yes, indeed! Where do we begin? At the bottom (parent's) or the top (our government)? Hmmm, seems like a "no brainer" huh?
I hope you see this in the spirit of camaraderie.
Your not wanting to sit on jury is as ignorant as those not wanting to vote who can. I would rather be on a jury and question authority so that another innocent does not go to jail, or perhaps guilty does.
If the kids who are raped would go public to tell others about the rapes, real rapes, than maybe others would not have been raped. I would now use the Penn State as a prime example.
Time to scream from the rooftops about Rape. The boys in this case perhaps like in so many others have this in a document to be cleaned up so the can go to an Ivy League School? If Children are not Punished for the Acts they Commit that are wrong, then they shall commit them again. This Court Room has again allowed Rape, and Voyeurism to be A Okay I do not see that right in any Scenario
Long ago in our history, justice was to be meted out by a jury "of our peers". That used to mean a jury of people in your small town; secrecy was impossible. That meant that consequences were actually imposed. It's appalling that people who admit guilty have the audacity to demand secrecy. Shame on this judge. That young girl has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to speak up, to protect other young women from boys who may continue to act as predators
Community Service and then off to College to do it again.
There have been five plea deals, but the details of only one were revealed.
Apparently there were 20 suspects, not 18.
One of the creeps is a suspect in another violent crime committed on July 15. What was he doing out on bail?
jezebel.com seems to be one of the few news sources that are following this case.
Count me in too if she needs any financial help with this court attrocity.
Zimmerman can have donations this girl and other children like her should have donation page run legit
If you can do something let us know, I'll put my "2 cents" in too.
On one hand, yes, order must be maintained and as a general rule we should comply with the rulings of judges.
On the other hand: I don't know the law, but I think Vermont Grandma (above) has made a pretty good point. I'm not sure the judge has the authority to abridge the victim's constitutional right of free speech especially since she was not part of the deal and had no say in it.
I have to repeat that I don't know the law. I'm not a lawyer. Additionally, there are undoubtedly facts about this case of which I'm unaware, so I can really say only so much.
But we can all agree that this victim deserves justice. That would include a reasonable sentence for the boys convicted of sexually assaulting her. It would especially include ensuring the victim of her right to speak freely about her own life and experiences.
Hers was a brave decision to "call out" her attackers. However, actions have consequences, so she must be prepared to deal with her decision.
Those of you who would pontificate about the perceived 'fairness' of the judge's gag order should recall that we are a nation of laws, not morals.
We are complaining about how unfair this situation is to this girl on a social and emotional level. If we were a nation of machines, we'd beep twice in agreement with you.
We are supposed to be critical of our laws, else how would the unjust ones get changed?
Morally, the boys have no foundation for gagging the victim, especially since the boys published the lewd photos of the girl.
The boys should have to live with the consequences of their decision, but at this point they seem to get protection from the same failed and incompetent system of law. The legal system has failed, yet again...
I see clearly that this is only about the miscarriage of justice due to old laws that do not adjust to current life.
They are not trying to punish Savannah for her indiscretion or actions that led to her being humiliated. it is about her going about exposing the boys in the wrong way.
She only needed to implore the judge to disclose the perpetrators due to the severity of their offenses.
Though she may not have been granted it, at least then she went through the correct channels.
Then if she did what she did her own consequences may have been less severe. if not, then the public could better support her actions and helped her get off easy.
We want what she wants too. Our hands are tied because she broke the law as it is written, whether or not it is fair.
I am in total agreement. we left out that Savannah did say she was willing to face the consequences of her actions but I am not sure she thought of the consequences before making the decision to out the boys on Twitter. She certainly did not think to challenge the courts before taking action. My have at least help her make a decision she would know the consequences for. The Judge was only following the law. Her decision had nothing to do with her fear of losing her position with the male population in the judicial system or any other such thing. She even may have had a lot of compassion for Savannah. like NRESQ said there are laws and stipulations for the laws, however unfair.
To the girl I say, "Stand strong." Women are with you. You didn't agree to the deal. The "People" had you as a complaining witness. The "People" have legal standing as party, the girl is not. If you think she is why, was a deal struck without her consent or agreement.
The law that imposes the gag order for this crime is the problem. It is because of the age of all the parties involved. It is a faulty law.
Freedom of speech allows Savanna to tell her story, the gag order is to keep the boys' (and her) names out of the story.
The heinousness of the crime should, for all intents and purposes, allow for the boys' names to be revealed. But that is against the law as it stands now.
"We the people" need to fight to change that law, among others.
People who commit heinous crimes, regardless of age, should be exposed. So the law needs to change.
Until it does, Savannah is going to get consequences for violating that stupid law. We are here to support her from those consequences in spite of the law because this does re-victimize her.
Nothing more.
The law that imposes the gag order for this crime is the problem. It is because of the age of all the parties involved. It is a faulty law.
Freedom of speech allows Savanna to tell her story, the gag order is to keep the boys' (and her) names out of the story.
The heinousness of the crime should, for all intents and purposes, allow for the boys' names to be revealed. But that is against the law as it stands now.
"We the people" need to fight to change that law, among others.
People who commit heinous crimes, regardless of age, should be exposed. So the law needs to change.
Until it does, Savannah is going to get consequences for violating that stupid law. We are here to support her from those consequences in spite of the law because this does re-victimize her.
Nothing more.
I was a rape victim in 1985. If you are not a rape victim, you wouldn't know how horrible a crime this is.
If she goes to jail or is fined one cent for speaking out, the Judge should be dismissed from any future cases.
The law sucks and unfortunately the judge was following that law. As shameful as that is, all we can do is help that child in any way we can to beat that dumb rap and help to change the law so that we can expose each perpetrator for what they are no mater the age. let's all try to help keep her out of jail, pay her fine of what ever we can do to change that law so that people would stop blaming the judge for following it. If Savannah went through the proper channels she may have helped change the judge's verdict against her. No, it was not her that intentionally violated the law, but another archaic law that should be abolished is "ignorance to the law is no excuse". She is victim again, this time of circumstance.
seriously, facebook pages pop up like weeds for every single incident that happens. trayvon martin's murderer had one for his defense-- shouldn't this very heroic young woman have one for hers?
if anyone wants, i'll do it- if no one else already has.
and where are the "major" news networks on this? cnn, msnbc, abc, cbs?
im furious, absolutely furious.
My son was murdered. He was a good kid and all the stories said about him was that he was a drug dealer.
He graduated from high school as a 16 yr old from the 10th grade along with his twin. They both had a lot going for themselves. Now, one is dead for 6 yrs now and the other is too messed up over it to move forward.
Hope he gets help but til he does, who knows.
However, in response to one of the articles posted online, someone said, "good, he deserves to be dead because he was a drug dealer".
As I said, lying articles get people worked up about stuff that is misleading and then hurtful things come from them to hurt the people who are already hurting.
If you make the facebook page, please link to it so I can, too.
The law sucks and unfortunately the judge was following that law. As shameful as that is.
All we can do is help that child in any way we can to beat that dumb rap and help to change the law so that we can expose each perpetrator for what they are no matter the age.
Let's all try to help keep her out of jail, pay her fine or whatever it takes to change that law so that people would stop blaming the judge for following it.
If Savannah went through the proper channels she may have helped change the judge's verdict against her.
No, it was not her that intentionally violated the law, but another archaic law that should be abolished is "ignorance to the law is no excuse".
She is victim again, this time of circumstance.
Let's help her instead of wasting time blaming all the wrong people.
The judge can only follow the law within its guidelines if all the cards are not on the table.
Things might have gone differently for Savannah if she had at least asked the judge to allow an exception for the boys' names to be revealed. That way she could have had an easier time fighting her sentence and we'd have a lot more impact.
Nobody seems to take issue with the DA's office, who would have been the ones to draft the plea agreement. The judge simply signed off on it. To be clear, I agree with most people here that Ms. Dietrich should have every right to speak about her attack. But I think it's appropriate that everyone else involved in the hearing should be bound by a gag order. It's Ms. Dietrich's story to tell, and no one else, even the boys, should be allowed to tell it for her. Which leads me to believe that it's possible that the judge didn't know that the victim was present. Not probable, but possible.
Why such concern for protecting the criminals in this case, instead of the victim?
Actually, after the boys were sentenced, the family knew, their friends would soon know, and because instant communication is so ubiquitous and varied, the boy's guilt would be common knowledge in no time at all. The victim's tweeting the info would be all but redundant.
Victimizing the victim, in a case such as this, is nothing if not immoral.
Savannah Dietrich, you've got balls. You are showing incredible fortitude through this chapter of your life and in the long run it is you who will benefit from your courage.
I tip my hat to you!
Actually, without plea bargaining the courts would be overwhelmed and no justice would happen. Plea bargaining is not a case of laziness, it's a nod to the overcrowding of the courts. But no rapists should ever be protected from disclosure regardless of their age, providing it's actual rape, rather than an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Rapists should be harrasses for the rest of their lives and never be able to recover from their deeds. Did I mention that 3 women who are very important in my life have been raped?
It seems to me that rape should be one of the last things plea-bargained.
My story involved only break ins and theft of property, several times over a period of months. When I caught the person (young boy) in the act the police refused to arrest, his father being on the town council may or may not have anything to do with that.
Somehow "a thief lives here" was sprayed in roundup on the family's lawn, that may or may not have had anything to do with the break ins ceasing.
1. Could the victim have been held in contempt if she disclosed the identities of her attackers before any court proceeding took place? Should she have?
2. If not, the contempt citation has nothing to do with the disclosure but rather only to do with maintaining "the integrity" of the court - something which the judge violated, at least in moral if not legal terms, by her actions.
3. In many juvenile cases where the identity of the perp is kept from the public, the secrecy is a farce. Neighbors, friends, enemies, school mates, teachers, etc. know of the conduct and of the identities of the victim and the perp(s) long before any court proceeding. Let's be realistic people.
4. No victim of any wrongful conduct should ever be gagged by a court. That is another violation of the victim's person-hood.
5. I'd like to contribute to the victim's costs and attorney's fees. Anyone else?
George Mendelson
Kill Devil Hills, NC
Now is it not possible for the Parents to sue these kids or is rape not able to pick up the costs in civil court.
One would hope RAPE would hold over but in cases where kids needed all things in closed documents to protect their College and future endeavors. This is not the first case, so many are poor kids that do not even have the money. Many are given tainted drinks just to get 'trained' Gangs do it also to young...
and we should believe her over all others despite no dNA evidence, and a video record being stated available (by her statements) because...
is it because..... she is a pretty little young white girl???
All stated rapes have medical exams following, as it is SOP and has been for the last thirty or so years...where is the corroborating evidence by exam?
That all aside,.... a judge sets the terms of the court, before the case is engaged, at the beginning. Two options are available if one or ones attorney has exception to the court requirements of confidentiality ....appeal it to the judge herself.... asking for review, or appeal it to a higher court...... Those are your legal options...always.
Where is the record of those objections....t hey do not exist.
After the findings of the court...she then decides to disregard the instructions of the court and....violate the confidentiality requirement.... which is contempt....no appeal nothing....just decides to post to twitter the names of those involved. Names are not court records by state judicial rule held confidential... .what is a record then?
Sexual abuse and voyerism is not rape.Bad things those...but not rape ever......
..
Not all children know that they are to go to an ER. This child went to a party and drank ever do that? She passed out either from drinking or being drugged. She didn't want her parents to know about the party Wow that hasn't changed in centuries.
The creeps then proceeded to show picture around. Their Trophy, who knows how many girls they have done this to. may not know because of people like you...Judge and Jury.
If you, your parent, sibling, child were sleeping, this obviously was pretty good sleep making me thinks it could have been drug induced, eh? You do not believe it was rape? No one woke her up on record and asked if she wanted to have sex with these vultures. No they bragged about doing her while she was asleep and then showed pictures.
I wonder if their Daddy and Mommy enjoys some playtime like this, or perhaps their parents are voyeurs.
I just wonder in all this where was the DA
She has First Amendment right to speak of her experiences.
She was not a party to the court proceedings and derived no benefit from it; therefore she cannot be held to agree to silence.
Could just as easily be any of the other 49.
"Why am I a feminist? Because this society tells girls "don't get raped" when it should tell boys "don't rape"."
EXCELLENT...... ....
Mslando
-------------------------------------
Lesson learned, girls/ladies don't drink to you pass out. Girls understand, most of your friends who are males want to have sex with you. I think the court is dealing with this from the view that this young lady contributed to the incident and they all were under age so to speak. However, I do think she should be able to name her attackers. Also, she needs to move toward a civil suit at this point.
-------------------------------------
Lesson learned, girls/ladies don't drink to you pass out.
Can they sue in Civil Court and does it work, or is it just more money spent to lose. We do not know who these boys are or there parents.
She has to live with it - that's her due, nothing more, not even any admonition
from the likes of you or anyone.It goes without saying so speaking on it is a breach of social protocol.
The boys should be punished accordingly and their names ruined. The majority of males under 18 DO NOT RAPE. If it is a "common occurrence" it is because the system is too lenient. End of.
Whaaat??? No where in the article was there any mention of the absence of DNA. Also, the jerks who raped Ms. Dietrich PLEADED to the crime. Next time, you might want to do some comprehensive reading instead of incoherrant reacting.
Perhaps their Video Games and lifestyle would think about Life and just how fragile it is.
No one should be Raped. Negative impact is why so many do not come forward. I am glad this girl owned up to her behavior of going to party. She admits to drinking and passing our from alcohol or perhaps a chaser. But that doesnot entitle anyone, any color, any sex to Rape a Human Being. I believe the Laws on Rape have context about Mutual Consent. If someone passes out, there is not mutual consent. If two or more have to take part in it than this is Intentional Act of Rape, Even Conspiracy to do Harm. Then just to make sure they had a Trophy, the took pictures of their Act.
I do not care a fig about the Dissenters because the fact that these slime balls took pictures is enough to show that this was Intentional Act to Do Harm to Someone Unconscious. To condone such behavior is why Rapists and Murderers get such free rides.
I hope this Girl airs out what she can, goes to support, because Rape is not something to get over, you must live with it, and learn how to protect others.
In that, you learn to adjust and live.
Prayers to this girl and her family.
MAYBE... they should be put in cells with Bubba and Billy Bob.
The French Foreign Legion would never accept them. Their standards are high.
My suspicion -- and at this point it is no more than that -- is the perpetrators are aristocrats, the spawn of the One Percent or at least of their executives, while the victim is no more than what used to be Middle Class.
That caste difference, if it exists, would tell us all we need to know about why the court is protecting the rapists and punishing the victim. It would also shed teachable light on all the other anomalies in this outrage.
Meanwhile, where is our alleged Leftist conscience we do not immediately demand such information?
Again I mourn the loss of the old Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper, which would have at least inquired about this aspect of the case -- more than Ruling Class Media (including the formerly superb Courier-Journal ) would ever do.
And you tell me that there's no right wing republican War on Women???!!!
Maybe it is time to rethink where the sexual revolution has led us. This kind of behavior is criminal, what is disgraceful is that it is so prevalent in our sexually permissive society. Many girls get drunk and pass out and wake up to find they have been raped.
One real big problem here is the alcohol industry takes advantage of, and makes a huge profit off, the people who drink. But we can't say a word about drinking, can we? The drinkers praise the alcohol industry that preys on the drinkers.
Just like we know there will be another crazed theater shooter, there will be plenty more drunk passed out underage and adult rape victims. Maybe we should think about drinking habits too. Do you think? Or will you fly into a rage that anyone should suspect this drug of being anything but a boon to society.
But our society, in full force since the 1960s, has had permissive views on the whole idea of sex, the free sex movement and industry / economy that is built around it, to the point where it is accepted as a person's right to have as much sex whenever and wherever and with whomever as they want. Maybe you can't see the obvious.
That is a ridiculous premise. The only reason you hear about it more since the '60s is because of another phenomenon that occurred during that time: the feminist movenment. Until that time, no women felt comfortable enough to report their attackers. Date rape, marital abuse and other forms of sexual abuse were always a rpoblem, but an unspoken one. The "sexual revolution" brought what everyone knew was going on out into the open but it was not the cause of the rapes.
This permissive attitude encourages people to have sex more often, for fun or profit, with little concern for the procreative purpose and much less the purpose of human existence. All these questions simply fade away, as people pander to their base instincts. My question, which you still haven't addressed, is only: is this a good thing?
It this child hadn't been drinking, hadn't passed out, and if those other children with cameras hadn't been drinking and hadn't been raised in a society that encourages sex without much in the way of restrictions or consequences, and in fact still sees it as a rite of passage for males and a conquest ... maybe this rape could have been prevented.
You have a different take, that's all.
In our day sexual promiscuity was the exception not the rule. Today, it would not surprise me if young people did not know what promiscuity really meant.
Now, young junior high girls just "go out -n- get some" or call one of many men they have in their phone asking, "would you like some company?" or "do you want a date?" when they need a few bucks because it is "easy money".
They don't see it as prostitution.
And the dangling temptations are how the media is now. Movies have very explicit sex scenes, where once, a time ago, all we would need was a subtle hint and we got the "picture". Commercials are all about sex.
Even dancing, once the suggestive dancing was only displayed in private clubs where couples gyrated on the floor. Now, it is everywhere, even on TV. Never before!
To be continued...... ..
In the 60s, living together became acceptable, by some as the "free love fests" became a thing of the "Hippies" and younger people were becoming open about having sex at an earlier age. Even then most people saw it as appalling.
Fewer people were wanting to "save themselves for marriage". Now it's almost unheard of, most think it is only a "Christian" thing, or that you're weird or even asexual. Even Christians are loosening their morals.
This is how the world had changed, to the point where young people's ideas of privacy and respect are becoming meaningless.
This may not be their exact thinking but it is how our minds begin to distort things over a lifetime.
Let's begin a campaign. Any of us who have been raped at some time in our lives post the name of the rapist on FACEBOOK. That goes for women who have been beaten also. Then other women would know not to get involved with that man.
i definitely will
now it HAS been picked up by yahoo.com
and as you may expect, those people are all being idiots
(my comments are under 's, united states')
a couple of people were awesome and posted their names repeatedly- let's all do that on our facebooks and twitters, shall we?
A parent can only teach them and trust they will follow the principals. I think she has learned a hard lesson the hard way. She may have been wrong to drink but that should have no bearing on the court's decision or anyone else to judge anyone.
I understand that stipulation for minor offenses but think it should be irrelevant for major offenses such as rape, voyeurism, etc. Many offenses can be viewed as youthful indiscretions but I think there should be a limit to what is sealed in a juvenile record.
Barring these considerations, I feel that Ms. Dietrich should have been given more rights and considerations.
I do, however, agree that she may have done better to argue this point of non disclosure in the courtroom. Then, if denied to choose her course of action, accordingly. Taking care not to act on impulse but weighing the pros and cons first.
There is no need to make this into a feminism argument or to put down the American people. These kinds of comments are the very things that cause dissension and wars. These days it takes so little to push people's buttons.
Please let's try not to make this into a political debate but just a forum of opinions and compassion/conc ern.
passed out topless after a throwing up violently from alcohol poisoning....they
only took pictures, noone touched her.
The boys plead guilty to sexual and voyeurism because it has fewer repercussions than child pornography charges (they also never posted her images online as was reported).
Thus why the DA accepted the plea, in cases of "rape" plea bargains are very rare because evidence so incriminating can support the crime.
It was only when she heard about the pictures MONTHS later and decided to take legal actions.
The Courier Journal, who originally published the story, is facing a lawsuit for publishing
false allegations because Dietrich used the words "rapists" and such when
interviewed. She was not raped and the media now is painting the boys charged
as rapists.
Basically she's embarrassed and angry about the photos thus why she
took legal action only when they came out months later. Whiteness that were
with Dietrich the entire night who assisted her while throwing up said she
wasn't raped.
RSS feed for comments to this post