UPDATE BELOW (7/24/2012)
Savannah Dietrich, a 17-year-old girl from Kentucky may now face charges after Tweeting the names of her attackers. The girl says she was frustrated by the plea deal reached when the boys pled guilty to first degree sexual assault and voyeurism charges. The boys have yet to be sentenced for the charges. According to a Yahoo! News article:
“So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys,” Dietrich told Louisville’s 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.”
When Dietrich Tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers, she knowingly violated a court order to keep their names confidential.
An online petition has been started to get the judge to throw out the charges against Dietrich. Some are saying this is a violation of her freedom of speech.
While I can certainly sympathize with Deitrich’s frustration and desire for her story to be heard, I cannot condone the fact that she spoke out against her attackers after specifically being told there would be a consequence if she did so. She was understandably frustrated and angry and hurt over what happened to her, over her perception that justice was not being served, but that didn’t give her the right to violate a court order. Laws are put in place to protect people, and she chose not to follow said laws.
As much as we may or may not agree with the rights of the accused, or as much as we may or may not agree to the punishment handed down to those who break the law, we cannot then break the law and expect not to face consequences ourselves.
What do you think? Should the victim have been allowed to talk about her attackers, or should the attackers have been allowed their anonymity?
UPDATE (7/24/2012): According to UpWorthy (and confirmed by numerous media outlets):
Due to the Internet’s collective outrage, the charges against Savannah Dietrich have been dropped — but only because everyone now knows these boys’ names. As well they should. This crime is inexcusable, and we do too much in this society to brush it off.
I think these kids gave up their rights to anonymity when they commited a crime. Screw ‘em!
This exactly. The laws SHOULD be set up to protect the VICTIMS.
Actually, I think in this specific case I am on her side.
My question is: If the 17yo girl was the /victim/ of an attack, why was /her/ name released? She should’ve had anonymity, not her attackers. I say if her name was released, then fair is fair, the attacker’s names should be released. Like she said, she knew she could go to jail for standing up for her rights, so she made a conscious decision to stand up for herself. I think she needs a good lawyer, though, because it does seem her right to freedom of speech has been penalized. To me, it seems she has been let down by the justice system. Sad.
Her name was originally kept confidential, as all sexual assault victims names are; after she tweeted the names of her attackers, the AP approached her and her parents about releasing her name. Savannah and her parents granted the AP permission to use Savannah’s full name, in hopes that her story would be more widely heard.
Ahhh…thanks for the clarification. I’m still siding with her. Even after being sexually attacked, I’m glad to see her standing up for what she believes in. I wasn’t sure of the nature of the attack either. It still sounds like her rights have been violated all over the place yet justice is siding with the guilty.
I don’t feel I can side with Savannah on this, except for one thing – is there a sex offender registry in Kentucky? In Kentucky, or any other states, are sex offenders NOT put on the registry if the sex offender is a minor? Is the sex offender put on the registry once s/he is 18?
If Savannah releasing their names was the ONLY way the public would know that these individuals are sex offenders, then I support her decision to do so.
I’m a lawyer. I understand the why of it. However, I also understand that our criminal justice system doesn’t care about the victim. Victims want to feel like someone is fighting for them. They think the police are trying to get justice for them. They think the prosecutors are trying to get justice for them. And then there comes that time when they realize it’s not about them at all. Yes. Sometimes the victim (or the victim’s family) gets the verdict that at least gives them closure. But more often than not, offenders are given plea bargains, and the victim is victimized all over again. Except this time by the system.
I love the law. I do. I agree that everyone is subject to them. However, those boys broke the law. They should not get to then seek it’s protection.
Just out of curiosity (since I’m interested in law, but have no formal training!) – do you disagree with all plea bargains, or the majority of them? (from your quote “those boys broke the law. They should not get to then seek it’s [sic] protection”)
As a lawyer, I don’t disagree with plea bargains at all. Very rarely is any case a slam dunk. Sometimes, a plea bargain is your best (or only) option for various reasons. However, from the victim’s standpoint, a plea bargain is a slap in the face. A victim doesn’t understand everything that goes on during the process- all the decisions that have to be made. They understand that they were violated. They want the person responsible punished. And for some people, being able to say “Bob Smith raped me” is a very important part of the healing process. I’m just saying that as a human being, in her situation, I can understand why she did what she did.
She made a conscious decision to name her attackers, knowing the consequences. She was standing up for herself and her rights, court order be damned. Sometimes, you have to stand up against the law for change to happen. I’m just sorry she had to learn this is such a harsh way.
If I were she, I’d go to jail or pay the fine or whatevs for that extra publicity and to demonstrate that not everyone think they are above the law.
There’s a difference between “wrong” and “illegal,” IMO. Is it illegal to break a gag order? Sure. Is it wrong to name your attackers? Hell no. It’s totally okay for her to blab, as long as she understands there may be legal consequences for taking the moral high ground.
I agree. It may be illegal, but I think she’s earned the “right” to tell her story.
I’m with her on this and was thrilled to see the charges dropped.
Though I’ve seen the update, thought I’d still comment. I struggle with this, with respect for the law.
We are supposed to inform the law of our values and morals, we are not supposed to be informed of values and morals via the law. The law isn’t sacred – obviously PURE EVIL has been sanctioned by law before.
I agree with what she says. If this is justice, let me have no part in it. Sometimes we have to break the law to shine light on how wrong it is. Civil disobedience, you know?
“She was understandably frustrated and angry and hurt over what happened to her, over her perception that justice was not being served, but that didn’t give her the right to violate a court order. Laws are put in place to protect people, and she chose not to follow said laws.”
What on earth are you smoking? Judge Dee McDonald had no authority to strip Dietrich of her constitutional rights, so what McDonald ordered was illegal. Dietrich most certainly DOES have the right to violate an illegal order.
McDonald should be removed from office for this.
Comments on this entry are closed.