Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims

Options
  • 23-07-2012 8:33pm
    #1
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,977 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    How strange is this ? The two guys put photos of her online after she passed out, she names them on twitter and is now in trouble !
    Last summer, 16-year-old Savannah Dietrich went to a party, had some drinks, and passed out. Then, two acquaintances sexually assaulted her, took pictures, and forwarded them to their friends. News of the public assault tore through Dietrich’s Louisville high school. Dietrich was forced to “just sit there and wonder, who saw, who knows?” The public humiliation culminated this June, when her assailants struck a plea deal on charges of felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism that Dietrich felt amounted to a “slap on the wrist.” And the court had an order for Dietrich, too: Don’t talk about it, or risk 180 days in prison and a $500 fine.

    First, Dietrich cried. Then, she logged online. "There you go, lock me up," she tweeted to a couple hundred Twitter followers, outing her assailants by name. "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.” These men had made their assault on her public. Now, they had convinced a court to keep it all under wraps. “If reporting a rape only got me to the point that I'm not allowed to talk about it, then I regret it,” she wrote in a note on her Facebook wall. “I regret reporting it.”

    Public officials and victim’s advocates have long grappled with the question of why more than one-half of rape victims do not report the crime to police. Rape trials can be long, grueling, humiliating, stigmatizing, alienating, and ultimately difficult to prove. But as Dietrich's case shows, the criminal justice process can also rob the victim of control over her own narrative. Reporting to official channels often means keeping quiet in social ones. Even when the story hits the press—as is the case of the local Louisville report on Dietrich, now 17—the accused rapists’ names often remain unpublished.

    Now, young victims like Dietrich are "reporting" the assault directly to the people who need the information most—other women living in these rapists' communities. And they’re risking their own names and reputations in order to bring their assailants out into the open. In 2010, 19-year-old American University student Chloe Rubenstein took to Facebook and Twitter to out two men on campus she said had victimized several of her friends (“ATTENTION WOMEN,” she wrote. “They are predators and will show no remorse for anyone.”) In 2007, a group of women at Portland’s Lewis & Clark College, led by sophomore Helen Hunter, created a Facebook group calling one of their classmates a “Piece of S--- Rapist.” When the administration caught wind, it suspended the man for just a semester. But five years later? Google his name, and the online rape allegations still register as the fourth hit.

    The tactic has its risks. Women who report rapes through unofficial channels can be shamed for making public claims that have not been proven in a court of law—or else for ruining the reputations of “boys” who have made "mistakes." Dietrich faces jail time. Rubenstein fielded late-night threatening phone calls from her rapists’ friends. Victims with even less social clout—Dietrich is white and middle-class, and is speaking out with the help of her family and legal counsel—can expect even less support. But the costs of staying silent are high. In her Facebook note, Dietrich said that her attackers gave “people the impression that it’s okay to do that to me … making me look like a whore and increasing my chances of getting raped again.” We know that the majority of acquaintance rapists are repeat offenders. When campus and criminal processes fail to catch these predators, social media can provide a powerful patch.

    Last night, Dietrich unlocked her Facebook page to the hundreds of strangers—myself included—who have requested to make her a “friend.” They have flooded her wall with offers of financial support and links to Change.org petitions calling for justice in her case. Of course, Dietrich is also fielding spammy notes from strangers with dogs for avatars (“since they took pictures isn’t this child pornography?”) and all-caps rants about the sex offender registry.

    But here, Dietrich is the editor of her own story. She has the power to delete the comments she doesn’t like and promote the ones she does. Thanks to a few brave tweets, a 17-year-old rape victim is now curating an international conversation about sexual assault in America. She’s created a public Twitter account to represent her new online role. And she’s speaking out not only about the details of her own assault, but the ways that the justice system is failing others like her. “All I am hoping for out of this is to get not only justice for myself but to future victims,” she wrote in response to one commenter offering of financial support. “The laws that protect criminals shouldn’t cross over and take away victims rights. Victims rights should come first. And thank you.”



    Love this video that sourcefed made about it.



«134567

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Ah, if they were publicly gloating about assaulting this young woman I don't get why she had to be gagged? Especially since these fine young chaps seemed to actually take photographic evidence of their own crimes and not only take them but circulate them. I mean they effectively outed themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,523 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    They don't seem the smartest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    The sexual offenders should be in prison and she should be allowed to choose to tell the entire world of their identities if she wants.

    Poor girl.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    If the judge had to have done their job properly, there would have been no need for this girl to do this.


    She is dead right. They filmed and circulated her being assaulted and then cry foul when they get named.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,033 ✭✭✭mauzo


    Jesus i couldnt even read the whole thing.

    In my opinion, she done the right thing. I would have done the same


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Just to be clear:

    * Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
    * Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

    The above article is a bit unclear in this.

    IF they were found guilty previously then I have no hesitation in saying that they deserve all they get and should be exposed to the public (if only) so that they (the public) are aware of these characters when eventually they might get out of a term sentence!

    If the girl is just posting their names into the public domain, saying they did something terrible without (absolute) proof and/or a a court sentence upon them, without finding them previously guilty for the crime they are supposed to have done, then I would say she would be wrong just to post names in the public domain and slate them.

    I am NOT saying I don't believer her assault/rape.

    I am saying that any person just should not wake up the next day and possibly see their name/reputation slandered so easily and without some amount of legal justification.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,033 ✭✭✭mauzo


    That does absolutely nothing for rape victims. Its already hard enough to tell someone, let alone prosecute them and then be told to keep hush? CRAZY


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Thread title still confuses me.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    ...
    why exactly weren't they done for child porno too? the article kinda glossed over that

    17 year olds who have taken pictures of themselves hve been done for producing child porn and these lads raped somebody and put their picture online...


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 8,573 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wilberto


    Biggins wrote: »
    Just to be clear:

    * Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
    * Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?


    The defendants actually pleaded guilty and were sentenced. But, I'm guessing because they pleaded guilty straight off, they got off with a "slap on the wrist"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    I'm a bit confused. She said she got drunk and passed out, fine.
    Then there was a video of this that was shared.

    Was the video shown in court?

    In either case, surely everyone that saw the video would have known the girl was unconcious and realized that the two guys were assaulting her?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    ...
    why exactly weren't they done for child porno too? the article kinda glossed over that

    17 year olds who have taken pictures of themselves hve been done for producing child porn and these lads raped somebody and put their picture online...

    I've only heard of that happening in Britain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Biggins wrote: »
    Just to be clear:

    * Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
    * Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

    The above article is a bit unclear in this.

    IF they were found guilty previously then I have no hesitation in saying that they deserve all they get and should be exposed to the public (if only) so that they (the public) are aware of these characters when eventually they might get out of a term sentence!

    If the girl is just posting their names into the public domain, saying they did something terrible without (absolute) proof and/or a a court sentence upon them, without finding them previously guilty for the crime they are supposed to have done, then I would say she would be wrong just to post names in the public domain and slate them.

    I am NOT saying I don't believer her assault/rape.

    I am saying that any person just should not wake up the next day and possibly see their name/reputation slandered so easily and without some amount of legal justification.

    They plead guilty. They were charged with felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    humbert wrote: »
    I've only heard of that happening in Britain.

    Bit off topic but I know a case in America with a girl sending a photo of herself and she would have been 14 or 15, she was charged with producing child porn and then distributing it to her boyfriend.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    humbert wrote: »
    I've only heard of that happening in Britain.

    pretty sure it's happened stateside several times too but im not going to google in case my internet search history ever becomes the subject of a court case


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,351 ✭✭✭NegativeCreep


    Just because you were raped doesn't mean you are exempt from the law. Why should she get away with what she did? Writing "there you go, arrest me" or something like that probably wasn't the smartest thing to do either :L She doesn't have the right to tell people who did it and it's simple as that :L


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    Unfortunately, people have the wrong idea about our justice system. When a criminal commits a crime, they are violating the social contract with the community; it is a crime against the people. A prosecutor is responsible for sharing the victim's story, but they are prosecuting on behalf of the people. Individual victims can find justice through civil courts. Without victims, there would be no crimes, and there are definitely initiatives by legal organizations to increase the voice of the victim, but it remains the prosecutor's discretion whether to charge an individual with a crime and for what crime they are to be prosecuted for. As a victim, her action may have been empowering and healing, but it was a form of vigilantism that was outside the administration of justice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Bit off topic but I know a case in America with a girl sending a photo of herself and she would have been 14 or 15, she was charged with producing child porn and then distributing it to her boyfriend.

    Perhaps the age of consent is different then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,945 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Juvenile court too, so becomes even more problematic in regards to naming who's involved.

    Also, can set a dangerous precedent if allowed to get away with it, as there'd be others who might name people online saying they've raped them, but have not been convicted in court.

    What she did was stupid imo.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    humbert wrote: »
    Perhaps the age of consent is different then.

    the age of consent is 16 in england isnt it? but im pretty sure you have to be 18 to take noodie pics


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,066 ✭✭✭Washington Irving


    "Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims"

    For naming victims?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Biggins wrote: »
    Just to be clear:

    * Was the supposed accused assaulters/rapists convicted in a court?
    * Where they held to account in court by state or prosecution by the girl or her family?

    The above article is a bit unclear in this.

    IF they were found guilty previously then I have no hesitation in saying that they deserve all they get and should be exposed to the public (if only) so that they (the public) are aware of these characters when eventually they might get out of a term sentence!

    If the girl is just posting their names into the public domain, saying they did something terrible without (absolute) proof and/or a a court sentence upon them, without finding them previously guilty for the crime they are supposed to have done, then I would say she would be wrong just to post names in the public domain and slate them.

    I am NOT saying I don't believer her assault/rape.

    I am saying that any person just should not wake up the next day and possibly see their name/reputation slandered so easily and without some amount of legal justification.
    They plead guilty.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Wilberto wrote: »
    The defendants actually pleaded guilty and were sentenced. But, I'm guessing because they pleaded guilty straight off, they got off with a "slap on the wrist"

    If they were found guilt or admitted their crime(s) then she SHOULD gave the right to expose them then.

    There is an additional catch though!
    What was their ages?
    If under 18 or whatever that country/state juvenile limit is, there might be further restrictions legally in place to limit exposure of young offenders - and those laws she might have broken.

    Its just a point to possibly be aware of (and maybe not applicable in this case).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Unfortunately, people have the wrong idea about our justice system. When a criminal commits a crime, they are violating the social contract with the community; it is a crime against the people. A prosecutor is responsible for sharing the victim's story, but they are prosecuting on behalf of the people. Individual victims can find justice through civil courts. Without victims, there would be no crimes, and there are definitely initiatives by legal organizations to increase the voice of the victim, but it remains the prosecutor's discretion whether to charge an individual with a crime and for what crime they are to be prosecuted for. As a victim, her action may have been empowering and healing, but it was a form of vigilantism that was outside the administration of justice.

    If she reported something that was untrue she'd be guilty of libel/slander.

    Further censorship seem very difficult to justify and IMO when the law and justice diverge breaking the law is completely justified.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,977 Mod ✭✭✭✭GoldFour4


    humbert wrote: »
    Thread title still confuses me.

    She could be fined or jailed for naming the two lads who did it. I don't get the confusion ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,945 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Biggins wrote: »
    If they were found guilt or admitted their crime(s) then she SHOULD gave the right to expose them then.

    There is an additional catch though!
    What was their ages?
    If under 18 or whatever that country/state juvenile limit is, there might be further restrictions legally in place to limit exposure of young offenders - and those laws she might have broken.

    Its just a point to possibly be aware of (and maybe not applicable in this case).

    It's applicable in this case, she's 16, they seem to be 16 too, and it was tried in a juvenile court


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    the age of consent is 16 in england isnt it? but im pretty sure you have to be 18 to take noodie pics

    I really couldn't say
    <_<
    >_>


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,241 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

    ... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

    Did she even make these claims?

    I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

    ... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

    Did she even make these claims?

    I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

    Well she was passed out. There was pictures. And rape doesn't only have to involve one thing. Oral rape is still rape so... yeah.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭childsplay


    Jesus H Christ, the world has gone feckin' nuts :mad:. These types of stories are getting far too common for my liking. And why is it that young men seem to get the benefit of the doubt more often than girls.....that just plain enrages me:mad::mad::mad:. Just because men have penises doesn't mean that they should get away with awful behaviours. Now I'm making sweeping statements I know but that's my view of it all and it makes me mad and some might even say cynical.

    Fair play to this young woman though. She is sticking it too her attackers and taking a stand. That must be incredibly hard considering the situation. I salute her bravery and courage.


Advertisement