Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich
| Louisville teen sexual assault case | |
|---|---|
| Location | Louisville, Kentucky |
| Date | August 2011 |
Attack type | Sexual assault |
In August 2011, a female American high-school student named Savannah Dietrich was sexually assaulted by several football players at a party in Louisville, Kentucky.[1] The assault was photographed by participants and observers, and images and comments from the incident went viral on the internet.
In a plea bargain, two 16-year-old boys pleaded guilty to sexual abuse and voyeurism. International controversy regarding the case developed when Dietrich released the names of her attackers despite the existence of state privacy laws protecting minors, and argued publicly that they were not adequately punished. Attorneys for the boys attempted to have her held in contempt, but the motion was subsequently dropped.
Afterwards, at the time of sentencing, the judge said that because of the "serious nature" of the crime, she would revise the punishment requested by the prosecutor. Accordingly, the judge removed a provision that would have expunged the defendants' records upon reaching age 19 1⁄2, and also ordered that their community service be served at a charity that deals with women's issues.[2]
Initial court proceedings, plea deal, and privacy law
The two defendants pleaded guilty to sexual abuse and voyeurism. The initial plea-deal agreed to by prosecutors was 50 hours of community service, a diversion agreement, counseling, and a provision to expunge the defendants' criminal records — provided they maintained good behaviour — at age 19 1⁄2.[3]
On June 26, 2012, Judge Deana H. McDonald admonished the parties to the case that they must follow the statutes and laws regarding privacy and confidentiality of juvenile proceedings on the Commonwealth of Kentucky.[4] The state of Kentucky is one of 11 states which seal court cases if the accused is under 18 years of age.[5] This meant that Dietrich (the 16-year-old female victim) was not permitted to speak about the case, the charges, the facts and allegations therein, and the identities of the defendants.[6]
Statements by victim protesting leniency
Dietrich stated that she felt her concerns were not properly addressed and that the proposed deal was too lenient. Later that evening, she announced the names of the defendants on Twitter, and international controversy regarding the case developed as a result.
Attorneys for the boys attempted to have her held in contempt for publishing their names, but the motion was subsequently dropped. Some news sources erroneously reported that there was a "gag order" issued in the case.[2][7]
In an affidavit, Dietrich also stated that Paul Richwalsky, the chief prosecutor in the juvenile court division, said she should "get over it and see a therapist. ... The jail was for 'real' rapists, murderers and robbers".[8] Richwalsky denied the allegation and stated in an affidavit "Perhaps it is not so much she is trying to intentionally mislead and deceive this court, but rather the delusional assertions made in her affidavit are merely the byproduct of what she would like to believe happened and not what in actuality took place."[8]
Sentencing and revision of plea deal
During sentencing, Judge Angela Bisig emphasized the "serious nature" of the crime. She removed a provision of the plea deal that would have expunged the defendants' records when they reach age 19 1⁄2. She also ordered that their community service be served at a charity that deals with women's issues.[2]
Terms of the sentences require supervision by the state's juvenile justice department, offender treatment and performance of 50 hours of community service at a women's facility. After three years of good behavior the two felony charges may be amended down to misdemeanors and after five years the boys may request that the convictions be expunged.[2]
Subsequent activities
Dietrich was reportedly satisfied with the revised punishment.[9] In March 2013, she took an active and public role in advocating legislation in the Kentucky legislature, as reported by The Courier-Journal:[10]
[S]he hopes that a law would prevent what happened to her from happening to anyone else. She said perhaps the law will make it clear to everyone that it is the victim's right to talk about what happened.
At the same time, Dietrich indicated that such a state law is not absolutely necessary, given the protections that she believes are already afforded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[10][11]
See also
References
- ↑ Gye, Hugo (2012-09-03). "Savannah Dietrich was told to 'get over it' by lawyer after being assaulted by classmates | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-01-07.
- 1 2 3 4 Riley, Jason (September 15, 2012). "Savannah Dietrich attackers get slightly tougher sentence". The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky: Wes Jackson). Retrieved 9 August 2013.
- ↑ "Savannah Dietrich comes face-to-face with admitted abusers". Louisville, Kentucky: WDRB. September 19, 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
- ↑ Plait, Phil (2012-07-23). "Savannah Dietrich outs her rapists on Twitter and Facebook". Slate.com. Retrieved 2013-01-07.
- ↑ Chang, Juju (2012-08-20). "Kentucky Teen Sexually Assaulted, Then Threatened With Jail Time - ABC News". Abcnews.go.com. Retrieved 2013-01-07.
- ↑ Pesta, Abigail (December 10, 2012). "'Thanks for Ruining My Life'". Newsweek (The Daily Beast). Retrieved 3 January 2013.
- ↑ Jefferson District Court, Juvenile Division, "Opinion and Order", p. 4 (August 28, 2012), obtained via Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
- 1 2 Riley, Jason; Wolfson, Andrew (August 31, 2012). "Teens who assaulted 16-year-old thought it would be 'funny'". USA Today (Louisville, Kentucky: Gannett). Retrieved 4 January 2013.
- ↑ Weiss, Jaimie. "Judge changes plea deal after teen Tweets displeasure", WAVE News (Sep 14, 2012).
- 1 2 Halladay, Jessie. "Kentucky House advances bill to allow juvenile court victims to discuss case", The Courier-Journal (Mar 4, 2013).
- ↑ First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh has commented about this Louisville case, saying that a pertinent U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this subject is Oklahoma Publishing v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977). See Volokh, Eugene. "The Dark Side of Privacy", Volokh Conspiracy (July 22, 2012).