Savanah Dietrich, teen rape victim facing charges for refusing to protect the privacy of her rapists,
One of the Ethics Alarms principles that many find infuriating is my position that violating the law is inherently unethical. Like all rules, this one doesn’t make sense in all cases, and one of them has surfaced in Louisville, Kentucky.
Savanah Dietrich, a 17-year-old rape victim, was infuriated when her teenaged rapists managed to negotiate a lenient plea bargain for sexually assaulting her and circulating pictures of the incident to friends. She took to Twitter, named them and described what they did to her, despite being under a confidentiality order from the judge in the case. Her attackers were juveniles, and the court records were sealed. Now Dietrich is facing a jail sentence longer than her rapists, because their attorneys have asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold her in contempt.
“There you go, lock me up,” Savannah Dietrich tweeted, as she named and shamed the attackers, Will Frey III and Austin Zehnder. She has told reporters that she was not made aware of the plea bargains until she heard them announced in court. “I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it,” she said. “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.”
Many will agree with Dietrich, including me.
I understand the societal logic behind protecting the identity of juvenile offenders for some crimes. I don’t understand it, or think it’s appropriate for crimes of violence. The Louisville Courier-Journal, which reported the story, did so without publishing the names of Deitrich’s rapists because, it said, “the newspaper usually does not identify minors in juvenile court, with the exception of some cases, like murder.” Why? Newspapers refuse to exercise discretion in publishing leaked national security secrets that will threaten the lives of U.S. operatives abroad; they routinely (and absurdly) refuse to print the names of alleged rape victims while publicizing the names of those accused before a jury has heard their cases. Yet the Courier-Journal—and the other news media I checked regarding this case— believes the ethical course is to protect the privacy and reputation of rapists who have confessed, while their teen victim’s name is widely known. That is neither justice, nor fair, nor logical, and more proof of my conviction that where journalistic ethics are involved, the news media just makes it up as they go along.
Constitutional law specialist Eugene Volokh says that he finds it difficult to believe that a court order can forbid a rape victim from talking about the facts of her own attack. The UCLA law professor* writes,
“Dietrich revealed what she knew even before the trial — the names of her attackers — and that they are juveniles cannot strip her of her First Amendment rights on this score. And while she also revealed that they got a plea bargain, something she presumably learned through the court proceedings,that strikes me as the sort of information about the court system and the prosecutor’s office that the state cannot stop people from revealing.”
Volokh and other legal experts believe that Deitrich may still be in trouble, however, because it is illegal to violate a court order even when it’s unconstitutional. The proper procedure is to challenge the order, and have it overturned. Yes, Savanah Dietrich may be legally punished for violating an illegal court order and abuse of power that forbade her from speaking about the details of her own rape.
Enough of the legal mess, however: was Savanah Dietrich unethical to tweet the names of her attackers? My conclusion requires a lot of exceptions:
- I think that vengeance is an unethical justification for harmful conduct toward another, but in the case of a violent crime, and a violent crime in which the perpetrators have managed to avoid consequences appropriate to their deeds, public shaming by the victim seems fair and reasonable to me. Why should a rape victim be forced to protect the natural consequences that flow from the public being aware of what her rapists did to her?
- I think that using the internet to embarrass individuals for misbehaving in private interactions, thus inspiring disproportionate enmity from strangers based on incidents that were intended to be private and between two individuals, is wrong. It is not wrong, however, to shame someone who deserves to be shamed for a crime or other serious misconduct that suggests that they are dangerous or individuals others should be wary of trusting.
- I believe that the justice system needs to have the option of making plea bargains with guilty offenders, and that it also has a legitimate interest in keeping the consequences of criminal acts less devastating for some juveniles than for similarly behaving adults, on the theory that maturity should be taken into account, and that children should be given second, and sometimes third, fourth and fifth chances. But I’m sorry: whether a child is 17, 16 or 12, if he rapes someone, the very least he deserves to live with is the anger of his victim, and the knowledge that she has the right to point him out as her attacker to her friends or the world at large. And if she chooses to do so, he has only himself to blame.
Especially if he rapes her and circulates photos of the crime to boast about it.
The judge was wrong; the news media protecting the young rapists are wrong. Obviously the rapists were wrong. (The lawyers for Frey and Austin Zehnder, as well as the prosecutors, are just doing their jobs.)
But Savanah Deitrich has done nothing unethical, even if she is found to have broken the law by violating the confidentiality order. She has a right to tell her story, and if her rapists are shamed and embarrassed by it, if the true story of what they did to her follows them for the rest of their lives until they make sufficient amends to Savanah that she decides they have suffered enough…
Good.
* CORRECTION: In the original post, I stupidly identified the professor, a proud member of the UCLA law school faculty, as teaching at Stanford. I apologize to all concerned, including any readers I may have misled.
__________________________________
Facts: Louisville Courier-Journal
Sources:
Graphic: Hello Giggles
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Austin Zehnder’s a rich kid that got a slap on the wrist…His parents are Ron and Susan Zehnder; google the mom’s name and see what crowd she hangs with. They live in a million dollar home; [ADDRESS REDACTED BY ADMINISTRATOR] It’s disgusting what money can buy, like a Judge!!
Completely incoherent. What good does it do to make the point publicly that a rape victim—why should she care how old her rapists are?—has the right to identify her rapists, forever, if she chooses?? Is that really a stumper for you? Do you comprehend the value of distinguishing right and wrong? “Nosy”? Your “book” is written in gibberish.
Your response in no way had anything to do with what I was talking about. This person was searching for this kid’s family just to be a busybody. While this case is on public record, where does it stop? If people like Rj are going to feel self-righteous by Googling this family’s life and arguing ethics, then I laugh at their hypocrisy. Next time actually read the comment thoroughly, friendly tip.
What ARE you talking about? Where does Google even come into this story? Who is “this person”? The woman who sent the tweet was the rape victim, you boob—she didn’t have to google anyone to know who raped her. If you mean me, take a hike. They are rapists; their victim is known, she has made their names public, as she has every right to do, and the fact that a court seals a record does not mean that young criminals have a right to escape accountability for rape—and I didn’t “google the family” to get the names, either. Who is “Rj”? What is your point? What hypocrisy? What is your first language?
Stop wasting our time.
FYI, “RJ” is the guy who posted the address of Austin Zehnder’s parents (though you probably already know this). In fact, Zed’s comment was only critical about what he felt was RJ’s attempt to get people to start harassing the Zehnders, and had nothing to do with what you were talking about. I’m a fan of your site, as you probably already know, so I feel fairly safe in saying that you probably owe Zed a small apology.
Thanks, Julian. Gee, you managed to clear that up with plain English. I’ll try to figure out how to apologize small—the two posts were so wretchedly written that my eyes are apologizing to my brain for subjecting him to them….
Thanks to a kind commenter who can craft a sentence, I now understand what you were trying to say (and failed, at least as far as my abilities are concerned). Yes, attacking a family’s privacy by publishing their address and contact information in controversies like this, no matter what the facts are, is unethical and wrong. I don’t do it; I don’t allow others to do it; I’ve called out those who have done it, like Spike Lee. I apologize for calling you a boob. Now next time, make it clear what you’re commenting about, please.
I mentioned the original commenter’s name (RJ). Are you sure you can read? Additionally, what is so hard to understand about my posts? Did you go to ITT Tech or something?
Ok, I have now promoted you from “boob” to “jerk”: here is your initial post:
“This website is called “Ethics Alarm.” I would feel alarmed if I was encouraging the (at least) pestering or (at most) invasion of this family’s privacy. This UNDERAGE CHILD plead guilty and all of this is on public record, so if you want to check, by all means spend your free time investigating and make sure to sharpen your pitch fork while you’re at it. What good does going after the family do? What gives you the right and arrogance to feel compelled to be so nosy that you will search the family’s home on Google? Absolutely pathetic. Here is an ethics alarm right here, in my book.”
It accused ME of “going after the family” and did not reference RJ at all, which you finally noted in the supposedly clarifying comment, which still did not explain why the term “you” (meaning me, since the comment was to my post) was used when it referred to “Rj.” (For the record, comments come to me in order of posting, not by MY post. Unless a commenter specifies what another commenter said or replies directly to that comment, I have no way of knowing what is being referred to, other than searching the comments.)
A commenter has to be smarter than you are before I’ll put up with insults, buddy. You’re banned.
Actually, I suspect this whole disagreement might be simply due to a coding error on your site; according to my screen, Zed’s post was in fact made in direct reply to RJ’s. For whatever reason, it seems not to have registered as such on your browser.
That’s unfortunate, if true. Yes, if I read the comment as a reply to RJ, it is clear. It came to me as a reply to the original post only, and made no sense in that context at all. Never mind—he gave a snotty reply to my Julian-inspired apology. “What we have here is a failure to communicate!”
This girl was not raped. By constantly referring to these boys as rapists, you create a straw man against protecting their identities. You also put savannah on a moral high ground that, until I learn more about the actual facts of her case, I’m not willing to put her on. Have we learned nothing from the Brian Banks story? So lets put this in context…we’re giving the moral high ground to a girl who admits to drinking until she passed out at the age of 15 or 16? GTFOH. So, rape is bad, people who rape should have their balls cut off….but before we crucify people we need to consider the source.
What? She was sexually assaulted—raped—while she was unable to give consent. The fact that she was drinking, drunk, stoned, whatever, has exactly nothing to do with mitigating rape. The boys pleaded guilty…you are now making the Brian Banks case, where a woman completely manufactured a rape claim, the norm? Sorry: the presumption after a court determination is that the fact are as the defendants has admitted them to be, not your presumption that a Banks situation lurks beneath. “We need to consider the source”—despicable. A victim is a victim. She was judged credible enough to compel the accused boys to admit their crimes. Her underage drinking doesn’t make her a legitimate target of sexual assault, and if you think otherwise, I’ll happily submit your name to Neighborhood Watch, so everyone can lock up their daughters.
Well said Mr. Marshall
Savannah has choices ahead of her now. She can bring this forward and make sure no other girl ends up in contempt for a Judges decission to protected any rapist, even if they are under age, Now that would be really empowering! She can go on and forget it like most do and live in fear, she can just decide they have taken up enough of her emotions and she has better things to do than to let them keep torturing her. You see Savannah has choices, many more than what she thinks. She can go into civil court and go after the boys via their parents. So many choices. Yet, It is up to Savannah. She seems like a good kid, she just needs some room to think about what she needs to do to be ok with herself about the whole thing including the court that caudled these rapists.
Good reply
Not to trivialize the plight of the victim, but while she was sexually assaulted, she was not raped. Sexual assault includes things like groping, or in this case photographing a girl who is clearly unconscious while doing so (they were prosecuted on evidence of photographs that they themselves took). Yes, the case is disgusting and nasty, but it does no one any good to say that it was rape when in fact it was something else. Yes, there was a plea deal, but it wasn’t one that reduced rape to sexual abuse, it was probably to knock down what could have been felony child pornography charges to misdemeanor voyeurism (they were convicted of felony sexual abuse and the voyeurism). And it isn’t right that she was given that court order. But once again, it wasn’t rape. Rape is a very specific crime, and you are not helping anyone by saying that this is a rape case when it is not.
She was, in fact, raped. I have spoken to attorneys who know the case.
Better check your source again. No real attorney could make that statement. They did not rape her. Savannah is the one who supplied the party, drinks and overnight invitation. She is known for having these parties here in Louisville. Now she has a website raising money for laptops and vacations @ savannahdietrichoasis. $100 gets you an invite to her afterparty. She is looking for book and movie deals while she is waiting for her name to be trademark. Mom has even taken a ‘leave of absence’ from her job to manage her daughter’s new found career.
What does any of that prove regarding her being raped? So what if she supplied the drinks? Yeah, they were all drunk, and if she didn’t have the capacity for consent, she was raped.
Melvin,
Where is this site you’re talking about? I don’t see it.
We need to consider the facts. They sexually assualted her and were convicted of it. PERIOD.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!!
She passed out topless after a throwing up violently from alcohol poisoning ….they only took pictures. The boys plead guilty to sexual assault because it has fewer repercussions than child pornography charges. 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.
NOW SAVANAGH BEGAN A WILD INTERNET WITCHHUNT CAMPAIGN ASKING FOR VIGILANTE JUSTICE FOR “RAPISTS THAT GOT AWAY”:
SHE EVEN PUBLISHED PHONE NUMBERS AND ADRESSESS OF ALLEGED “RAPISTS”:
PLZ. HELP SPREAD AWARENESS UNTIL INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT!
The boys admitted to raping and putting their fingers inside her vagina. You’re lying to us.
The rapists admitted to putting their fingers inside her and raping her. Get your facts straight and quit lying you rape apologist.
ohaji, please consider the fact you did read the court case. These two young men pleaded guilty to raping this young girl and they should have been tried as adults. If these teenage boys were “of color” and lived in Kentucky we would not be having this conversation.
What part of “photos passed around” do you not understand? If she is to face any jail time at all, let it be for the drinking. To do it on a “contempt” charge because she wanted to warn other girls what these two young monsters are capable of? Inexcusable.
Didn’t the boys already forego their privacy by making the video of their assault on the girl public?
Also, for RJ – I’m not liking your posting of the address….
Yikes, Tim…I missed the address. I just edited it out. My fault—that should never have been posted. Thanks for the flag.
That’s ok. I got it now and it has already been posted on other sites.
I would agree that a guilty verdict to first degree sexual assault should be enough to compel a release of the boys names but isn’t a plea a binding agreement? I have always understood that, and maybe wrongly, that pleas are offered for several different reasons such as to protect the victim, save cost, lack of confidence of a guilty verdict and so on. Now if the prosecutor, who may have not consulted the victim, offers a deal and the offenders take it don’t they have recourse if the other party does not follow through with the agreement? I am not trying to excuse the heinousness behavior of these two but I have a hard time believing that the prosecutor would agree to this without a valid reason.
Hey, Haven’t you learned the valid reason in this society is money, power, and position in the community. These boys went to a private school. Their families may be pillers of the community. The Judge and those who agreed to the plea may just have sent their kids to that private school. God knows why the courts do such stupid thing when it comes to violence toward females.
Being a mother of two daughters and a woman who was molested at the age of 11 I say good for her. I would be so proud of my daughters if they ever had to do something like this. It is such a shame how people these days want to protect the attackers image and distroy the victim. She had her right stomped on and didnt get the justice she deserves. I’m sure if she is really fined people will donate money to pay that fine.
I should have proof read that. I meant “rights” not right and if she has to pay fines then people would help. I also want to add what are these parents thinking when it comes to their sons? I have two sons as well as my girls my boys would have got an old fashioned butt kicking. They make comments now about not getting into trouble with the law because at some point they have to come home.
No – the accused can plead guilty to avoid a trial, and speed things up, avoid publicity, and even to get a lighter sentence. Since there are photos these morons wouldn’t have escaped conviction at trial. Their lawyer advised them to plead out. The victim has no choice whether they go to trial at that point or not.
Thanks, the articles I read made it seem like the prosecution made the offer, I thought maybe it was to just to insure a conviction. I had to read up on this a bit more, the contempt charges on her have been dropped but many of the articles I have read has stated that her response was due to the plea deal being too lenient but isn’t 1st degree sexual abuse the highest rape charge? Seems to be an overall outcry that these two have gotten away with something and I don’t get it, the sentencing has not even happened yet. I get the outrage on the contempt charge but isn’t the 1st degree the appropriate charge? I would have to say that after a conviction there should be no withholding of an offenders name.
It is not the highest rape charge. The maximum penalty they can get is 5 years.
Pingback: Go ahead, sue me – I dare you « The Crawdad Hole
From what I’ve been able to figure out, the “contempt charge” never actually got to be a charge, per se. It was a motion by the defendants’ lawyers, but it never got further than that. But I’d say that attempt, coupled with their demand for a closed hearing, means that they weren’t “just doing their jobs.” They consciously set out to further humiliate a rape victim. No points for that on the classy-ometer.
Stephen, sexual assault in the 1st degree is a D felony. It may have been, however, that the correct charge would have been rape in the 1st degree: a B felony. Hence the “getting off easy,” especially since they were also being tried as juveniles.
*Steven–sorry for getting your name wrong.
Thanks for correcting the name, I appreciate it. Also for the clarification I was a bit confused as one story said they agreed to the original felony charge plus a misdemeanor and one misdemeanor was dropped.
So why not go for the throat, rape in the 1st degree? I am baffled by most of these cases as I can’t see how any parent would allow even their nearly adult children to be in this position or this morally bankrupt. Even during my morally depraved years there was plenty of drunken hook ups but maybe my sphere of people were just tighter because if anything were to happen within or close to our group it was dealt with severely and immediately. Even our parents had some idea what was going on within our group. Not because we had informers but because our parents knew us.
Please keep us updated on the matter. This is one issue I don’t want people to just forget after a few days pass. This isn’t just about one girl anymore, it ha become far greater than that.
has* I meant to write “has” not “ha”
Sorry about the typo.
Maybe she should be held in contempt of court, because I’m sure that’s how she feels about the court. I feel nothing but contempt for them as well!
Be careful publishing names even though they can be found elsewhere. The uneveness of justice is based on the money at hand. It appears one of the “boys” doesn’t have the same ability to perform the internet and media sanitization as the other.
Think about it.
Did you just post the one most easily found, or did you post both names?(I’m advocating it, just happened to notice a common theme in my surfing)
Looks like one set of parents is sneakily throwing the other family “under the bus.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I posted both names. 1) It’s public record 2) The media should publish them by their own “standards.” 3) They are easily obtained. 4) Why should I protect them from the consequences of their actions?
And even by your own argument, publishing both names is fairer and advances justice. Nobody can force me to take the names down, so your sanitizing argument is irrelevant to Ethics Alarms.
ooops, that is a typo — I am NOT advocating it, just happened to notice a common theme
I assume that the parties to the plea bargain were the defendants, together with their attorneys, and the prosecutor, on behalf of the People. So far as I know, victims are not parties to, and do not sign plea agreements, even in cases where the court orders that restitution be paid to them. Therefore, I do not understand how the victim could be bound by it’s terms, and criminally prosecuted for violating a confidentiality provision.
I’m reading the above with some amusement and maybe I could have gotten some advice here earlier on. There are many misconceptions floating around and maybe I can help clear them up as I have been in contact with the family and making some social/PR type efforts for them, albeit with no official role.
This saves me some work to read the background of my story here, a journalistic effort tied to a fundraiser, for which I took much flack from a small segment of rape survivor groups that assumed I was exploiting the situation: http://www.indiegogo.com/savannadietrich
My initial effort was helping Savannah launch her Facebook Page the Sunday evening after the story first broke: https://www.facebook.com/Freedom4Savannah and there are a few posts in the first week that gave some background. I initially had not planned on moderating, perhaps no more than a little maintenance, but she hesitated under court pressure and so I was forced to initially give voice to the page.
While I was in sporadic contact with her mother and sent details to her new attorney, I was pretty much in a legal & ethical limbo, but to comply with the court while having ties to the family and also because the lynch mob atmosphere was getting out of hand on other blogs, pages & groups, I stressed not mentioning the boys by name or uncivil remarks–probably the first thing to draw the wrath of more angry activists.
I found after absorbing the story from various venues this actually made it easier to read all the posts for problems and keep a more sane, civil tone, but of course this wasn’t easy and I sympathized with more non-violent and passive resistance approaches. The family both before and after my fundraising efforts were ambivalent about fundraising, and we have since added a little distance though I am on good terms with her mother, who complimented my take and writings on the story.
I am since thinking about just making the separation official and solely working on a free-standing basis to avoid cross-liabilities with both parties in any future litigation, though there is the prospect of anyone taking action could potentially be called as witnesses or defendants in future lawsuits.
The two greatest misinformations I see circulating regard the plea bargain and the initial facts, of which few have any. I just posted a response on a page here: https://www.facebook.com/VoluntaryDisclosure that quotes the Kentucky law and states she is over-exaggerating because they got charged with assault, a miss-characterization of the legal process. Her initial Tweet calls them rapists, I believe she would be the one to know the difference:
Tweets posted
Angry after the June 26 hearing, Dietrich posted several tweets on her Twitter account naming the two teens who pleaded guilty.
“They said I can’t talk about it or I’ll be locked up,” Dietrich tweeted. “So I’m waiting for them to read this and lock me up. ____ justice.
“Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120720/NEWS01/307200106/Sexual-assault-victim-s-tweets-about-attackers-prompt-contempt-case-against-Louisville-s-Savannah-Dietrich
I’m sorry to “threadjack” your excellent article, but feel the factual background will help you clarify the issues. In terms of the plea bargain, which many lawyers have questioned the due process of making the deal without the victim’s input, it was the fact that the initial charges were reduced that angered Miss Dietrich enough to launch her civil disobedience.
The other main bone of contention I’m seeing bandied on blogs and news articles is did she violate the privacy and confidentiality of the boys, or break confidentiality of juvenile proceedings. It is undisputed that they posted the photos of the “sexual assault” on the Internet and distributed it among her school peers, in fact this is how the gossip initially reached her ears.
The facts of the boys’ names and acts had been made public by the boys themselves. While the gossip likely spread to the whole school before they were arrested, what are the odds in this Internet age the story would stop at the school borders?
It seems specious after the fact to then try to point any blame at the victim for commenting on facts the boys already made public and circulating–no new or secret information was breached from the court proceeding, and by their own lawyer filing a motion for contempt where the victim would face more serious punishment than the boys, ignited the firestorm that made Savannah a worldwide hero.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/23/and-whose-fault-was-that-or-ignore-the-streisand-effect-at-your-your-clients-peril/
I’ve faced huge ethical, moral & legal questions myself, taking actions under the pressure of the moment with little oversight from her legal representatives or her parents, and trying to make the best strategic moves I could. I actually have more enemies among her supporters at this point than the boys’ camp, as I saw the legal & media issues a priority over the rape survivor agendas, which will grow in importance but not critical to the initial phase.
I should add a follow-up for the historical record. I began to receive a huge amount of lies and slander at me, ironically from the extremist rape survivor types. for trying to maintain a neutral, fact based publicity campaign. Eventually the family sided with these clowns and turned their backs on all my weeks of work on their behalf, and as more details came out from Savannah herself it became apparent that there were discrepancies in her account, for example the party was at her residence when her parent’s were gone & the booze served was by her own doing and belonged to her parents.
Additionally she invited the sports jocks to the party and didn’t inform her boyfriend at the time, who wasn’t invited. It appears on this and other facts that eventually emerged there might be some liability on the part of her and her family for allowing the party to get out of control, and hard liquor being served to minors. From this new account it appears she might have even been solely to blame for her own intoxication, which doesn’t excuse the later events, but there is some mutual culpability and irresponsible behavior.
After getting the shabby bum-rush treatment from her family with little explanation my views went from being on her side to questioning the whole account. It also appeared that she led a double life her parents weren’t aware of and her mother was particularly clueless. It does moderate the hype somewhat, and I learned all the best laid appearances can be deceiving.
“I understand the societal logic behind protecting the identity of juvenile offenders for some crimes. I don’t understand it, or think it’s appropriate for crimes of violence.”
I don’t think we should make exceptions, *especially* when it is a violent crime. I’m reminded of the James Bulger murder case- two boys (aged 10 and 11) murdered a 2 year old. People were out for their blood, chasing the police van into the court building and screaming that the two offenders should be hanged (unaware of the implicit irony). This is why we have to protect violent criminals as though they are the victims: they *will* be victims if a passionate, angry crowd has its way.
The whole point of deferring to a dispassionate, cold, rational court system is to get away from a violent mob mentality. It is terrible that the victim could suffer a worse penalty than the rapists, but it is *us*, the furious, indignant and unaccountable crowd that requires there to be such an ass backward system. Brutalising criminals is more important to our sense of righteousness than feeling sorry for victims of violence.