Despite DNA, the Rapist Got Away

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-despite-dna-the-rapist-got-away.html

by nkzednan • 11 years ago

37 34 11 years ago

This article focuses on cases of rape in which DNA evidence did provide new information, though it's worth noting that there are a number of kits that are never processed because there is no need - the disagreement is not on whether the rapist and victim had sex, but on whether it was consensual or not.

I don't really know what percentage of cases this applies to, and I wouldn't be surprised if the data on this is fuzzy to begin with. But it's helpful to keep in mind because a large reason that so many rapists get away[0] is that it can be difficult to prove lack of consent, and the status quo is that justice system effectively defaults to assuming consent unless otherwise proven (at least in many cases), which has unfortunate consequences for both the victim and future victims.

[0] http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapei...

delinka• 11 years ago

"...assuming consent unless otherwise proven..."

So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

microcolonel2• 11 years ago

That seems consistent with the spirit of the legal system.

Added: That is, to skirt this basic mechanism would probably be worse for everyone than the temporary escape of a rapist. I say this as somebody who has experienced sexual abuse.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most rape and sexual assault is committed by people whom the victim knows personally, which makes the majority of cases much simpler to prosecute than this one.

Yet another thing to keep in mind is that although rapists tend to be repeat offenders, only a small percentage are "serial rapists". That is, they're rare like serial killers are. Those guys barely exist.

Note: there are replies to my comment which hackerne.ws won't let me reply to, my silence doesn't indicate an agreement or indeed a disagreement with any of the statements herein.

oldmanjay2• 11 years ago

for the sake of being the devil's advocate, how could one carve out a little more room for interpersonal disputes such as this to be adjudicated? consent is too abstract to be measured, so proof is an impossibly high standard in a practical sense.

tehwalrus• 11 years ago

no, that is not the same thing.

In a case where the two people have differing accounts of consent, and there is no other usable evidence, the person is found "not guilty" (not the same as innocent) because it cannot be proved. This is not the same thing as assuming consent, it is applying the principle of the law.

Assuming consent is a much more insidious thing, which means actually disbelieving the victim on principal, because of the type of crime. This is not a problem in e.g. theft, because nobody assumes people want their stuff stolen.

venomsnake• 11 years ago

So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

And you don't want to live in a place where it is otherwise.

To make things even more fun - most sexual acts are done on secluded places, so having a reliable witnesses is somewhat rare.

DannoHung• 11 years ago

No one is necessarily accused before the processing of a rape kit. In fact, a rape kit may provide exonerating evidence of the accused.

Don't be dense.

allendoerfer3• 11 years ago

I wanted to find out what the statute of limitation for rape is in the USA, because under German law (20 years starting with the victims 18th birthday), the rapist could very well be punished. And found out, that each state has their own regulation. I am all for federalism, but 16/50 different rape laws?

koenigdavidmj2• 11 years ago

Federal law is allowed to exist for a fairly short list of things in the Constitution, with regulating interstate commerce being the justification for most federal laws. It's not just a place to put anything we deem really important.

Even murder is usually a state crime unless it happens in DC or somehow affects interstate commerce.

sk5t2• 11 years ago

That's taking a pretty kind view of the Fed's adherence to the Constitutional limits on its power. If it were important enough to the Federal government, Congress could use the club of taxation and federal grants to force the states to toe the line. See for example the peculiar uniformity in laws related to the drinking age, drivers' licenses, etc.; see also the questionable legality of the Affordable Care Act.

frandroid• 11 years ago

It's not that different from all EU states each having their own criminal codes. Of course, there is no U.S. state as large as the UK, France or Germany, but you have multiple European states the size of some American states.

gweinberg• 11 years ago

I assume you mean in population. Texas is almost as big as France, much bigger than Fermany, and Alaska is much bigger than any of them.

allendoerfer3• 11 years ago

Population wise the big EU states are much bigger than the big US states. Aside from that: You are right and it makes total sense to unify criminal laws and prosecution in a borderless area.

DannyBee• 11 years ago

"Only five states — Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Texas — require the testing of all rape kits,"

The story is about a rape in Illinois, and the kit wasn't tested, despite it being required. So i'm not quite sure of the relevance of this tidbit, since they go on to cite other statistics that show, essentially, "you can make whatever you want the law, it doesn't seem to help this".

IE they seem to include it to say that it's sad every state doesn't force testing, but go on to show it doesn't even seem to matter when they do!

navait• 11 years ago

The rape kit was made in 1991, and the illinois law (725 ILCS 202/5) was passed in 2010. Incidents like these were the reason they passed the law.

Addendum: If anything, the law actually helped solve a lot of the backlog problems:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-18/news/ct-rape-k...

Ironchefpython• 11 years ago

Maybe if the federal government showered billions of dollars on police departments for catching rapists and other violent criminals rather than locking up drug users or giving out free urban assault vehicles, we'd see different outcomes.

brighteyes• 11 years ago

There are two major problems with this article.

First, the example of rape that it begins with is not just a rape, but an attempted murder (she survived only by sheer luck). Therefore, using it as an example of police and/or society not caring enough about rape, is simply wrong. One could equally argue that that particular anecdote shows that police and/or society don't care enough about murder, or the combination of rape and murder.

Second, the example is of a complete stranger attacking out of the blue. We know those are very rare; most rapes happen between people that know each other. To use an example of the rare kind is disingenuous. Especially when that fact is very pertinent: many rape kits are not tested because their contents are not interesting, as both prosecution and defense agree sex took place - the two people may have been in a relationship - but disagree on consent. It is in some cases rational to not spend the police's limited funds on a test whose result is already known.

With that said, there is a valid point: There are likely police that don't care enough about crime, especially in poor areas. And DNA testing is straightforward - raise enough money, force police to test them, and you might catch some criminals. It is important to do that. But the article argues the point in a poor and misleading manner.

smegel• 11 years ago

and that’s one reason we should routinely test rape kits

I don't get it, what else are are rape tests for if not testing? Why does this even need to be stated?

RyJones2• 11 years ago

Making the victim feel good that "something is being done."

Despite DNA, the Rapist Got Away

Related Stories