Despite DNA, the Rapist Got Away
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
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...
So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
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.
That's actually more difficult to prosecute successfully. It's much easier when you have DNA evidence linking two people who otherwise have no connection whatsoever, and demonstrating that forcible sexual contact occurred despite the rapist claiming to be somewhere else at the time.
It's much more difficult when the rapist is a relative who has plenty of opportunities to be close to the victim, plenty of alternative alibis or excuses, and (most importantly) plenty of leverage to emotionally blackmail the victim into not filing charges.
Rape can occur within marriage or domestic partnerships, and this is probably by far the most difficult to prosecute. The fact that the victim knows the rapist makes it more complicated legally and logistically, not less. In an abusive relationship, it's considered a success just to get the victim out of the relationship at all, and if they're in an emotional state where they can still move on and function in life, that's an added bonus. In situations like these, trying to prosecute the rapist is a distant pipe dream.
> 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.
I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist". If you look at the link I cited in the original comment, it provides data on the number of repeat offenders, which is already troubling enough to be of concern, regardless of whether it meets your unstated threshold of "serial rapist".
>I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist".
I don't know what microcolonel intended, but I see the distinction in who was raped. A repeat offender may rape only a single person, but multiple times. A serial rapist sound like someone who rapes multiple people.
Sorry if that wasn't clear, I was under the impression that serial rapist meant more than once. A series of two is a thing.
From that link, which discusses psychologist David Lisak's studies of rapists: "The last time I discussed Lisak’s work, I focused on the proportion of the population are the serial predators: a limited group within the population who are recidivist rapists, and who account for the overwhelming majority of rapes, and for a large portion of the child abuse and molestation and the intimate partner violence."
Do you have studies to cite that back up the opposite claim? It's perfectly possible the reality is unclear, but everything I've read about the issue supports the idea that the majority of rapes are commited by significantly than 10% of the male population.
This suggests a view in which rape is seen as a "predator/citizen" problem rather than a "men/women" problem, given that male rapists are about as rare as false rape reports (FBI data suggests that 8% of all rape reports are false, and Lisak and other's work suggests that about 8% of men are rapists, with as few as 4% accounting for 75-80% of rapes).
As well as having the potential to open up new ways of addressing rape (and maybe identifying serial rapists early) this change in perspective would allow a more equal focus on male victims, whose numbers are not well-known (male under-reporting rates are almost completely unstudied and plausibly higher than women's).
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.
What the jury thinks about possible rape cases is of course depended on societies overall attitude to the crime and the involved group of persons. To give an extreme example: I would say, that a few years ago, many would never think that a priest could also be a rapist. Without the possibility in mind it is hard to convict somebody of something.
So we have to be very careful. There are a few cases of people ruining other peoples lives by accusing them, but most of the time, when somebody claims to be a rape victim and you have found DNA samples, probably it was indeed rape.
If you elect them, they will invariably go tough on crime, and have a huge conflict of interest in finding people guilty.
If you don't elect them and they are appointed who appoints them and how can you prevent the ultimate check on the state's power from being corrupted?
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.
This could actually be a huge problem if the thief is someone you know. Imagine you find some items missing from your house in the course of a normal day. You then go and tell the police that the potential suspects are your friends, your SO, and everyone else who was in your house.
Do you think the police (in any country) will be serious about investigating your case?
Don't be dense.
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!
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...
I don't get it, what else are are rape tests for if not testing? Why does this even need to be stated?
Even murder is usually a state crime unless it happens in DC or somehow affects interstate commerce.
As one example, there was a federal law known as the Gun Free School Zones Act that banned possessing a firearm within 1500 feet of a school (unless it was on private property, encased and locked, the possessor had a concealed pistol license, or a couple of other exceptions). In the case US v. Lopez, it got shot down as unconstitutional. It immediately got re-passed with the caveat that it affected any firearm that "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce", which of course is almost all of them.