

Despite DNA, the Rapist Got Away - nkzednan
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-despite-dna-the-rapist-got-away.html

======
brighteyes
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.

------
chimeracoder
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...](http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf)

~~~
delinka
"...assuming consent unless otherwise proven..."

So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

~~~
microcolonel
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.

~~~
chimeracoder
> 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.

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".

~~~
gizmo686
I don't normally like saying this, but why was this comment downvoted?

>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.

~~~
microcolonel
I meant more generally that people don't tend to rape a second or third time,
repeat rapists are not the common case.

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.

------
DannyBee
"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
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...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-18/news/ct-rape-kits-
update-met-20131217_1_arlene-hall-dna-evidence)

------
smegel
> 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?

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

------
allendoerfer
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?

~~~
frandroid
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
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.

~~~
RyJones
Old joke: if Alaskans get tired of hearing that Texas is the second largest
state, they'll cut Alaska in half to make Texas third.

------
Ironchefpython
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.

