Having these kits evaluated and the DNA indexed is certainly valuable. Multiple kits revealing the same person is definitely valuable information for law enforc

Having these kits evaluated and the DNA indexed is certainly valuable. Multiple kits revealing the same person is definitely valuable information for law enforcement. But something this article ignores is that the DNA collected for a rape kit does not prove that a rape occurred. It proves that sexual intercourse occurred. In some cases, there will be evidence of physical injuries for a rape kit. The accusation, the nature of the evidence in the rape kit, other evidence, the likely credibility of the victim to the jury, etc. all need to be evaluated by the police and prosecutors in deciding whether to continue to pursue a case. This part of the article really gets it wrong: >Q: If you arrest someone for homicide, let's say the wrong person gets arrested, no one tries to convince the people there wasn't a homicide. A: Right. Q: They might say it was the wrong guy, or we can't find the person who did it, but no one says there wasn't a murder. Actually, people do argue that there wasn't a murder. Not every killing is a murder, if it is in self-defense for example. Interestingly, I think the person being interviewed realizes this is not a very good argument, so they more or less ignore the reporter on this point. But the reporter is clearly not looking at this story critically.