8 ms·

Despite DNA, the Rapist Got Away

37 points by nkzednan 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y 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/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapei...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- delinka 11y ago
  "...assuming consent unless otherwise proven..." So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
  - microcolonel 11y 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.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Yes, and it also makes prosecuting rape very difficult, in a structural way. It's a reminder that there are real trade-offs in criminal justice. That's why people can, in good faith, argue for not reading Constitutional protections in the broadest possible light.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > 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 11y ago
        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.
  - oldmanjay 11y 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.
    - allendoerfer 11y ago
      "Proof" in the legal sense is not the same as in the mathematical sense. Courts can decide which witness can be trusted and which can not. You can be sentenced even if there was a possible explanation how things could have happened without you committing a crime. In the end it matters, what the jury thinks. 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.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        Without getting into all the various ways the jury system fails in general, would it make sense to have a more professional jury for sexual crimes? I don't actually know what sort of training might be applicable here but I imagine it could ve more effective than 12 random citizens trying to process things they don't really understand.
        rblatz 11y ago
        Professional juries sound good on the surface, but are really a bad idea when you get into how they actually work. How do you appoint these juries, and how do you measure their performance? 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?
  - tehwalrus 11y 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.
    - parennoob 11y ago
      > 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?
  - DannoHung 11y 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.
  - venomsnake 11y 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.
    - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
      There used to also be a much stronger sense that approaching these consent issues would be creating legal regulation on the performance of the sex act. And it has. Affirmative consent people think there's no downside, but they are enabling this and the logical, only safe conclusion is ultimately documentation of consent and the sex act, both in writing and video, just like reactionaries warned us in the 1980's. Cellphone videos are already saving people. If you start regulating the private sex act, there's going to be strong incentive to make it not private anymore.
allendoerfer 11y 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?
- koenigdavidmj 11y 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.
  - sk5t 11y 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.
    - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
      There is usually only a token nod to interstate commerce, but it still exists. 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.
      - sk5t 11y ago
DannyBee 11y 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 11y 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-kits-update-met-20131217_1_arlene-hall-dna-evidence http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-18/news/ct-rape-k...
gr8b8m8-88 11y ago
Not to condone or defend rape, but can someone explain to me why rape is so much more traumatic than vanilla assault or battery? I've obviously never been raped (which is why I ask), but I have been beaten up a good number of times in high school (to the point I once actually coughed blood), and yes, it did make me loathe my tormentors, but I don't wake up with PTSD nightmares about it or have it radically change my academic life (though it did push me into learning a martial art). And when asked about it, the guys who kicked my ass still justify it with "yeah, he was such a little faggot", and the other folks listening just sort of nod "yeah". I'm sure if some teacher had walked in on them stomping on me, they probably would've gotten expelled or something, but certainly, the cops would never have been called in and nothing criminal would've been pressed. Essentially, when a guy gets beaten up, we're treated with the "tough it out, you pussy" attitude, but when a girl gets raped, it causes outrage even 24 years later. So just what makes rape so much worse than regular assault?
- QSIITurbo 11y ago
  It should be pretty obvious: rape is like any violence, but it also involves the victim's sexuality. Now imagine fucking someone and getting flashbacks about being raped... Yeah, not so funny anymore. "PTSD" from regular beating is pretty easy to overcome compared to that and in any case does not taint lovemaking, which is a very important feature in most of our lives.
- charles2013 11y ago
  i would flag this comment as egregious, but i don't have enough karma. in the meantime, if you are really interested in an answer, you should search for one. here's a start: https://www.reddit.com/r/RapeCounseling https://www.reddit.com/r/RapeCounseling
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >i would flag this comment as egregious, but i don't have enough karma. For censorship? Because as we all know society gets better when questions are stomped. The parent is making a legitimate question -- and does not seem to be "trolling". Aren't hackers supposed to be open minded people that believe that nothing should be taboo and everything should be open to rational examination? That doesn't mean that everything should be advocated etc -- but this is an open discussion. A similar attitude (flagging a comment as "eggregious") is not that far from the spanish inquisition.
Ironchefpython 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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?
- RyJones 11y ago
  Making the victim feel good that "something is being done."

37 points by nkzednan 11y 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/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapei...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
delinka 11y ago
"...assuming consent unless otherwise proven..." So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
- microcolonel 11y 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.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Yes, and it also makes prosecuting rape very difficult, in a structural way. It's a reminder that there are real trade-offs in criminal justice. That's why people can, in good faith, argue for not reading Constitutional protections in the broadest possible light.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > 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 11y ago
      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.
- oldmanjay 11y 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.
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
    "Proof" in the legal sense is not the same as in the mathematical sense. Courts can decide which witness can be trusted and which can not. You can be sentenced even if there was a possible explanation how things could have happened without you committing a crime. In the end it matters, what the jury thinks. 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.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      Without getting into all the various ways the jury system fails in general, would it make sense to have a more professional jury for sexual crimes? I don't actually know what sort of training might be applicable here but I imagine it could ve more effective than 12 random citizens trying to process things they don't really understand.
      - rblatz 11y ago
        Professional juries sound good on the surface, but are really a bad idea when you get into how they actually work. How do you appoint these juries, and how do you measure their performance? 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?
- tehwalrus 11y 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.
  - parennoob 11y ago
    > 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?
- DannoHung 11y 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.
- venomsnake 11y 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.
  - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
    There used to also be a much stronger sense that approaching these consent issues would be creating legal regulation on the performance of the sex act. And it has. Affirmative consent people think there's no downside, but they are enabling this and the logical, only safe conclusion is ultimately documentation of consent and the sex act, both in writing and video, just like reactionaries warned us in the 1980's. Cellphone videos are already saving people. If you start regulating the private sex act, there's going to be strong incentive to make it not private anymore.

allendoerfer 11y 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?

koenigdavidmj 11y 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.
- sk5t 11y 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.
  - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
    There is usually only a token nod to interstate commerce, but it still exists. 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.
    - sk5t 11y ago

DannyBee 11y 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 11y 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-kits-update-met-20131217_1_arlene-hall-dna-evidence http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-18/news/ct-rape-k...

gr8b8m8-88 11y ago

Not to condone or defend rape, but can someone explain to me why rape is so much more traumatic than vanilla assault or battery? I've obviously never been raped (which is why I ask), but I have been beaten up a good number of times in high school (to the point I once actually coughed blood), and yes, it did make me loathe my tormentors, but I don't wake up with PTSD nightmares about it or have it radically change my academic life (though it did push me into learning a martial art). And when asked about it, the guys who kicked my ass still justify it with "yeah, he was such a little faggot", and the other folks listening just sort of nod "yeah". I'm sure if some teacher had walked in on them stomping on me, they probably would've gotten expelled or something, but certainly, the cops would never have been called in and nothing criminal would've been pressed. Essentially, when a guy gets beaten up, we're treated with the "tough it out, you pussy" attitude, but when a girl gets raped, it causes outrage even 24 years later. So just what makes rape so much worse than regular assault?

QSIITurbo 11y ago
It should be pretty obvious: rape is like any violence, but it also involves the victim's sexuality. Now imagine fucking someone and getting flashbacks about being raped... Yeah, not so funny anymore. "PTSD" from regular beating is pretty easy to overcome compared to that and in any case does not taint lovemaking, which is a very important feature in most of our lives.
charles2013 11y ago
i would flag this comment as egregious, but i don't have enough karma. in the meantime, if you are really interested in an answer, you should search for one. here's a start: https://www.reddit.com/r/RapeCounseling https://www.reddit.com/r/RapeCounseling
- coldtea 11y ago
  >i would flag this comment as egregious, but i don't have enough karma. For censorship? Because as we all know society gets better when questions are stomped. The parent is making a legitimate question -- and does not seem to be "trolling". Aren't hackers supposed to be open minded people that believe that nothing should be taboo and everything should be open to rational examination? That doesn't mean that everything should be advocated etc -- but this is an open discussion. A similar attitude (flagging a comment as "eggregious") is not that far from the spanish inquisition.

Ironchefpython 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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?

RyJones 11y ago
Making the victim feel good that "something is being done."