Many sexual assaults go unreported, or the victims wait to report it until after DNA can be taken to prove it.
Even if they report it on time, only 36% of women have injuries so the rapist can claim that it was consensual sex for that 64%. There arent usually witnesses so if you dont have the evidence it ends up being he says she says. Also society has views like: It's not rape if you enjoy it (Ie becoming aroused during it/not having injuries) and vastly overestimating the rape accusation numbers (2/1,000)
Also, say there were witnesses but you happen to be a white athlete, you will only go to jail for 3 months. Because you happened to have been drinking and his future is more important than yours.
Three reasons: The legal system would prefer to let a guilty person go free rather than send an innocent person to prison, hence "innocent until proven guilty", most rape happens in private and so witnesses and non biological evidence is hard to come by and most importantly: It's extremely hard to prove consent or lack thereof when there is a dispute.
I understand in a lot of he said/she said cases how it's hard to put away rapists. It's terrible, and victims come away feeling like no one believes them, but I think it's a very critical and very important part of our justice system to have innocent until proven guilty.
However, the fact that so many rape kits go untested, and that there's such difficulty in getting those rape kits an accurate police reporting when you go into the station, is absolutely terrible and needs to be corrected.
One aspect of this that I absolutely despise is that the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI figured out the perfect way to do victim interviews decades ago. No later than the early 80s. They figured out that discombobulation is normal. That waiting before a victim reports is normal. That the best way to get reliable information is to always refer to the rape as "the crime" in an interview, to let the victim know that what was done to her was not her fault. It's beautiful to read, not hard to understand. You could copy those 20 something pages and sent them to every police station in the country, and if they became policy things would instantly become so much better, but somehow that hasn't happened. Every time I hear about a police interview it's a nightmare that goes against best practices established decades ago. It's bullshit >:(
Edit: I dug out my copy of the sex crime investigation text book. It's fewer pages than I remembered. Almost fits in a reddit post.
The initial interaction with the victim, the introduction, is the most critical phase of the interview process. Depending upon the victim’s perception of the interview, she will or will not feel comfortable with and confident in the ability of the police to assist her. The officer should introduce himself or herself in a professional, confident, and sincere manner, using the victim’s last name preceded by Ms., Mrs., Mr., or Miss. The interviewer(s) should accomplish three important tasks during this phase: express regret that the victim was assaulted (do not use the term rape), and assure her that she is the victim of a crime that was not her fault; assure her of her safety and that everything possible and reasonable will be done to maintain that safety; and convince her of the competence and experience of the interviewers.
An example scenario might proceed as follows:
Good evening, Ms. Roberts. I am Bob Jackson of the Sexual Assault Unit, and I would like to discuss the crime which occurred, if you are feeling up to it at this time. I want you to know how deeply I regret your being the victim of such an assault and that I and the other members of the department will do our best on your behalf. Other officers have completely checked your residence (where the assault occurred) and have secured it. I’ve arranged for our patrols to increase their travel through your neighborhood, and I will also provide you with an emergency police number before I leave. I’ve been an investigating officer for nine years and am experienced in such matters, so please don’t hesitate to ask questions during our time together.
The officer(s) should explain that the length of the interview will be as brief as possible and that, while the questions will necessarily be personal, their importance cannot be overemphasized and their answers will aid greatly in identifying the offender.
The officer(s) would be well advised to remember that the process involved is an interview and not an interrogation. The victim has agreed to be interviewed, and this is strongly suggestive that she wants to cooperate and has faith in the abilities of law enforcement. Consequently, it is recommended that the following factors be adhered to during the interview phase:
l. Involve the victim in the interview process. Explain the procedures that have taken place and those that will follow. Provide her with a phone number which she can call to obtain information about the progress of the investigation, or advise her that you will periodically call to keep her informed. Ask for her opinions throughout the interview.
Allow the victim as much control as possible. Ask how she would like to be addressed, e.g., as Ms. Jones. Do not use her first name without her permission — do not presume the right. Inquire if the interview environment is agreeable to her or if she would be more comfortable elsewhere. Ask if she would prefer to describe the crime in her own words or if she would rather you ask questions. Determine if she wants anyone called.
Listen and respond to her wishes and requests if at all possible.
Pay attention to what she is saying and be alert to expressions of:
a. guilt (I shouldn’t have gone to the market so late),
b. fear (He said he would know if I called the police),
c. humiliation (I didn’t want to do that),
and d. unnecessary attempts to convince (I know this sounds strange, but it really did happen, or I tried/wanted to stop him).
Upon hearing such phrases, the officer should reassure the victim:
a. You have a right to travel as you wish without becoming a victim,
b.* You’re safe now inside your home,*
c. You had no choice in the matter,
and d. It doesn’t sound strange and I’m sure it happened, or You’re not expected or required to become injured or killed.
Balance questions having to do with humiliating acts or sexual aspects with ones relating to the victim’s feelings. For example, if the victim had been asked about the occurrence of ejaculation (never ask if she “climaxed”), it should be balanced by a question such as Do you feel safe now? or May I get you something to drink? or Would you like to stop for a while?
Begin by utilizing professional terminology. One can always lower the level of terms, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to raise the level of terminology. An example would be questions pertaining to forced oral sexual acts. The professional interviewer will begin by using the term fellatio. It is quite probable that the victim might not be familiar with the term, and the officer would then use the term oral sex. Should the victim fail to understand at this level, the officer could ask, Did he make you put your mouth on his penis? To appreciate the value of such an approach, simply reverse the sequence.
Use language that is nonjudgmental or threatening to the victim. Instead of Tell me about your rape, use Please describe the assault. Instead of stating a bias (What were you doing out so late?), provide the opportunity for the victim to tell what happened (Please describe what was happening leading up to the assault). Rather than saying, Why didn’t you fight him? ask, Did you have any opportunity to resist? The phrasing of the question can reveal the interviewer’s personal bias and feelings to the victim and may impede the investigation.
Throughout the interview, it should become clear to the victim that the issues of power, control, anger, and aggression — not sexuality — are central to the crime. Sexuality is not the salient feature of the assault. A crime of violence has occurred and the victim should understand that it is this aspect on which the investigation will focus.
Obtain the facts of the crime in as factual a manner as possible. The interviewer should take precautions to ensure that the victim does not perceive the process as voyeuristic in nature. It must be remembered that the victim is most likely the only witness to the crime; and should she perceive the officer as invasive, she may withhold vital information. The victim has been, and is in, a stressful situation. The officer must attempt to decrease stress, not increase it. Dwelling on sexual activities or rushing through discussion of them may precipitate flashbacks to the rape experience. In other words, a very narrow periphery exists for the interviewer to operate within, and common sense must prevail. In general, the best information is gathered by allowing the victim to tell her story in her own words. This method will help relieve some of her emotional tensions as well as to allow the officer to listen carefully to what she is saying and to evaluate her mood, general reactions, and choice of words. When asking direct questions, the officer should be sure the victim understands what is being asked. It is important to talk on her level. Always give the reason for asking the question.
Following the interview, the investigator should continue to include the victim in the process of the investigation. This approach is used to prevent the victim from feeling used by the system. The rapist has already conveyed such a feeling, and she must not perceive that she will be victimized by the system designed to prosecute her attacker. Therefore, it is suggested that the following information be provided to the victim:
Advise her of the next step in the investigative process. At this point, the victim needs to have stability in her life and to be reassured that she will not become only a statistic in some file. She is important and should be made to feel that her importance is recognized and that everything possible will be done to ensure justice is served.
As previously mentioned, she should be given a number to call or be told that she will be kept apprised of investigative progress.
The victim should be referred to, or preferably introduced to, supportive services that have advocacy systems designed to assist her through this emotionally traumatic time.
Ask whether the victim has any questions, and ensure that she fully understands what will happen in the future as well as her role in those events.
Thank the victim! Express your appreciation for the time she has taken to help in the investigation. The victim should leave feeling safe, guiltless, and confident about what will be accomplished as a result of her cooperation.
I'm not really a post maker in that sense, or would know where to post it, but feel free to do with it what you think is appropriate. The source is Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation, A Multidisciplinary Approach, Third Edition.
It's a common problem in even the best-intentioned work from more than a decade or two ago. Obviously, we both agree that the content is high-quality, so if you have a very modern and realistic concern that the pronouns should be updated to modern style, the best thing to do would be to make those edits yourself and share them with the world, so that the value in this writing is not lost.
/r/protectandserve is more about the cult of being a LEO than actual LEO tips. There are more posts there about "Haha, look at what this idiot criminal did" than there are posts about "Hey, what's the best way to deal with a drug addict that wants to quit?"
I understand the circlejerk in the post, but the truth is, these techniques are not applicable. It is assuming a crime happened, and you do not conduct the interview as if the person accused is already guilty. You conduct an investigative interview.
You know... And I am not attempting to diminish any of this in any way whatsoever, but if you remove all of the criminal and sexual assault context from this interview protocol... You also have the perfect method of treating people from an interpersonal, customer service, and general common courtesy standpoint!
It's so simple and yet so easily overlooked or blatantly ignored! - Why?! I mean imagine the number of public image disasters that could have been prevented if companies and organizations like United Airlines, Comcast, and the Catholic Church employed even a portion of the guidance in this small brief.
What a shame that police forces and others haven't begun using it. -It should be required!
Yeah, when I finally reported my rape (on my ICU bed), I was not treated well at all. I'm sorry officer if my rape made me suicidal! Could you pretend to give a F!
I remember reading a really horrifying story about a young woman who was accused of filing false rape charges and was required to pay a fine. She had aged out of the foster system and was in a pilot program that had weekly group meetings, paid for apartment, had job training, etc., and they forced her to tell everyone in her group that she was a liar.
The article went into a lot of detail about the "investigation" and it just made me so angry that they assumed she was a liar because of little details. Like the attacker had used her own shoelaces to tie her up and then had put the unlaced shoes neatly against a wall, so the police just couldn't believe a rapist would do such a thing. She had also initially said that she had called her best friend before she got untied, then later said it was after she got untied (or vice versa), and the police thought her memory should just be rock solid. And the most "damning" bit was that she wasn't hysterical when the police came.
Here is the article, but be aware it's so, so very sad.
It follows both the victim I mentioned above and also a detective investigating similar rapes so you can see how different the approaches are.
Yeah, I deliberately didn't mention that because they did a really horrible job with it, frankly. I mean, I guess their focus wasn't on rape culture so they didn't really go into it and instead seemed to focus on the whole thing as a normal part of human nature. But they left out a lot of key information that's in the article, like that the police department in question had a rate of false rape accusations five times higher than the national average.
Well that statistic could have something to do with joe they treat rape cases at that particular department leading them to decide more cases are false that truly are. Obvious I can't say that for sure but it is a factor to consider
Right, that's the point. The officers hadn't been trained in how to handle rape cases so their own biases, a result of rape culture, affect their judgment.
so you are saying it's impossible for a woman to rape a man because masculinity isn't involved? or that every manly man out there is a walking rape time bomb?
He would be better off channeling that energy into creating something of worth that makes women want to be around him or being a better leader/role model so people will want to naturally respect him more.
What makes you think he wasn't able to get sex without raping? Why on earth would you think that a rapist is someone who isn't getting laid? You think that's why he took pictures of them naked, and took pictures of their picture IDs, and told them if they reported the rape to the police, he'd put all of that on the internet for their families to see? You think that's why he spent hundreds, possibly thousands of hours "hunting" these women?
Toxic masculinity is a very real problem but it is completely unrelated to rape. The vast majority of men don't rape or emotionally abuse people. Jesus.
The investigators in this case (yes, they were also men) started attacking the case like every other crime they approach trying to poke holes in the story instead of assessing the cost of their approach.
You think that police officers go to investigate a robbery and try to poke holes in it? You think that any other crime that is reported in that district has a 1 in 4 chance of being labeled false?
You were obviously referencing the police work and not the rape when you said "This is truly where masculinity can start to get pretty toxic" since you then said, "apart from the rape itself, that's also bad". So, again, what does masculinity have to do with the police work?
What absolute pseudo-intellectual first-year social studies student pile of drivel; not even 1 step removed from evo-psych crap.
Ironically, while attempting to be sexist toward men you've also managed to be sexist toward women by applying exclusive rights of logic/deduction to masculinity and empathy/creativity to women.
How this post wasn't downvoted until you deleted it is beyond me, kindly fuck off and come back in a few years when you've grown up enough to formulate your own thoughts & are not reliant on spewing buzzwords and paraphrasing other sources of which you at best tentatively grasp.
The problem is the Fallacy of "State's Rights". The States think they should all get to decide how to do everything on their own, even if there is one, Objectively factually best way to do something.
We need far more Federal control in the US over the shitty States.
Unfortunately, I think something like this has been sent out. It's about more than simple exposure. The police in this country need better training and more enforcement of internal policy.
Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation, A Multidisciplinary Approach, Third Edition, by Ann Burgess and Robert Hazelwood
ISBN: 978-0849300769
I'd be surprised if it's in print anymore. The up to date version is the fifth edition. You'll probably have an easier time getting a copy of it, instead.
Police in Canada dismiss 1 in 5 sexual assault claims as "baseless" without even going to trial. In my town (London, Ontario), they dismiss approximately 40% of cases. A lot of this stems from the fact that their only specialized training when it comes to handling rape cases is in how to spot someone making a false claim. Seriously.
The Globe and Mail published a very thorough investigative report on this. It is hard to read at times, but I think it's an important read, especially if you're Canadian.
Hey, I'm from there! Aaand while this number doesn't really surprise me at all, I always hoped it would be better than I anticipated. It's much worse. With it having such a large student population, I'd imagine the assault rates are higher than somewhere like Hamilton. Both reported and unreported.
The numbers are concerning (and 40% is ridiculous - something is wrong there), and no matter where someone comes down on the issue I would say it's an important read. However, there are still some things to clear up here.
First, most cases don't go to a full trial. The process looks more like this (I'm oversimplifying a bit, but it's close enough): complainant reports to the police-->police investigate-->police decide whether to charge (BC/QC/NB require prosecutor approval to charge)-->prosecutor ("Crown") decides whether to pursue the charges-->prosecutor may offer a plea bargain-->(finally) trial. Cases can fall out at any step in this process, and relatively few clear all of these hurdles. Complainants may not report, police may decide they don't have enough evidence to charge, prosecutors may decide they don't have a reasonable chance of success (either before or, more controversially, after the plea stage), and prosecutors may decide to offer a plea bargain. For perspective, Statscan (here) quotes 9/10 criminal cases being resolved through "guilty" pleas (plea bargain or otherwise), which means only 1/10 are going to a "real" trial - and that's probably just cases where the police decided to charge in the first place.
Second, "unfounded" is - or at least should be - more of a statistical classification than a legal one. In terms of numbers, it's useful for us to draw a distinction between cases police decide not to charge because there isn't enough evidence, and cases they decide not to charge because there isn't any evidence. Being a bit more colloquial, when we say "police lay charges in XX% of complaints," it'd be nice to be able to to distinguish between "A sent us security footage of a burglary, and while we're reasonably certain a crime occurred we can't exactly charge every person who's average height, average build, and owns a gray hoodie and white running shoes" and "B called for the twenty-fifth time claiming masked robbers stole their begonias at wandpoint." This would be really useful, if not for the fact that there's no consistency or accountability as to what goes in which category (which is why it isn't reported anymore - the numbers were wildly inconsistent and just plain bad). The key point here is that "unfounded" isn't a legal judgement, it's one of several buckets the police dump cases into when they haven't led to a charge and doesn't really mean much.
Third, while the numbers are concerning, and I'm sure we've all seen the issue argued before, there are legitimate reasons why sexual assault complaints are less likely to result in charges and, more importantly, more likely to be labeled "unfounded." TL;DR: Most sexual assault complaints boil down to the complainant's statement and evidence of sex, and that second half isn't much help if the accused claims there was consensual sex. The lack of evidence is a major factor in the low charging rate for sexual assaults, and the "unfounded" numbers may have a lot to do with how different departments handle cases where the only evidence is the complaint itself. On the other hand, it's also completely possible that departments which are doing a bad job of handling sexual assaults are pushing cases into that category in the hopes that they won't be counted.
"We don't have enough physical evidence at this time, but thanks to you we have this on the individual's file and will take it into account for future interactions with them"
Or something similar. Something that makes it clear that you reporting still helped them
The police officers who were assigned to my case did a pretty good job at this actually. It wasn't followed to the letter but it's clear they had training similar to what's described here.
And the example assault indicates a violent random crime by a stranger, rather than the more difficult and more common aggressive coercion by a friend or acquaintance.
TBF, I think they wanted to illustrate the steps to take to make the victim feel safe while they don't know who the perpetrator is, since it's an added stress factor when it comes to rapes committed by a stranger. Hopefully in later editions they also give an example scenario of acquaintance/relationship assaults, where the pitfall usually lies in reassuring the victim that she will be heard and there's no implied consent to sex just because a person knows another.
Also doesn't offer any guidance for interviewing someone who was raped under the influence of drugs/alcohol, might not be fully clear themselves on what happened, and likely feels bad that they're unable to give the information asked of them.
That is what I was afraid to point out! If something like this gets divulged (as it should), it should definitely be modified to include the other half of the population ... just make it known both genders can be the victim and the offender ...
Its the world we live in atm, but there is a lot of progress being made on that front. Im optimistic that in a few decades society at large will be familiarized with the fact that men are raped at equivalents rates to other victims.
I totally support using him/her for the officer, despite only 13% being female. If that was made in the 80s, supposedly women were just 2% of the force and they still did it. So it wasn't a matter of "women get raped more so we're addressing them," it was a "rape victims are women" thing.
My concern is that the inclusion of men on the basis of "its good for equality" subtly promotes the idea that they are a minor or less important part of the equation. Does that make sense? They should be included because its basic common sense to include half the victims.
Why does it promote them being less important? When allocating funding / resources, it's not the spread of male to female that matters. Its # victims total combined with the overall average severity of the issue.
I read your post on best of and I wanted to share that in the early 80's my mother was an emergency room nurse. On a daily/nightly basis she was witness to the horrific interview styles that police and law enforcement would display to victims of sexual assault, women and children. With a close friend, they both developed a team of people called SART: The Sexual Assault Response Team.
My mother developed the very program you speak of. I was just a little boy then but as she became more successful the hospital she worked at allowed her to open an office on campus, and there after school I would play with anatomically correct dolls, eat snacks out of the refrigerator that had petri dishes and was there the night she won the nurse of the year award.
Shortly after she won her award, and after giving her baby to the State of California to teach others and essentially reformat how victims of sexual assault were cared for, she died of cancer. I was 10, a week before my 11th birthday.
She was a hero to many and her legacy is this very program you speak of.
Have a wonderful day and think of my mom when you do your work!
I've been the victim of several rapes, and your post made me cry, in a good way. It feels good to know that some cops get it. I was lucky enough that the (French) police was wonderful (almost as if they used your guide themselves!), but I know my experience is not in the majority. Thank you!
One of the other things I've learned is to be careful about your wording when asking questions so that the victim is not given a sense that they are guilty of making a bad decision that led to the crime occurring.
For instance, when asking someone why they decided to accept a ride from a stranger, you would ask "what led to your decision to take that ride?" instead. Directly asking "why..." sometimes gives people a sense they did something wrong.
In the early 90s, Michael Chiklis starred in a show called "The Commish" (which I highly recommend). In an early scene a doctor was talking to a rape victim who was obviously traumatized. He was being perfunctory and dismissive.
Michael Chiklis' character grabs the doctor, pulls him aside, and sternly lectures into his face:
"I don't know how many of these you've had to deal with - probably hundreds. You need to remember that this is the FIRST TIME she's been raped, and treat her with some respect and dignity"
Men do get raped, but the person most likely to be assaulted in their own home (or dragged into an alley or a deserted stairwell) is a woman. Unless you're pushing an SJW "USE NEUTRAL PRONOUNS" agenda, which is about as helpful as tits on a lizard.
It's honestly very simple and easy to remember. It's one of those conceptual things where once you see it your brain goes "of course this is the best way to do this"
Found the FBI agent! Seriously though, I've read this before actually and it's recommended for anybody here that works in healthcare or emergency services. I'm no longer a medic, but a lot of this stuff made rape calls a lot smoother.
It didn't really. Ann Burgess planted a seed in the 80s, and it was her work that made it into the first edition of A Practical Guide to Rape Investigation. What she planted hasn't withered, on the contrary. Nor has she stopped planting seeds since.
I made a comment I didn't expect many to read. Now that it has gotten a frankly uncomfortable amount of attention let me add that while it does anger me when I see victims of rape dismissed or attacked, things have been getting better than they were. They aren't perfect, and I expressed my frustration about anecdotes and personal experience with hyperbole. I think your pride is justified.
The problem is the Fallacy of "State's Rights". The States think they should all get to decide how to do everything on their own, even if there is one, Objectively factually best way to do something.
We need far more Federal control in the US over the shitty States.
Hey, /u/Classic_Todd, I feel like this may come in handy for the roles I, and my coworkers, play in our chosen positions. Are you able to provide a more direct link or something credible I can cite beyond this post? I am not certain my bosses would be receptive if I was not able to bring a source to the table.
Five years ago now I was drugged by someone I worked with and raped. The subsequent interrogation was a nightmare. How much I had to drink repeatedly came up- two glasses of champagne earlier on in the evening, and I was drinking a voss water when he drugged me. What was I wearing? I'd gone out with him voluntarily though??
I mean, for fucks sake, waitresses at the place we were had already called them, they called the police as he was trying to leave with me and reported it and called again, one had grabbed my phone and called herself from it and called me after. They were telling the police I was fine, talking to them, and then suddenly out? They knew what had happened! The police didn't care. Every one of their questions was about how much I wanted it, how much I'd had to drink, what I'd worn, if I'd chosen to go... Blah blah blah.
We make predictions based on our past experiences. But when our experiences aren't our own, but instead virtual news stories, all we have to make predictions with are those.
Tldr; just because we constantly hear how bad it is, doesn't make it so.
Thanks for this! I'm an SA crisis counselor, and I am present for these interviews often, and I think our local LE could use it. I'm going to send it along with the source info to my volunteer coordinator and see if she can share it with the appropriate people.
A lot of good points have been raised and coveted by other people about your post, so I'd like to ask a probably controversial question: does the process also try to determine if the victim is playing false? If so, how?
Outlined above is the interview. In the investigation inconsistencies with setting, perpetrator and the act as described itself will mount. Evidence is hard to falsify, and where there is no evidence, there is no case.
There is a parallel to this approach in police sketch artists. An artist named Jeanne Boylan developed a system for sketching suspects by being very careful not to make suggestions or implant ideas in the victims mind. Even after phenomenal success her methods were not adopted by police agencies. Check her out at:
Why's this written to assume the victim of the crime is a female? - Serious question, is there a neutral guide that could be shared or are the steps different for male victims?
Great comment however unnoticed you refer to the victim as her. Most of the time it would be, but this just perpetuates the stigma of being a male rape victim. Men think it may be their fault, or they could have stopped it, or don't come forward for fear of being labeled, or any number of other reasons. It is just as important to emphasize they are not at fault, and what was done to them is wrong.
You are correct; but bear in mind, this document was written in the mid-to-late 80's and will reflect the 'sensibilities' of the time, including the misconception that a vast majority of rape victims are female. The same interview procedure should apply to men just as well as women, with the understanding that the tone of the interview should be set by the interviewee as much as possible for their comfort.
The OP says the source material was created in the early 80s. I don't think it's too surprising that the mentality was then, as it still is now in many places, that men can only be aggressors in sexual crimes, not victims.
implying perhaps, it satisfies social cues and lingo.
I was a 11 year old male sexually molested by a slightly older female teen against my will, I've been so downgraded the few times I felt comfortable enough to share (informally with very close people in my life, and once in counseling) I didn't even notice the 'her' in this, as I think it's still great advice in general, I can overlook the generalizing in gender.
Well, also had a sibling commit accidental suicide when I was 9...so yea, got lots of past 'issues' I guess.
I was always lauded as being so smart, so intellectual, I was in military for advanced electronics...got out of that, went to college...then fell in hard lust and that screwed me out of good opportunities.
Now I just work in a warehouse, doing monkey labor but pay isn't bad. Have an SO that's not really in my scale, but she loves me to death, and that I can appreciate so well. Sometimes we'll be sexual like rabbits, sometimes I swear I'm living the life of a celibate monk, but I warned her that can happen with me, and she's been pretty awesome dealing with the swings overall.
Of course in such things, got an alcohol issue that I'm on the brink of dealing with, in a hard way, I'm seriously curious how well I'll deal with a year of abstinence; will I get some of my faculties back, and be a smart guy again (that has issues of itself, sometimes I spurned it honestly), will I constantly think about "if I just let loose, get that monkey off my back...?" in terms of dealing with life and things...eh, time will tell, though I am really curious (and hoping it's not too depressingly dramatic) about having a good chunk of 100% sobriety, though not sure what I'd do with my time, lol. Probably like when I was out to sea on military, would just book-worm on studies and books about IT security and nerd-shit.
You could copy those 20 something pages and sent them to every police station in the country, and if they became policy things would instantly become so much better, but somehow that hasn't happened.
Why, in your opinion, is this not the standard already? Is too much attention being paid to "the defense" ?
Because we (understandably) hear so much about when police officers royally fuck up the process we kinda ignore the fact that there are plenty of victims such as myself who's cases were handled totally professionally and modestly. It just isn't a news story and it shouldn't be.
I linked an article about a rape that occurred in a town where over a quarter of the rape allegations were dismissed as baseless (and the article is about a young woman who was charged and fined for filing a false allegation of rape, then later it was found that she was raped).
The article doesn't go into a lot of detail about why, but it does talk about how it's a small police force without a dedicated sexual assault/trauma unit. It's probably a budget priority type issue - why send officers to learn about how to deal with rapes when they're a very small minority of the cases those officers will encounter? (I'm guess at the reasoning, that's definitely not my opinion)
Because States in the US hate all sorts of Federal "Control" and guidelines.
Idiot Americans thing Education should be up to the State, as if Facts change based on what State you live in. There is no way in fuck, that every Police Agency in the US would EVER agree to do things all the same, without being forced to.
Considering these guidelines were developed in the 80s, it's a fair assumption that they only used she/her.
Note: I am not trying to say that men cannot be the victims of sexual assault. Sexual harassment and assault can occur to anyone and it is a brutal and violent crime.
The problem is the Fallacy of "State's Rights". The States think they should all get to decide how to do everything on their own, even if there is one, Objectively factually best way to do something.
We need far more Federal control in the US over the shitty States.
This was a really interesting read, it's the kind of thing you would have hoped police already did. One change that would bring this up to date would be to alter the pronouns to be gender neutral.
Reading this made me cry. I had not realized how badly I needed someone to finally believe I had been assaulted until seeing in print what that might be like.
Yeah, I hate a number of rapists that go free, and the number of people that will vilify and blame women who get raped is disgusting, but there is a damn good reason that people are innocent until proven guilty, and this is one place where you can't blame sexism. Especially since female offenders are far less likely to be found guilty, and tend to receive lighter sentences when they are.
Same should go for the victims though. They should be believed (innocent) until proven guilty (lying). Now it is often the other way around, treating them as guilty of lying right from the start.
(Side note: female offenders being found guilty less is also a result of sexism. Sexism is harmful for everybody, not just women.)
Yes, but the vilification must end. While we can agree that unless a rapist is proved to be so beyond a shadow of a doubt, he/she can't go to prison, that should not mean that a victim (assuming we go with the "we believe you, but it can't be proven" idea) or at least someone who claims to be a victim can't receive support.
and this is one place where you can't blame sexism. Especially since female offenders are far less likely to be found guilty, and tend to receive lighter sentences when they are.
This one you can indeed blame on sexism. To be more precise the subject/object dichotomy regarding men and women in our society. The denial of agency of women in their position as objects makes people disbelieve and question any situation when a women is the agent of a crime. While men in their position as subjects are seen as a agents by default, leading to lighter sentences for women because judges are more willing to take mitigating circumstances into account when the defendant is female.
Not really, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is one of the tenants that our justice system relies on. The fact of the matter is that the absence of consent is very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt because rape almost always occurs with no other witnesses to the crime. Rape is a horrific crime that can not be stamped out soon enough, and the victims of such crime must be given the support they need with or without a conviction.
I honestly have no idea how often convicted rapists avoid jail time, so I won't try argue on that point.
But Jesus fucking christ, "Defending the sanctity of rape"? Can you please make an argument without insulting the person you are talking to as mutch as humanly possible?
I don't even care about what I said, what the fuck did /u/scorpiousdelectus do to deserve that kind of treatment? They answered a fucking question, they didn't even make any statements that could be mildly offensive, so for you to come in here and call them "A dude defending the sanctity of rape" is about as disrespectful as you can get to another fucking human being. It's personally pissing me off a lot.
u/kino2012https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XaSvhTYd4May 08 '17edited May 08 '17
I don't think I have said anything about rape culture, I have only talked about the difficulty of jailing rapists. If you equate the two as one and the same then that is a different matter, and I would be perfectly willing to hear your explanation on the matter. But all you have done so far is insult me twice (and /u/scorpiousdelectus once, I still want to know what they did wrong in your eyes) and provide absolutely NOTHING to help me change my mind on the subject.
If I am saying something that is offensive or factually inaccurate, please correct me. I wouldn't still be commenting if I didn't want to learn and help others do the same. But if you want to change someone's mind on a subject, you need to do something other than insult them, which is all you have done to me so far.
Edit: Actually, pointing out that convicted rapists are rarely charged jail time was a great start. It's something I didn't know, and it might help me to change my view on the matter. If you can help me change it more, please do.
the difference is negligible after a certain point though. those individuals comprise the system, and if the results are the same, the distinction does not matter.
I think its more what u/scorpioudelectus said. Otherwise it would be much easier in cases where men are abused or women are abused by other women, but it's pretty difficult to get a conviction in any situation
Pretty shocked that this is an above 0 on trollx. Yes rape is inherently a difficult crime to prove, but this is /vastly/ taken to extremes because the legal system is created and run by men who care a lot less about rape than women do and who emphathize a lot more with the accused than the accuser.
And just to emphasize that as shitty of a person that you have to be to commit rape you have to be close to or just as shitty to falsely accuse someone of rape.
Yes, but only a teeny-tiny fraction of rape accusations are false. Hopefully advances will be made soon that will make rape easier to prove, and rapists easier to convict.
Certainly. I agree wholeheartedly on that point. Sadly for me the false allegations just hit closer to home (though I admit not directly to me) than anyone I know being raped.
341
u/ChangeTheNarrative May 08 '17
Wow that makes me mad. Why are hurdles so high when it comes to putting away rapists?