Do we live in a rape culture?

I feel sorry for you college kids of today. Young people used to enjoy life, but nowadays young people mope around all day on their gadgets and complain and make up sob-stories and bemoan to the world how victimized and miserable they feel.

I think this is a culture of declining mental health more than anything else. Western culture is in very steep decline.
 
Nobody is saying to start doing unconstitutional searches. But if the person is arrested for or convicted of the crime, then it is certainly legitimate to try to match them to other crimes, no? You'd at the very least have probable cause to suspect criminal behavior, if not outright conviction for it.
Yeah, if a person is convicted, then it's probably fine to see whether other cases can be found, after all, you now have an actual reason that you can base it upon - a person having been convicted for the crime - not just an accusation.

So your argument for not testing rape kits in the backlog remains ridiculous, and this line of inquiry quite at odds with commonly accepted investigative behavior.
What are you even accusing me of here? I have never said that "rape kits in the backlog should not be tested", I've said that in what is called the "backlog" there are rape kits that don't need to be tested, and gave an example for one of those. I never said the backlog is not a problem, I never said no rape kits in the backlog need to be tested, all I said is that naming the total number of "stored rape kits" - which is what the "backlog" should really be called to remove that nonsensical connotation that these kits aren't being tested because there's no "capacity" to test them - is not very useful, because we don't really know how many of them should be/should already have been tested, and how many are just from cases in which no testing was required.

AND, this is also important - you test rape kits to make sure that the DNA gathered actually belongs to the accused, to help protect against false accusations.
Again, in the example I gave, the accused admits to having had sex with the accuser, the difference between the two stories is that the accused says it was consensual, and the accuser says it was not. There's absolutely nothing that can be gained from analyzing the rape kit, unless you somehow seriously doubt that both the accuser and the accused are telling the truth about having had sexual contact that night.

The question of: "Do we have the right person?" has already been answered, and even if you need the dna of the accused, then you take it directly from him, not from the rape kit.
 
But again, the DNA can help to identify if the accused has a criminal history. In the case of sexual assault, that may be relevant in determining of probable cause exists for an arrest, and may also be relevant for establishing a pattern of behavior later.

Also, the accused could always lawyer up and then recant the earlier admission, claiming duress or some other reason. An admission is in no way a legitimate reason not to test a rape kit, in addition to all of the other good reasons I've given. Stories change all the time in the course of criminal investigations, it makes no sense to be indifferent about the only hard evidence in the case. Unless you aren't prioritizing sexual assault prosecutions of course.

So yes, they are absolutely part of the "backlog," and ought to be tested. And you are absolutely arguing for not testing rape kits, so I don't know why you're taking issue with my characterization.

Convicted for? Probably. Arrested for? Probably not. Do you throw out the matched crime if it turns out the arrest wasn't legitimate?

My personal opinion is that it's acceptable to search for DNA matches to an arrestee if you can show probable cause for one beyond just the arrest itself, like evidence of other crimes in the arrestee's possession or in their car/house. So you'd also have to prove up the arrest itself, greatly reducing the chances of the search being done on an improper target.

Federal law and many states require conviction to place DNA into CODIS, but many states operate on more lenient standards for their state databases, some of which only require arrest. The Supreme Court even said this was OK. Those typically won't be shared across state lines however.
 
But again, the DNA can help to identify if the accused has a criminal history. In the case of sexual assault, that may be relevant in determining of probable cause exists for an arrest, and may also be relevant for establishing a pattern of behavior later.
For which again, you don't need the rape kit. Even IF you're in favor of making it so that being accused of a crime now means that your dna can be compared to all unsolved crimes ever recorded, you take the DNA from the accused, not from the rape kit. You would HAVE to take DNA from the accused in either case, because if you only take the DNA from the rape kit, then you don't know whether that DNA even is from the accused.

Do you seriously not see how utterly nonsensical your argument is, or do you just keep arguing because you don't want to accept that I'm simply right?

Also, the accused could always lawyer up and then recant the earlier admission, claiming duress or some other reason.
Yeah. That's why you store rape kits, and not destroy them, d'uh. :lol:

And you are absolutely arguing for not testing rape kits, so I don't know why you're taking issue with my characterization.
I'm arguing for not testing rape kits where it makes no sense to test them. A concept that you don't accept to be a thing only because you're seriously confused.
 
For which again, you don't need the rape kit. Even IF you're in favor of making it so that being accused of a crime now means that your dna can be compared to all unsolved crimes ever recorded, you take the DNA from the accused, not from the rape kit. You would HAVE to take DNA from the accused in either case, because if you only take the DNA from the rape kit, then you don't know whether that DNA even is from the accused.

As a point of information, the 'even if' already happens in the UK - everyone who is arrested has their fingerprints and DNA entered into and checked against a national database. I believe it happens in the US as well.
 
As a point of information, the 'even if' already happens in the UK - everyone who is arrested has their fingerprints and DNA entered into and checked against a national database. I believe it happens in the US as well.

It happened to me, anyway.
 
As a point of information, the 'even if' already happens in the UK - everyone who is arrested has their fingerprints and DNA entered into and checked against a national database. I believe it happens in the US as well.

My solution to the US fingerprinting me was to make my fingerprints readily available online for anyone to use.

I guess I could also set up an automated service to sell samples of my DNA for anyone to order for whatever they want to do with it.
 
I think we might be talking past each other here, so just to be clear:
When I say it doesn't need to be investigated, then what I say is that the rape kit does not need to be checked for DNA evidence in the laboratory, that's what the "rape kit backlog" that people keep bringing up refers to.
Your argument is basically that whatever the guy says is what the cops will believe, and they won't bother investigating further to see if what he says is the whole truth.

What if he's not the only guy the woman was with? What if he's lying to protect someone else? (yeah, sounds like a TV cop/lawyer show scenario, but the truth is not unoften stranger than fiction - or more revolting in some cases)

Just accepting the guy's word without confirming it is nuts.


I feel sorry for you college kids of today. Young people used to enjoy life, but nowadays young people mope around all day on their gadgets and complain and make up sob-stories and bemoan to the world how victimized and miserable they feel.

I think this is a culture of declining mental health more than anything else. Western culture is in very steep decline.
Which "college kids of today" are you addressing?
 
For which again, you don't need the rape kit. Even IF you're in favor of making it so that being accused of a crime now means that your dna can be compared to all unsolved crimes ever recorded, you take the DNA from the accused, not from the rape kit. You would HAVE to take DNA from the accused in either case, because if you only take the DNA from the rape kit, then you don't know whether that DNA even is from the accused.

Do you seriously not see how utterly nonsensical your argument is, or do you just keep arguing because you don't want to accept that I'm simply right?

You're powerfully, incredibly, idiotically wrong. You're arguing against obtaining corroborating evidence for a critical element of the crime of rape. I still don't know why you're saying they don't need to be tested. Your only argument is "you don't have to test them," but not only have you ignored several reasons I've given for why you should test them all - you've insisted on returning to this same ridiculous straw man every single time.

I'm arguing for not testing rape kits where it makes no sense to test them. A concept that you don't accept to be a thing only because you're seriously confused.

And the only thing that makes sense is to test all of them. Relying on witness statements when you have actual physical evidence to prove an element of a crime is just insane. Really, it is. Your reason for not testing them "just because" is silly. Maybe give a better reason or at least rebut some of the reasons I've given.
 
Your argument is basically that whatever the guy says is what the cops will believe, and they won't bother investigating further to see if what he says is the whole truth.

What if he's not the only guy the woman was with? What if he's lying to protect someone else? (yeah, sounds like a TV cop/lawyer show scenario, but the truth is not unoften stranger than fiction - or more revolting in some cases)

Just accepting the guy's word without confirming it is nuts.
The situation is that the accuser and the accursed both tell the same story, being together that night, and having sex with each other. The only difference between the stories is that one person says it was consensual, and the other one says it was not. There's no space for other people in that story, and the woman was conscious the thole time.

You're powerfully, incredibly, idiotically wrong. You're arguing against obtaining corroborating evidence for a critical element of the crime of rape. I still don't know why you're saying they don't need to be tested. Your only argument is "you don't have to test them," but not only have you ignored several reasons I've given for why you should test them all - you've insisted on returning to this same ridiculous straw man every single time.
No, I did not ignore the reasons you gave, I just did not accept them and instead showed why I think that all but one of the reasons you gave are powerfully, incredibly, idiotically, (What, the word I wanted to add is blocked? Bummer.) wrong, and explained why I think the other one is unethical.

And the only thing that makes sense is to test all of them. Relying on witness statements when you have actual physical evidence to prove an element of a crime is just insane. Really, it is. Your reason for not testing them "just because" is silly. Maybe give a better reason or at least rebut some of the reasons I've given.
The real idiocy in all of this is of course that the people who would usually probably spout "Believe the victim!" are suddenly all against "believing the victim" when the victim and the perpetrator both tell the same story. :D

Truly baffling, but I guess if your standard of evidence requires you to disbelieve both sides involved, even though they tell you the same thing, then there's not much use in having a discussion. Because I think that's utterly stupid and a waste of resources. If both sides tell you the exact same thing, and that story is plausible, and there's no reason to believe the accuser and the accused are both lying (which might be the case in a situation where the victim suddenly takes back the previous story to clear the accused, but not here), then there's absolutely no reason to draw in the rape kit, because it will just give you the information you already have.
 
As already mentioned, when you're booked for any crime, you're fingerprinted, and they're checked against other reports. So why should DNA evidence be treated any different?

Yes, glad I went to college back in the 70s when the stds could be cured with a shot and you had a little chance for a random encounter to turn into a rape accusation. FREE LOVE and all that crap. But a heck of a lot less complicated than now. Glad I'm married and don't have to worry about those things. Listening to my daughter relating friends that have been drugged is heartbreaking.
 
As already mentioned, when you're booked for any crime, you're fingerprinted, and they're checked against other reports. So why should DNA evidence be treated any different?
Just as wrong if you're only accused by not convicted in my opinion.
 
and you had a little chance for a random encounter to turn into a rape accusation.

You probably shouldn't refer to this nostalgically, since the main reason for the change is that rape accusations are now taken more seriously than they were back then.
 
You probably shouldn't refer to this nostalgically, since the main reason for the change is that rape accusations are now taken more seriously than they were back then.

I can, since I was mainly referring to my personal experience, which I can honestly say that no rape accusation ever occurred.
And by todays standards, relating to ability to consent may have been borderline. But on all those occasions there were borderline in both directions and I know of no regrets. AND more importantly I understood the word 'no', or 'maybe this isn't a good idea'.
 
I can, since I was mainly referring to my personal experience, which I can honestly say that no rape accusation ever occurred.
And by todays standards, relating to ability to consent may have been borderline. But on all those occasions there were borderline in both directions and I know of no regrets. AND more importantly I understood the word 'no', or 'maybe this isn't a good idea'.

That's good to hear. As I said not too long ago in another thread, I can only wonder what kind of terrible sex people are having where there is even the slightest doubt that both people (or rather, all people involved, don't want to exclude those folks who may be getting freaky with more than one other person) are enthusiastically consenting to it.
 
Agreed, but sometimes quite a few drugs were involved that cloudied that issue a touch. But I never got the sense of non-consenting :D
 
That's good to hear. As I said not too long ago in another thread, I can only wonder what kind of terrible sex people are having where there is even the slightest doubt that both people (or rather, all people involved, don't want to exclude those folks who may be getting freaky with more than one other person) are enthusiastically consenting to it.
You might find this video interesting.

 
You might find this video interesting.


Expecting people to listen to a 10+ minute video based on your recommendation is probably the most interesting part of this post.

I listened to because I had nothing better to do at the time. The vast majority of her qualms with the consent debacle are romance novels and tropes. Her third example was thankfully a "real world" one... which she proceeded to reinterpret for no evident reason.

Nothing this individual talks about has any bearing whatsoever on the subject of consent. You can be raped and be okay with it afterwards. Rape is defined as sex without consent. In the example she listed, consent was not given. That doesn't mean the victim of the crime will be traumatized or otherwise grievously harmed after the fact. This doesn't guarantee pursuit of legal action. After dwelling on it the woman decided she was okay with what happened. She still got raped. The world is not black and white.

Then the individual delves into a rant about retroactively revoking consent which wasn't at all relevant to her listed examples. But at least she got a few good licks in at these "loosey goosey" women, I guess?
 
Girlwriteswhat is garbage. She shouldn't be considered a valid source for much of anything.
 
Top Bottom