How to lower rape statistics: intimidate victims into dropping charges

That's the method at least two cities have recently taken, according to investigations by the Sun of Baltimore and Nashville's News 5.

The Depressing Realities of Rape Statistics

Quote:

---

Essentially, police officers were claiming rapes had gone down — from 390 in 2004 to 290 in 2009 — when in reality they had simply been intimidating victims into not reporting, or marking cases as "matter of record," which doesn't count in the final violent crime statistics.

...

In one instance, [a detective] wrote that a 15-year-old girl vomited from anxiety as he threatened to leave and retrieve crime-scene video to discern whether she was lying about having been raped. When he came back, she recanted, but refused to sign a statement. "She crossed her arm and held her lips together in a manner suggesting that she had nothing additional to say," the report reads. "This investigation is closed as unfounded."

---

It's depressing, but I can't say I'm too surprised.

Lord knows, if I ever end up being raped, I don't know if I'd even want to bother reporting it.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from going to the police, but I'd also never encourage anyone. I resent the (now former) friend who pressured and shamed me into going to the police, because it increased my own suffering tenfold. Yes, it needs to be reported, but after being assaulted getting victimized a second time by the police and justice system doesn't exactly promote healing.

Yeah. I think it's a sad commentary when the people who are supposed to keep us safe are too busy trying to create illusions to actually do their fucking jobs.

You know, if you go to the cops, there's a chance that maybe, perhaps, the rapist get put on trial. Someday.

But if you go to the cops, you are pretty much guaranteed to be put on trial immediately.

I'm a former felony prosecutor who tried some rape cases and I know the criminal justice system can be very hard on the victims of rape. There are many ways the system could be improved - more money for rape kits at hospitals, more and better-trained prosecutors, detectives and victim advocates, quicker testing and enhanced database reliability for DNA results - but when all is said and done, it will still be a system run by human beings. IME most of them are highly motivated, smart and compassionate, but too many are not.

This doesn't surprise me.

It disgusts and depresses me. But there's no surprise.


I remember reading someone's comment a while back on another messageboard that a rape victim had an absolute obligation to report the experience. Which ignores the reality of just how awful going through the criminal justice system can be for a victim of rape. It's lousy that refusing to report an assault may leave the perpetrator free to repeat his offense with a new victim. It's even worse how going through the criminal justice system seems to exacerbate the wounds that the rapist inflicted.

Sorry to be the corpse at the wedding, but I'm really not feeling the outrage on the strength of the quotation at the top of the thread. The detective was "threatening" to fetch video evidence of the crime scene? It seems to me that if video evidence is available, announcing an intention to fetch and review it is not a "threat" against the complainant - a threat against the alleged perpetrator, certainly. It's only a threat if the evidence promises to show that the complaint is a patently frivolous one, at least as I understand the nature of threats. Consequently, I don't understand how this is meant to typify lowering rape statistics through intimidation.

A complaint that evaporates like morning mist as soon as a suggestion is made that video evidence is available and should be looked at is, I feel, exactly the sort of complaint that should stay off the books.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elendil's Heir

I'm a former felony prosecutor who tried some rape cases and I know the criminal justice system can be very hard on the victims of rape. There are many ways the system could be improved - more money for rape kits at hospitals, more and better-trained prosecutors, detectives and victim advocates, quicker testing and enhanced database reliability for DNA results - but when all is said and done, it will still be a system run by human beings. IME most of them are highly motivated, smart and compassionate, but too many are not.

---

Well put. I don't at all envy those who have to prosecute rape cases, as rape is a very difficult crime. It's a crime that's physically identical to acts that people engage in consensually, and so usually the only way to determine if a crime happened at all is through testimony. Yet the only witnesses are typically going to be the accuser and the accused.

I'd imagine that one way things could be improved immensely on the law enforcement side is if those who investigate accusations of rape were better educated on the subject and aftermath. Simply having to study rape recovery could give them massive amounts of insight, as they'd then know the common reactions of victims and be better able to spot those reactions or responses that ring false. Lifetime movies and Very Special Episodes don't give insight into the messy realities, but they reflect our cultural biases. If there are false accusations--and that's certainly something law enforcement is bound to look for--the false accusers are more likely to parrot the cultural biases than the things real victims have said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Richard ffoulkes

The detective was "threatening" to fetch video evidence of the crime scene? It seems to me that if video evidence is available, announcing an intention to fetch and review it is not a "threat" against the complainant - a threat against the alleged perpetrator, certainly. It's only a threat if the evidence promises to show that the complaint is a patently frivolous one, at least as I understand the nature of threats.

---

I'm not sure how you would feel about this, but I think I would be mortified by the knowledge that a bunch of strangers were going to watch my sexual assault, no matter what the reason, but especially if they were going to watch it because they doubted the veracity of my claim. Imagine somebody watching video footage of you and your attacker and picking apart your actions to see if you'd done anything to invite or encourage what happened. Pretty sure I'd see that as a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marsilia

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Richard ffoulkes

The detective was "threatening" to fetch video evidence of the crime scene? It seems to me that if video evidence is available, announcing an intention to fetch and review it is not a "threat" against the complainant - a threat against the alleged perpetrator, certainly. It's only a threat if the evidence promises to show that the complaint is a patently frivolous one, at least as I understand the nature of threats.

---

I'm not sure how you would feel about this, but I think I would be mortified by the knowledge that a bunch of strangers were going to watch my sexual assault, no matter what the reason, but especially if they were going to watch it because they doubted the veracity of my claim. Imagine somebody watching video footage of you and your attacker and picking apart your actions to see if you'd done anything to invite or encourage what happened. Pretty sure I'd see that as a threat.

---

Well, I think if there's video surveillance it's a good idea to check it out. And it's a good idea to let your witness know you're going to check it out and see if her testimony changes. Of course, there's no reason to turn that information into a threat against the witness. That particular quote isn't the best example, as it's difficult to tell if the detective was really threatening or if that's the journalist's description, but it's from the article and fair game to debate. The fact that the girl was vomiting points to some threatening behavior on the detective's part, but it's still difficult to tell.

Yeah, Sir Richard, I think it's the way it was phrased and presented which made it a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Yeah, Sir Richard, I think it's the way it was phrased and presented which made it a threat.

---

You may be right, Sarahfeena, but does the information presented support that hypothesis? As for the vomiting, Zuul, unfortunately if we assume that this is stress-related then we are not privileged to know whether this was because the poor girl was reacting to the officer's unreasonable hostility, or was caused by her own realisation that she was about to be caught in a serious lie. My natural sympathies lie with 15-year-old rape victims, but I can't beg the question by assuming that she was one, although the writer of the quote in the OP seems to have no such qualms.

As for the personal hypotheticals and Zuul's distressing account of her own experiences earlier in the thread, you all begin from the premise that you have in fact been raped - again, an assumption we are in no position to make in this case.

While I feel for your sensibilities, Marsilia, I am afraid that essentially stating "I don't want a stranger looking at the evidence! Isn't my word good enough for you?" is not going to cut much ice in a criminal investigation. And, finally, aren't we some way from showing that any of this represents a systematic approach adopted in order to artificially lower rape statistics?

The thing to remember, in my mind, is that when the police interview a suspect, the suspect has the right to representation.

There is no such right for someone making a criminal complaint.

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider changing the way that rape complaints are investigated, to provide for an advocate for the victim, or at least someone to give them moral support.

The biggest problem I have is that I can't help remembering how high profile rape cases often get discussed and reported by the police departments involved in the investigation. Take a look at the statements quoted in this Wikipedia page for the Ben Rothlisberger rape charge in Georgia last year. Tell me just how open a cop who begins a rape investigation by saying, "The bitch is drunk," is going to be towards finding evidence to support her claim.

What the fuck is wrong with the idea of providing a rape complainant the same fucking protection we provide automatically to an alleged rapist? I'm not suggesting that the evidence needs to be believed without examination. I'm not about to say that rape is always going to be easy, or even possible, to prove in a court of law. While I'm disgusted with the actions of the Milledgeville, GA police department and some of the statements they made at the time of the original complaint, I don't have a real problem with the DA saying that he lacks the evidence to take the case to trial and get a conviction. It happens, and I don't believe that it needs to be deliberate intent that leaves the DA with that conclusion.

I like the idea of an advocate but I would hope it could be someone cheaper than an attorney. Otherwise it would be an expensive change to an already badly expensive system. Of course if we stopped prosecuting drug users, I guess we would have a plenty of extra hours to add a professional advocate for rape victims without any cost increase.

That's a pretty horrifying story, OtakuLoki, though not surprising.

There really isn't an easy answer in situations like this. Ultimately, when it comes to law enforcement they shouldn't come into it with any assumptions. Don't assume every rape accusation is false, or true, or correctly identifying an assailant, or incorrectly identifying an assailant, or whatever. The investigation needs to be neutral. That's rarely going to happen, though, because people are only human and we all have our own biases.

And despite the paranoia that oh-so-many rape culture enthusiasts feel, the majority of the time that bias is against the accuser.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Richard ffoulkes

While I feel for your sensibilities, Marsilia, I am afraid that essentially stating "I don't want a stranger looking at the evidence! Isn't my word good enough for you?" is not going to cut much ice in a criminal investigation. And, finally, aren't we some way from showing that any of this represents a systematic approach adopted in order to artificially lower rape statistics?

---

Okay, I admittedly didn't use my words well in my first post. But, having had to deal with one of the police departments down here, I have a really clear picture in my head of what "threatening" to retrieve the video would entail. It isn't a matter of saying "We've got some evidence we're going to take a look at before we make our decision," it's more like "We've got the whole thing on tape, so you'd better not be lying to us." Do you see how one is an explanation of procedure (and, a vague one that's less likely to upset someone in a fragile emotional state) and one is a threat? In both cases, you're pretty much giving the same information, but the first case is less likely to leave the fifteen year old girl with the impression that the people who are supposed to protect her think she's a lying slut.