I was so furious that she did not at least give his DNA. He will rape again, b/c most rapists do. I know she was in shock, but, why wasn't a female nurse brought in w/ the doc for this movie.
Please keep in mind, what I am putting in this reply is true for at least parts of the USA, if not all of the USA.
That said in advance, we are now (using 2005 as the reference date)
SIXTEEN years later than the 1989 reference in your comment, and many large cites have tens of thousands of unprocessed rape evidence kits, waiting for funding to pay for the DNA testing. (I presume DNA evidence from murder cases gets priority for processing...) Additionally, prisons have only in the years beyond 20xx collected DNA, (I do not know the exact year, sorry, and it may even vary depending on whether federal, or state prisons are involved), and only relatively recently has routine DNA collection begun for inmates convicted of any crime. That means that while rape evidence was collected, a rapist may have been caught, convicted, served time, and been released,
all while rape evidence from other cases was/is waiting to be processed! Even worse than that, there is usually a time limit on prosecuting for rape; seven years is the time that comes to mind.
Again, I am fairly certain DNA from persons convicted of crime may still not be routinely collected. What does that mean? For instance, if a repeat rapist did break into a home, but was caught before having the chance to rape, then was convicted of "merely" breaking-and-entering, or criminal trespass and/or vandalism, such a person would perhaps not be a high priority to take and process DNA against open cases, which may also not yet be processed.
YIKES!!! Prior to having laws in place to routinely take DNA samples from convicts, and passing legal challenges claiming violation of rights against "unreasonable search", the only large, and routine, DNA collection was done from members of the USA military, and that database was specifically prohibited from any use other than identification of bodies/remains of military personnel.
Then there is another matter...
DNA testing is a relatively recent 'discovery', and even more recently recognized as legal evidence in courts, (after being challenged by defense lawyers as "unproven" scientific processes), and the previous use of rape evidence would only determine blood type, (you know, like type A, B, AB, and O). That information could primarily only eliminate a suspect, and not prove guilt, while possibly consuming all of an evidence sample. When that was the only testing available, reporting a rape was far from where evidence can now lead. Plainly put, a rapist was far, far less likely to be caught and put on trial before modern DNA testing, including the process called "DNA amplification" where very small amounts of DNA gets cloned, producing a sufficient amount for the DNA testing.
Once DNA evidence can prove a sexual "event" occured, prosecuting a rapist can still come down to the victim being the only witness against their alleged rapist; classic "he-said-she-said", and whether the jury/judge finds the victim, or the accused rapist more believable.
Sooooo, even with DNA evidence, a rape conviction is not guaranteed...
Now then, aside from all the psychological issues, why wouldn't a rape victim report a rape, and when threatened with death if they did report the "event"...
reply
share