General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSan Francisco police sued for using DNA in rape kit to link victim to unrelated crime
The San Francisco Police Department weaponized the DNA provided for a rape kit from a sexual assault victim when they used it to identify her as suspect in an unrelated burglary years later, according to court documents.
The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Police Department Monday in federal court in Californias Northern District. She said she provided her DNA to law enforcement in 2016 as part of its investigation into her sexual assault, but just more than five years later, they instead used it to charge her with retail theft, her lawyer, Adante Pointer, told the New York Times.
The exchange is youre going to use this DNA for a specific purpose, which is to prosecute the person who violated me, Pointer said. And instead, the police turned into the violators here.
Chesa Boudin, the city district attorney, previously slammed the police practice and in February declined to prosecute the woman. Her case revealed several similar instances in which DNA provided by victims of rape and sexual assault were later used to link them to unrelated crimes.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/san-francisco-police-sued-for-using-dna-in-rape-kit-to-link-victim-to-unrelated-crime/ar-AA11MK0F
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,445 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,463 posts)Karadeniz
(22,574 posts)canuckledragger
(1,667 posts)DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)jftr - I am a feminist.
unblock
(52,330 posts)DNA evidence has been glorified to be more accurate and meaningful than it actually is.
Generally all a match means is that some bodily substance that likely belonged to you or a near genetic relative was found around the crime scene.
It doesn't mean it was actually you, it doesn't mean you were ever there (just you dna somehow), it doesn't mean you were there at the time of the crime, and it doesn't mean you did the crime.
But a match can ruin your life anyway.
Especially knowing how pathetic the processing rate is for rape kits and how hard it is to get a conviction anyway, a rape victim might well figure that all she'd be accomplishing by giving dna would be to sign up for a possible false accusation at any time in the future.
Rape shouldn't exist, period. Not even if the victim is a criminal. There is zero justification for requiring a rape victim to waive their right not to testify or provide evidence against themselves in an unrelated crime in order to help the state get a rapist off the streets.
crickets
(25,983 posts)lostnfound
(16,191 posts)Your logic would have women who had committed any crime (shoplifting is a property crime) in the PAST not come forward about a rape case that happens NOW. The consequence can be that a rapist goes on RAPING OR KILLING because a case that might get him off the street never gets prosecuted.
Often its a rape victim who managed to survive who eventually provides evidence that links the rapist to other cases of rape and murder.
Whiskeytide
(4,463 posts)
your proposal means that anyone who has ever committed a crime would never report a rape and seek prosecution of the rapist. It would be open season for sexual abuse as long as you selected women who might have crossed the law in the past. You could assault them, and then casually mention that theyd better not report it lest the DA link their DNA to a past crime.
If the DA can prosecute the past crime based on other available evidence, then, sure, DDTCIYCDTT. But to re-victimize a rape victim using HIPAA protected medical data is barbaric when all she did was come forward to report a monster.
We should prioritize imprisoning the monster, not the woman who stole something from a retail establishment.
Chautauquas
(4,452 posts)exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Counterproductive as hell.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Just a philosophical question to see how intellectually rigorous one cares to be.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)with the understanding that it will be used to investigate and prosecute one particular crime (e.g. a rape), then that analogy would be valid. In that case, of course it should not be used for a similar purpose.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)submitted by a person who is alleging they were raped.
Should the DNA of the accused be fair game to use for whatever prosecution purposes the cops come up with at any time after the kit is submitted, or should it be protected until that DNA-provider is convicted of said sex offense before it becomes valid evidence for other possible crimes? Or protected from prosecution uses ... forever, either way?
I'm not necessarily taking a side, just saying ... interesting philosophical question.
Torchlight
(3,361 posts)percentage of sexual assault and rape victims from coming forward.
I was of the understanding that issues such as this have come before the bench before and were successfully argued (more often than not) as falling outside the scope of consent for a particular DNA sample. I may double-check that evening when I get home.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,343 posts)What the fuck did she (allegedly) steal? The Hope Diamond?