Current Events > Rape victim DNA used to make an arrest

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rape-kit-dna-san-francisco-woman-arrest-lawsuit/

That's fucked up.

Something's up with the link

That shit should be inadmissable. They should not be allowed to use DNA from rape kits.

"This is government overreach of the highest order, using the most unique and personal thing we have our genetic code without our knowledge to try and connect us to crime," the woman's attorney, Adante Pointer, said in a statement.

Beyond idiotic statement from a professional. This doesnt even address how the DNA was obtained, it just says "DNA bad".

^Imagine the rapist walking in to court with that same defense. I mean, he didn't want the police to have his DNA either.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

^Imagine the rapist walking in to court with that same defense. I mean, he didn't want the police to have his DNA either.

They should be allowed to use the perpetrator's DNA but not the victim's, otherwise it would further discourage rape victims from getting examined and coming forward.

CommonStar posted...

They should be allowed to use the perpetrator's DNA but not the victim's, otherwise it would further discourage rape victims from getting examined and coming forward.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think we should choose to withhold justice from any parties. This sample could be the last chance for justice and peace for affected families.

The big thing to note here is that DNA is not going to be an element in small nonviolent or property crimes. I feel for anyone that is a victim and finds themselves in this situation, but we can't start down the road of considering justice an inconvenience.

I think your opinion comes from a great place, sincerely, but we ARE talking about murders and assaults. I can't help but put myself in the other victims shoes, knowing someone would be getting off scott free for a crime that was committed, in the name of....making sure crimes are reported?

I think what this case is is a very crafty lawyer.

CommonStar posted...

They should be allowed to use the perpetrator's DNA but not the victim's, otherwise it would further discourage rape victims from getting examined and coming forward.

Wouldn't this discourage people from committing crimes though, which is what is really important...

It definitely won't discourage people since most people don't commit crimes. I would think it would only discourage someone like the person in this case who committed a burglary.

CommonStar posted...

That shit should be inadmissable. They should not be allowed to use DNA from rape kits.

Why not? A crime was committed... wouldn't you want a criminal to receive justice?

All people deserve justice, not just rape victims. To intentionally ignore crucial evidence in solving a crime just because the perpetrator was previously a victim does not solve anything and is not justice--It's arbitrary deference to the "more bad" crime.

Justice is blind.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

All people deserve justice, not just rape victims. To intentionally ignore crucial evidence in solving a crime just because the perpetrator was previously a victim does not solve anything and is not justice--It's arbitrary deference to the "more bad" crime.

Justice is blind.

I think what needs to be made clear is the following:
1. It is unlawful for police departments to add victim's DNA samples to the national database used for solving crimes.
2. It's not unlawful to add the same DNA to a state or local database
3. A bill is being put forth to make it unlawful to add victim's DNA to any police database that is used for solving crimes
4. The charge was dropped against her when it was found out how the DNA evidence was obtained
5. That precinct also stopped adding victim dna to the local database as a result of this

So by all accounts, the woman's case may not hold water (due to it not being unlawful at the time) but she is morally correct.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

To intentionally ignore crucial evidence in solving a crime just because the perpetrator was previously a victim does not solve anything

This is not as clear cut as you think.

For another example it's similar to how illegal immigrants are afraid to report serious crimes against them because there will be some guy like you saying technically they are criminals too and both issues need to be sorted out.

It's another example of this garbage, unrealistic "same thing both sides" logic. What will really happen is they won't report and nothing will be done.

Doesn't seem any different than using fingerprints on file to identify who committed a crime

Turtlemayor333 posted...

This is not as clear cut as you think.

For another example it's similar to how illegal immigrants are afraid to report serious crimes against them because there will be some guy like you saying technically they are criminals too and both issues need to be sorted out.

It's another example of this garbage, unrealistic "same thing both sides" logic. What will really happen is they won't report and nothing will be done.

I don't think the two situations are quite analogous to one another. Illegal immigrants are de facto breaking the law by having their presence here, so that would explain their trepidation with contacting law enforcement in an instance when they're victims of a crime. The same doesn't hold true for victims of rape, unless that victim is also an illegal immigrant themselves.

Raikuro posted...

Doesn't seem any different than using fingerprints on file to identify who committed a crime

One thing is from a crime the other is from being raped. Pretty different things.

BuckVanHammer posted...

One thing is from a crime the other is from being raped. Pretty different things.

Fingerprints aren't just collected from crime. They go around schools and get them from schoolchildren...

Oh if she committed the crime...theN good that was able to identify her. How is this fucked up?

CommonStar posted...

They should be allowed to use the perpetrator's DNA but not the victim's, otherwise it would further discourage rape victims from getting examined and coming forward.

WTF is that logic? Oh let me not seek help in case I COMMIT A CRIME AND THEY COULD LINK ME THROUGH IT in the future? really?!

Gee, and society wonders what women are talking about when they say there are so many barriers to coming forward about sexual assault

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

Oh if she committed the crime...theN good that was able to identify her. How is this fucked up?

You have to admit that it would dissuade a small percentage of people from coming forward about being sexually victimized.

Yes, the police ought to be able to use any information they can lawfully collect to solve crimes. But should they be allowed to collect DNA evidence from a rape kit for purposes other than solving the rape? It's more than just about whether or not the victim might have committed a crime---it's also about being able to trust the system to be fair and unbiased. It often isn't. Police already have wide latitude to pick and choose which laws they enforce and which calls they even show up to.

darkmaian23 posted...

But should they be allowed to collect DNA evidence from a rape kit for purposes other than solving the rape?

The answer to that is no, as it's illegal to do so with the federal database and California followed suit and made it illegal to use DNA evidence from SA victims for any purpose other than finding the perpetrator.

The government should have the DNA of every citizen in the nation on file. Right from birth.

meestermj posted...

The answer to that is no, as it's illegal to do so with the federal database and California followed suit and made it illegal to use DNA evidence from SA victims for any purpose other than finding the perpetrator.

That's the gist of the lawsuit, isn't it?

I think the timeline is:

1. She got arrested.
2. California established the law.
3. Lawsuit over arrest.

So fucked up America

I'm kind of torn. I also don't really care about the rights of an asshole who commits a crime worthy of testing for DNA evidence, but it ultimately makes sense for everyone to be playing under the same confidentiality rules to avoid abuse with people's personal information. I guess it really comes down to the idea if our DNA is considered our own private information or if we should blindly trust the government with it.

Newborns should have their DNA registered, having a full database of all people will make solving crimes easier, it'll also solve cold cases with DNA familiarity.

A copy of every baby's DNA should be provided to all insurance companies, so that none can commit insurance fraud.

Nemu posted...

I'm kind of torn. I also don't really care about the rights of an asshole who commits a crime worthy of testing for DNA evidence, but it ultimately makes sense for everyone to be playing under the same confidentiality rules to avoid abuse with people's personal information. I guess it really comes down to the idea if our DNA is considered our own private information or if we should blindly trust the government with it.

This is a criminal investigation we are talking about. Nobody is "blindly trusting", they are approving for someone's DNA to be run through a database of unsolved crimes. That is an EXTREMELY dishonest argument.

The fuck

I'm kinda split on this.

On one hand it definitely feels like overreaching and isn't something that should happen without at least telling the person. And either way might stop people from getting rape kits

On the other, rape victims shouldn't be exempt from being prosecuted just because they were raped.

There should be some middle ground here.

itachi15243 posted...

On the other, rape victims shouldn't be exempt from being prosecuted just because they were raped.

They wouldn't be exempt, if they are a suspect in an alleged crime, then law enforcement would go through the standard procedure of getting their DNA to compare the ones gathered at the crime scene with rather than getting it from rape kits. Rape victims' DNA should not be put into the system when they get examined with a rape kit.

Any protections around what can or can't be used as evidence should exist solely to prevent people being framed or abused by law enforcement. If a protection does not serve such a purpose, it only serves to help criminals get away with their crimes.

So lemme get this straight..

A woman was raped in 2016

She committed a burglary worthy of DNA testing 5 years later in 2021

And you guys think that they shouldnt have been allowed to use the evidence they had on hand to solve the crime?

I mean, maybe I'm looking at this very 1 dimensional, but I dont see the issue here. She did bad thing and got caught for bad thing. They "how they figured it out" shouldnt he a concern. Just because she was victimized doesnt mean she should be let off the hook.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

This is a criminal investigation we are talking about. Nobody is "blindly trusting", they are approving for someone's DNA to be run through a database of unsolved crimes. That is an EXTREMELY dishonest argument.

I'm talking about in general. It's a discussion of whether our DNA is private information or if the government should have free access to it outside criminal investigations. If it's private information, then a victim needs to have the right to decide how it is utilized. The government simply having access to it shouldn't lead to the right for them to use it without the owner's consent. If it's not private information, they then should be able to store every single citizen's DNA without our consent, which is a particularly heavy talking point. Basically, it has to be one way or the other. The middle ground of "well, we have it now so might as well use it" really can't be allowed to exist.

Lokison posted...

They "how they figured it out" shouldnt he a concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

Wow!

The cops actually tested a rape kit?

Lokison posted...

So lemme get this straight..

A woman was raped in 2016

She committed a burglary worthy of DNA testing 5 years later in 2021

And you guys think that they shouldnt have been allowed to use the evidence they had on hand to solve the crime?

I mean, maybe I'm looking at this very 1 dimensional, but I dont see the issue here. She did bad thing and got caught for bad thing. They "how they figured it out" shouldnt he a concern. Just because she was victimized doesnt mean she should be let off the hook.

Right?