You’re arguing what should happen. I’m telling you what does happen.
In your mind, who should get the bill if there isn’t a mechanism in place to bill the government?
Not really interested, because it shouldn’t be an issue.
The government is the entity responsible for police and other criminal investigative work. If it wants and needs a rape exam for the purposes of conducting investigations into sexual assault cases, it should ensure that those are paid for out of the same funds that cover other investigative work. Period.
more to the point, one of the primary functions of the rape exam is to determine whether a rape took place – i.e., whether the woman is lying. This is an important issue, since rape accusations are emotionally charged, and false accusations should be ruled out. But it makes it all the crueler to charge the victim cash money to see if she’s lying.
Sailboat
Am I on everyone’s ignore list?
The practice of billing rape victims for their exams goes on all over this country. It is not some despicable special case in Wasilla, AK. I agree that it shouldn’t go on. I’m calling my state legislator today to find out what the policy is here, in my state. If it is going on here, I plan to ask my legislator to help end the practice.
Corruption goes on all over this continent (and the rest of the world really). I’m still pretty pissed off that my government seems to be full of corrupt fucks.
In other words, that police chief, and Ms Palin for appointing him (and many other reasons) are douchebags, and the fact that there are douchebags everywhere else too is irrelevant.
I hope your request is successful if your state is also run by douchebags.
Why would you think that? A few people in this thread have specifically acknowledged that it happens elsewhere, and i don’t think anyone has claimed that Wasilla is unique.
I don’t think a single person in this thread has made a claim to the contrary. Every post i have made about the problem in this thread is about the general issue, not about Wasilla specifically. My argument would be the same if the town in question were Wasilla, Alaska or Washington DC.
The fact that it might go on in numerous jurisdictions doesn’t change my opinion of the practice, nor of any politician or police department who would enforce it.
Well, it is. If you can’t bill the defense, and you can’t bill the prosecution, you bill the taxpayer. In fact, that this isn’t being billed to the taxpayer is part of your original rant. Right?
My thoughts exactly. The link just said ‘rapes.’ Rape victims have enough road blocks – mental, social and legal – when it comes to getting tested (getting someone to actually process the kits is another story. Think that costs extra?). I can’t even imagine how adding a financial burden to the mix fucks up reporting even more.
C’mon, guys. Put two and two together.
Sarah Palin governed a city whose policy was to make rape victims pay for their rape exams, thus reducing rape cliams and hindering investigations.
Sarah Palin would force women who have been raped to have their rapists’ babies.
Sarah Palin is pro-rape.
It just seems to me that many people in this thread only want to score political points off the tragedy of rape victims, not like, ya know, do anything about it. I have an appointment to see a state legislator tomorrow to see what is done here in my town and state. He’s up for reelection so I think I might get him to pay attention.
Not speaking for the source, but this article claims that Palin was directly involved with the policy change to bill rape victims.
It’s Huffington Post, so I make no guarantee of its reliability, though he does link to the City of Wasilla’s documents regarding the city budget.
More info on the incidence of this nationally from here:
There will be cases where a true victum’s rapist is found not guilty. It’s just a side affect of our justice system. I don’t know how to fix it, and that’s another issue for another day.
The point is how would feel to have to pay a thousand bucks after someone violated your body and went free? Would adding to that extreme trauma for a victim be worth paying a few bucks less on in taxes?
Not to mention cases of poverty. Having to risk paying a $1,000 you don’t have unless you starve would mean alot more cases of rape go unreported.
If I had been a senator, I’d have voted against this bill as well. It’s an improper exercise of Congressional power.
What part of the Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate such a requirement?
This may be true, but I have no idea how it applies to the OP, which is all about state and local law.
How about the Equal Protection clause? If you can’t afford a rape kit, you can’t be protected from rapists? Only (relatively) wealthy people can afford to have a rapist prosecuted by paying for the evidence tests.
But IANAlawyer, I’m just guessing.