March 14, 2023 at 02:56Updated 16h ago
For:
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin has introduced a new directive that would require rape kits to be kept longer and limit the reasons county prosecutors can refuse to test them. But an investigation by Kane In Your Corner raises questions about whether the new rules will make much of a difference to sexual assault survivors who already feel lost in the system.
Lena Morrison says she still remembers the day she said she was sexually assaulted in a dormitory at Ramapo University.
“I couldn’t really get away. I couldn’t move. He was stronger than me,” Morrison recalls.
Morrison went to the hospital for a forensic exam, commonly known as a rape kit. But three years later, he says the kit was never tested for DNA. He says prosecutors told him it didn’t make sense. They said that because she had met her attacker on a dating app, they wouldn’t have a strong enough case to charge him, regardless of what the rape kit showed.
Morrison recorded some of the conversations. In one, an assistant county attorney tells her that “the information that has been obtained from the investigation does not rise to the level to meet the elements of the criminal code and the sexual assault statute.”
An investigator adds: “Based on the investigation, no crime was committed.”
“He seemed so condescending,” Morrison recalls. “He said, ‘Well, you went there to have consensual sex, didn’t you?’ I’m like, what does that have to do with choking me and raping me? I didn’t consent to it.”
Under the Open Public Records Act, Kane In Your Corner requested data on the rape kit evidence in New Jersey. It shows that 67 percent of the rape kits given to law enforcement are tested statewide, but the numbers vary widely from county to county.
Bergen County, where Morrison was assaulted, has one of the lowest testing rates in the state. Only 19% of rape kit victims released to law enforcement were tested.
“There is no valid excuse,” says Ilse Knecht, executive director of the Joyful Heart Foundation, a national advocacy group for sexual assault survivors.
Platkin announced a new directive for the rape kit test on Monday. Extends the amount of time kits must be stored when victims do not consent to testing, from five to 20 years. Most importantly, for survivors like Morrison, it limits the reasons why law enforcement can refuse to test a kit. Law enforcement can no longer refuse to test a kit simply because they suspect the sex was consensual or that the attacker is a former spouse or partner.
“The reason we have this directive is to ensure that we have standards across the state,” Platkin says. “Now, once consent is given, the kits are expected to be tested within 10 days.”
But Kane In Your Corner finds that may not be the case. While the directive limits the reasons law enforcement can cite for not testing the kits, it stops short of the “test all kits” standard that many advocates support.
“There are loopholes in this directive that will allow rape kits to remain on the shelves untested,” says Knecht.
Take the case of Morrison, for example. It’s unclear whether the rules would make any difference to someone in his situation. After all, he says the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office told him he didn’t want to test his team because he didn’t think the DNA tests would prove anything. This kind of decision would still be allowed.
“There should be no excuses,” says Knecht. “There should be no exceptions. If a survivor informs the police that they want to test their equipment, it should be tested.”
Platkin insists that “the directive makes it clear that this is the expectation. Only in limited circumstances would a kit not be tested.”
Morrison hopes that’s true. She says no victim should be treated the way he was.
“They see a lot of cases, I’m sure, but the ones they don’t or the ones they throw away like they’re not just cases, they’re people,” Morrison says.
Kane In Your Corner asked Bergen County to comment on why its rate of rape kit testing is so much lower than the state average. A spokesperson promised a response, but as of this writing, has not provided one.
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as citation, syndication, criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by the copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
-This article has no negative impact on the original works (It would actually be positive for them).
-This article is also for teaching and inspirational purposes.
– It is not transformative in nature
Source link