This is an interesting case. Being the victim of one crime doesn't give a free pass to be the perpetrator of another. If this woman was the victim of the burglary would she have said no if the...
District Attorney Chesa Boudin said he became aware of the “opaque practice” last week after prosecutors found a report among hundreds of pages of evidence in the case against a woman recently charged with a felony property crime. The papers referred to a DNA sample collected from the woman during a 2016 rape investigation.
Boudin read from the report Tuesday at a news conference and said he could not share it because of privacy concerns, but his office allowed the San Francisco Chronicle to review the documents. The newspaper said the woman was tied to a burglary in late 2021 during “a routine search” of a San Francisco Police Department crime lab database. The match came from DNA gathered from the same laboratory listed in a report on the sexual assault, The Chronicle reported.
This is an interesting case. Being the victim of one crime doesn't give a free pass to be the perpetrator of another. If this woman was the victim of the burglary would she have said no if the police asked her if she was okay with them checking their DNA database for matches to the burglar?
Now, I don't think it should be done by default, as seems to be the case here. Like any specific information request as part of an investigation, it should go through the warrant procedures and a judge can make the call whether or not police can perform the act. On the other side of that coin, is a right to privacy and someone who voluntarily submitted their DNA, such as a rape kit or 23andMe, should be able to demand their DNA information be deleted.
The San Francisco district attorney’s stunning claim that California crime labs are using DNA from sexual assault survivors to investigate unrelated crimes shocked prosecutors nationwide, and advocates said the practice could affect victims’ willingness to come forward.
This is an extremely common red herring that, in this case, I don't buy. I find it extremely difficult that a sexual assault victim would think "Well, I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to do some home invasion later."
How about, "Well I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to get an abortion later." I find your argument to be along the same lines of of "if you don't have anything to hide,...
This is an extremely common red herring that, in this case, I don't buy. I find it extremely difficult that a sexual assault victim would think "Well, I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to do some home invasion later."
How about, "Well I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to get an abortion later."
I find your argument to be along the same lines of of "if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about."
Edit
I reread what you wrote:
On the other side of that coin, is a right to privacy and someone who voluntarily submitted their DNA, such as a rape kit or 23andMe, should be able to demand their DNA information be deleted.
In my time working in mental health, with extremely high percentages of patients with sexual assault histories, the reasons given for not pursuing legal action against their rapist have never been...
In my time working in mental health, with extremely high percentages of patients with sexual assault histories, the reasons given for not pursuing legal action against their rapist have never been fear of their own prosecution as is the reason given when people argue against charging women who give false rape allegations. So I still don't buy any "I won't aid in punishing my rapist because I might be charged with a crime in the future" postulation.
I find your argument to be along the same lines of of "if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about."
False equivalency. Nowhere is anyone stating people should submit their DNA by default and the practice of using DNA on file as part of unrelated investigations had the added limitation of privacy rights and warrant procedures in my comment.
That's a fair assessment from your experience. My experience puts me in a different place.
In my time working in mental health, with extremely high percentages of patients with sexual assault histories, the reasons given for not pursuing legal action against their rapist have never been fear of their own prosecution as is the reason given when people argue against charging women who give false rape allegations. So I still don't buy any "I won't aid in punishing my rapist because I might be charged with a crime in the future" postulation.
That's a fair assessment from your experience. My experience puts me in a different place.
In this literal case, we have no idea if this woman actually committed this burglary, only that the SFPD claims she was "tied to" it. There are many groups of people who have rightful fear of...
In this literal case, we have no idea if this woman actually committed this burglary, only that the SFPD claims she was "tied to" it. There are many groups of people who have rightful fear of being wrongly accused of a crime. I don't think it's at all a red herring to claim that there are people who would decide against submitting a rape kit (a process that is already unpleasant in the best case) if there was any indication that the police would then indefinitely hold on to those results, thereby making them more likely to be associated with future crimes whether or not they themselves conduct any criminal activity.
All covered in this portion of my comment as the checks against such.
All covered in this portion of my comment as the checks against such.
Now, I don't think it should be done by default, as seems to be the case here. Like any specific information request as part of an investigation, it should go through the warrant procedures and a judge can make the call whether or not police can perform the act. On the other side of that coin, is a right to privacy and someone who voluntarily submitted their DNA, such as a rape kit or 23andMe, should be able to demand their DNA information be deleted.
I agree with you on what should happen (though I don’t think anyone should have to request that the police department delete their DNA information that was willingly given for a specific...
I agree with you on what should happen (though I don’t think anyone should have to request that the police department delete their DNA information that was willingly given for a specific procedure; it should be done as standard practice). I mean to specifically address the part of your comment where you asserted that “the practice could affect victims’ willingness to come forward” was a red herring. This is a real concern that should be taken seriously, especially in an environment where there are already so many potential negative consequences for victims of rape to speak to the police/submit a rape kit.
I'm willing to have my opinion changed if you can provide real world examples/studies demonstrating such. As I stated in another comment, in my previous professional experience working in mental...
This is a real concern that should be taken seriously, especially in an environment where there are already so many potential negative consequences for victims of rape to speak to the police/submit a rape kit.
I'm willing to have my opinion changed if you can provide real world examples/studies demonstrating such. As I stated in another comment, in my previous professional experience working in mental health, where sexual assault victims are seemingly the norm, a fear of being prosecuted for something like a false rape allegation was never the reason provided for not submitting to a rape kit or pursuing legal action against their attacker.
You are shifting the goalposts. The person you're responding to never claimed that a victim's "fear of being prosecuted for something [...] was never the reason provided for not [...] pursuing...
You are shifting the goalposts. The person you're responding to never claimed that a victim's "fear of being prosecuted for something [...] was never the reason provided for not [...] pursuing legal action". They claimed that
there are already so many potential negative consequences for victims of rape to speak to the police/submit a rape kit
Here [1] is a detailed case study of a person being wrongly prosecuted for false rape allegations. The prosecution culminated in her death by suicide. The rest of the law review article details plenty of examples of harm inflicted on victims by the legal system.
Edit: Here's the macroscopic view: I don't want police to be able to more easily investigate sexual assault victims just because they happened to submit a rape kit. There should be just as much friction in investigating victims as any other person in the general public. My objections from strongest to weakest:
First, such a policy would undoubtedly have a chilling effect, as criminals would be less likely to submit rape kits. (And to preempt your objection: criminals are not exactly forthcoming about their criminal activities; I doubt they would decline rape kits for the explicit reason "because I am a criminal".) This increases the likelihood that the perpetrator is not prosecuted and acts again.
Second, such a policy would bias whom the police investigates, as it would become much easier for the police to investigate victims of sexual assault (even if the police do have a warrant, as you propose). I consider this an issue of equity: victims are now more likely to be prosecuted compared to the general public. Moreover, only a small fraction of the population will ever submit a rape kit anyway, so the gains from such a policy would be marginal at best.
Third, such a policy could result in a false prosecution, which otherwise would've been avoided.
Sure, but being a perpetrator of a crime doesn't mean that person is now "open" for crimes to be committed against them, either. I don't think that's what the problem is. The issue is about people...
Being the victim of one crime doesn't give a free pass to be the perpetrator of another.
Sure, but being a perpetrator of a crime doesn't mean that person is now "open" for crimes to be committed against them, either.
This is an extremely common red herring that, in this case, I don't buy. I find it extremely difficult that a sexual assault victim would think "Well, I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to do some home invasion later."
I don't think that's what the problem is. The issue is about people who have committed a crime in the past and have gone unnoticed. Again, the law serves all, even criminals. I'm pretty sure that even in prison, rape is against the law and punishable. Whether prison authorities do anything about it is another story, but perhaps that's no different from this side of the prison walls.
Sure, which was covered in my comment... This is also covered in the comment above. They'd submit a rape kit, but it doesn't/shouldn't automatically search unsolved crime DNA databases. The...
Sure, but being a perpetrator of a crime doesn't mean that person is now "open" for crimes to be committed against them, either.
Sure, which was covered in my comment...
Now, I don't think it should be done by default, as seems to be the case here. Like any specific information request as part of an investigation, it should go through the warrant procedures and a judge can make the call whether or not police can perform the act. On the other side of that coin, is a right to privacy and someone who voluntarily submitted their DNA, such as a rape kit or 23andMe, should be able to demand their DNA information be deleted.
This is also covered in the comment above.
I don't think that's what the problem is. The issue is about people who have committed a crime in the past and have gone unnoticed. Again, the law serves all, even criminals.
They'd submit a rape kit, but it doesn't/shouldn't automatically search unsolved crime DNA databases. The investigator would need probable cause that this specific person in the hospital for a rape kit is also the perpetrator of a past crime. Unless they're in the hospital saying something like "I haven't been in a hospital this nice since that time I shanked a guy over an ice cream cone and nicked my hand." they're not going to have probable cause to get a warrant to check the DNA against a specific unsolved crime.
The SF DA should have this case thrown out on the basis of warrantless acquisition of evidence not related to the crime, no doubt about that.
This is an interesting case. Being the victim of one crime doesn't give a free pass to be the perpetrator of another. If this woman was the victim of the burglary would she have said no if the police asked her if she was okay with them checking their DNA database for matches to the burglar?
Now, I don't think it should be done by default, as seems to be the case here. Like any specific information request as part of an investigation, it should go through the warrant procedures and a judge can make the call whether or not police can perform the act. On the other side of that coin, is a right to privacy and someone who voluntarily submitted their DNA, such as a rape kit or 23andMe, should be able to demand their DNA information be deleted.
This is an extremely common red herring that, in this case, I don't buy. I find it extremely difficult that a sexual assault victim would think "Well, I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to do some home invasion later."
How about, "Well I need a rape kit done, but I guess I won't in case I decide to get an abortion later."
I find your argument to be along the same lines of of "if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about."
Edit
I reread what you wrote:
I totally agree.
In my time working in mental health, with extremely high percentages of patients with sexual assault histories, the reasons given for not pursuing legal action against their rapist have never been fear of their own prosecution as is the reason given when people argue against charging women who give false rape allegations. So I still don't buy any "I won't aid in punishing my rapist because I might be charged with a crime in the future" postulation.
False equivalency. Nowhere is anyone stating people should submit their DNA by default and the practice of using DNA on file as part of unrelated investigations had the added limitation of privacy rights and warrant procedures in my comment.
That's a fair assessment from your experience. My experience puts me in a different place.
In this literal case, we have no idea if this woman actually committed this burglary, only that the SFPD claims she was "tied to" it. There are many groups of people who have rightful fear of being wrongly accused of a crime. I don't think it's at all a red herring to claim that there are people who would decide against submitting a rape kit (a process that is already unpleasant in the best case) if there was any indication that the police would then indefinitely hold on to those results, thereby making them more likely to be associated with future crimes whether or not they themselves conduct any criminal activity.
All covered in this portion of my comment as the checks against such.
I agree with you on what should happen (though I don’t think anyone should have to request that the police department delete their DNA information that was willingly given for a specific procedure; it should be done as standard practice). I mean to specifically address the part of your comment where you asserted that “the practice could affect victims’ willingness to come forward” was a red herring. This is a real concern that should be taken seriously, especially in an environment where there are already so many potential negative consequences for victims of rape to speak to the police/submit a rape kit.
I'm willing to have my opinion changed if you can provide real world examples/studies demonstrating such. As I stated in another comment, in my previous professional experience working in mental health, where sexual assault victims are seemingly the norm, a fear of being prosecuted for something like a false rape allegation was never the reason provided for not submitting to a rape kit or pursuing legal action against their attacker.
You are shifting the goalposts. The person you're responding to never claimed that a victim's "fear of being prosecuted for something [...] was never the reason provided for not [...] pursuing legal action". They claimed that
Here [1] is a detailed case study of a person being wrongly prosecuted for false rape allegations. The prosecution culminated in her death by suicide. The rest of the law review article details plenty of examples of harm inflicted on victims by the legal system.
Edit: Here's the macroscopic view: I don't want police to be able to more easily investigate sexual assault victims just because they happened to submit a rape kit. There should be just as much friction in investigating victims as any other person in the general public. My objections from strongest to weakest:
First, such a policy would undoubtedly have a chilling effect, as criminals would be less likely to submit rape kits. (And to preempt your objection: criminals are not exactly forthcoming about their criminal activities; I doubt they would decline rape kits for the explicit reason "because I am a criminal".) This increases the likelihood that the perpetrator is not prosecuted and acts again.
Second, such a policy would bias whom the police investigates, as it would become much easier for the police to investigate victims of sexual assault (even if the police do have a warrant, as you propose). I consider this an issue of equity: victims are now more likely to be prosecuted compared to the general public. Moreover, only a small fraction of the population will ever submit a rape kit anyway, so the gains from such a policy would be marginal at best.
Third, such a policy could result in a false prosecution, which otherwise would've been avoided.
[1] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2140&context=blr#page=35
Sure, but being a perpetrator of a crime doesn't mean that person is now "open" for crimes to be committed against them, either.
I don't think that's what the problem is. The issue is about people who have committed a crime in the past and have gone unnoticed. Again, the law serves all, even criminals. I'm pretty sure that even in prison, rape is against the law and punishable. Whether prison authorities do anything about it is another story, but perhaps that's no different from this side of the prison walls.
Sure, which was covered in my comment...
This is also covered in the comment above.
They'd submit a rape kit, but it doesn't/shouldn't automatically search unsolved crime DNA databases. The investigator would need probable cause that this specific person in the hospital for a rape kit is also the perpetrator of a past crime. Unless they're in the hospital saying something like "I haven't been in a hospital this nice since that time I shanked a guy over an ice cream cone and nicked my hand." they're not going to have probable cause to get a warrant to check the DNA against a specific unsolved crime.
The SF DA should have this case thrown out on the basis of warrantless acquisition of evidence not related to the crime, no doubt about that.