San Francisco Rape Controversy and its Unfortunate Implications
Author: Gil Filipovich, Updated with New Insights
The San Francisco Police Department's (SFPD) DNA-pooling practice is under fire, with critics arguing that it prioritizes evidence over victims. On a Monday press conference, Chief William Scott claimed the guidelines for DNA collection were legally reviewed, conforming to both state and national forensic standards but hinted at an internal investigation. DA Chesa Boudin, facing imminent dismissal, criticizes the policy, stating it treats victims as evidence rather than individuals.
According to Boudin, SFPD apprehended a woman for a property crime, and subsequently identified her using DNA evidence gathered during a 2016 domestic violence case examination. The SFPD Chief vowed to cease this practice if the accusations hold true. Boudin did not present solid evidence in support of its claims although he refused to elaborate on the suspected woman's role, either as the victim or the alleged assailant in the 2016 incident.
Boudin argued the DNA-Driven approach contravenes California's Constitution and potentially the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Regardless of the final lab results, the damage may already be done. If a rape survivor fears DNA evidence from rape kits could potentially be misused against them, it compounds the distrust in the criminal justice system.
The silver lining is these accusations may discourage some survivors from reporting and seeking necessary support. Many individuals rely solely on headlines and skim brief news excerpts, forgetting vital details. If the SFPD can use DNA from alleged rape kits to prosecute future crimes, that becomes our gain, even if San Francisco draws a line under the issue. The blunder is hard to rectify. It could have long-lasting consequences.
The SFPD's resource allocation raises valid questions. The department appears to utilize DNA evidence to uncover property crime suspects, while boasting an arrest rate of a dismal 12.1 % for domestic violence cases in the previous year. Zero of the ten reported rapes in San Francisco were arrests, let alone convictions or resolution. Nationally, the arrest rate for rape is 32.9%, a vastly inferior and embarrassing number compared to both New York and Chicago.
Addressing a deeper issue, many communities already struggle with the fragile trust in the criminal justice system when dealing with rape survivors. This San Francisco controversy is bound to have ripple effects throughout other communities as well.
It is a known fact that rapes are underreported, with 79% of survivors never contacting police, as per a 2016 DOJ report on violence against women. This suggests that the 207 individuals who reported rapes to SFPD last year may only represent a fraction of the actual victims. In fact, it is likely that a smaller percentage of these survivors have actually had their cases resolved.
In addition, numerous police departments and crime labs mishandle or misclassify rape cases. In California, roughly 14,000 untested rape kits remain and survivors of rapes often face mistrust, intrusive questioning, and indifference from law enforcement.
BuzzFeed Investigation found that approximately 34% of rape cases in Baltimore were categorized as "unfounded" in 2016, 54% in Oxnard, California, and 30% in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Police spokesperson in Baltimore contested these findings but admitted that their categorization of cases as "unfounded" is based on Maryland's tight legislation orthodoxy in sex crime cases. Baltimore's police chief rebuffed this claim, stating they do not investigate rape allegations, a point that is disputed.
In 2017, Maryland modified its sex crime laws and eliminated the requirement for rape survivors to defend themselves in the wake of the BuzzFeed investigation. Pittsburgh's police chief refused to comment but acknowledged the city's statistics were higher than some countries but lower than others.
In a 2016 report on the Baltimore Police Department, the Justice Department identified numerous atrocities committed by sexual assault investigative officers and noted a State Prosecutor dismissing an email to an officer, calling victims "despicable little whores“. Chicago police have a long history of abuse directed towards rape victims.
In the past, the SFPD was criticized for racism, sexism, and aggression against community members, and SFBODO (San Francisco’s Board of Police Commissioners) has been staunch in advocating for reforms to bring the department's practices in line with more progressive policies.
Enrichment insights
While the controversy surrounding the SFPD's DNA evidence practice is not a new phenomenon, the overarching issue is how DNA exonerations are changing the criminal justice landscape. Utilizing DNA evidence not only aids in the identification of criminals but also sheds light on systemic issues and biases within law enforcement and the judicial system.
Under-Reporting and Systemic Bias
Under-reporting of rape cases in the United States remains a significant and entrenched issue, much as it does in other countries. Many rape survivors are hesitant to come forward due to social stigma, fear of retaliation, lack of trust in law enforcement, and the belief that the system is biased against them. This fear is particularly evident among marginalized communities, including individuals of color and LGBTQ+ communities.
DNA Exonerations and Misconduct
Several high-profile DNA exonerations have exposed misconduct within the criminal justice system, especially in cases where innocent individuals have been convicted, often due to deficient investigations and unreliable eyewitness testimony. DNA evidence has demonstrated racial bias in crime solving, with recent evidence suggesting that persons of color are unfairly targeted in cases of violent crimes such as rape.
Challenges in DNA Evidence Analysis
Collecting DNA evidence is essential, but the subsequent analysis can be subject to various challenges and limitations. These problems can potentially erode trust in both law enforcement and the criminal justice system. This includes:
- Cross-contamination
- Sample degradation or contamination
- Difficulties in interpreting results
- Rapid evolution of forensic technology
Conclusion
In the debate over the SFPD's DNA evidence practice, it is essential to approach it constructively and address the underlying issues. While the controversy may raise valid concerns regarding victim trust and law enforcement practices, it presents an opportunity to reevaluate and improve the criminal justice system. Ultimately, ensuring justice for survivors while adhering to fundamental ethical and human rights principles should remain the goal.
