Thread by @rlovell100

YES! Just published article "The Bureaucratic Burden of Identifying your Rapist and Remaining “Cooperative”: What the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative Tells us about Sexual Assault Case Attrition and Outcomes." Full-text link. @BegunCenter @SAKInitiative

link.springer.com/article/10.100…

/2 Main Qs: We know kits weren't tested but why didn't these cases result in holding the offender accountable? When did these cases fail to proceed in the criminal justice process and why?

3/ Findings: 1) Most "closed" very early in the process. Soon after reporting, soon after the assault. 2) Most were minimally investigated. 3) Most closed before detectives interviewed victims.

4/ Why did they "fail?" -- 1) victims unable to identify rapist 2) victims did not remain engaged in the process ("cooperative").

5/ Implications: The system places a bureaucratic burden on victims to solve their own rapes and remain "cooperative" in an often harmful process and system. It's a more passive way to (mis)handle sexual assaults - to get them off the "books."

6/ Policy: CJ system is not designed to support victims. So, we need to revamp the system to ensure victims have sufficient and trained support thruout the process. System needs to be held accountable. If we do this: rapists held accountable, communities are safer.

7/ Coauthors: @LauraOverman1, Duoduo Huang,& @danieljflannery

@MandelSchool @cwru

8/ Implications: And of course #testall #kits! Increased use of forensic evidence (#testing #rapekits) & following up on the testing w/ trauma-informed responses from the CJ system. Evidence: most of the cases in this sample now have convictions!
@ProsMikeOMalley @TheJHF