Why Police“Couldn't or Wouldn't”Submit Sexual Assault Kits for Forensic DNA Testing: A Focal Concerns Theory Analysis of Untested Rape Kits

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Campbell ◽  
Giannina Fehler-Cabral
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Campbell ◽  
Jessica Shaw ◽  
Giannina Fehler-Cabral

Throughout the United States, hundreds of thousands of sexual assault kits (SAKs) have not been submitted by the police for forensic DNA testing, which raises complex issues regarding how victims ought to be notified about what happened to their kits. In this project, we evaluated a victim-centered, trauma-informed victim notification protocol that was implemented in Detroit, Michigan. Most victims (84%) did not have a strong negative emotional reaction to notification, and most (57%) decided to reengage with the criminal justice system. Victims of nonstranger sexual assaults were less likely to reengage postnotification compared with victims of stranger rape.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 100133
Author(s):  
Jae Joseph Russell B. Rodriguez ◽  
Rita P. Laude ◽  
Maria Corazon A. De Ungria

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052095130
Author(s):  
Rebecca Campbell ◽  
Giannina Fehler-Cabral

Throughout the United States, hundreds of thousands of sexual assault kits (SAKs; also termed “rape kits”) have never been submitted by law enforcement personnel to a crime laboratory for forensic DNA testing. Prior research indicates that negative stereotypes about victims influence police decisions to submit kits for testing, but forensic crime laboratory personnel may also be involved in SAK submission decisions. The purpose of the current study was to explore the communication and collaboration between police and crime lab personnel regarding SAK submissions within a community with large numbers of unsubmitted rape kits. Drawing from 3 years of ethnographic observations and longitudinal qualitative interviews, we found that the police department’s crime lab did not have sufficient resources to test all rape kits in police custody, which is a problem forensic laboratories are facing throughout the United States. However, we also found that access to this limited resource was controlled by crime lab personnel and their rape myth beliefs about which victims and which cases were considered worthy of the time, effort, and attention of the criminal justice system. Lab personnel emphasized that police should only submit “real” cases for forensic DNA testing, which they typically defined as physically violent stranger-perpetrated sexual assaults; “shady” cases did not merit testing, which they defined as known-offender assaults, reports made by adolescent victims, and cases in which the victim may have been engaged in sex work. We noted marked similarities in police and lab personnel’s rape myth acceptance, and stakeholders readily agreed that they did have a common understanding about which victims were not credible and therefore which SAKs did not merit testing. We discuss these findings in light of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences for the independence and autonomy of the forensic sciences from law enforcement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 1820-1827
Author(s):  
Rebecca Campbell ◽  
McKenzie Javorka ◽  
Dhruv B. Sharma ◽  
Katie Gregory ◽  
Matt Opsommer ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-61
Author(s):  
Vishal Somnay ◽  
Thomas Duong ◽  
Ray-Young Tsao ◽  
Joseph A. Prahlow

Forensic DNA testing can play a critical role in homicide investigations. Selecting the appropriate evidence on which to perform DNA testing requires foresight and reasoning based on experience and science. Although successful DNA testing can occur using many substrates, including blood, hair, and sweat/epithelial cells, positive results can also result from testing various unorthodox samples. The authors report on a triple-murder investigation where DNA testing of dog feces at the crime scene matched DNA testing of feces found on the shoe of a suspect resulting in successful prosecution of the case.


Author(s):  
Rohit Saluja ◽  
Pankaj Shrivastava ◽  
Swapnil Sinha

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Butler ◽  
Michael D. Coble ◽  
Peter M. Vallone

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.S. Buckleton ◽  
M. Krawczak ◽  
B.S. Weir

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document