WA rape kit bill symbolic, needs context

A frequent topic on the Jason Rantz Show in the last week or so has had a lot to do with symbolism; that activists and politicians are making a lot of symbolic gestures, but not really achieving any results.

Now we find a similar scenario unfolding with Governor Jay Inslee and it’s on the understandably sensitive subject of rape.

This week, the Governor signed into law a new rule: law enforcement agencies in the state must request testing of all future rape kits. Now, on the surface, I’m sure most of you would say, “Why wouldn’t they test all the rape kits? How can they not test them all?”

According to the Tacoma News Tribune, “the State Patrol estimated that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 untested rape kits in Washington, though the precise number of unanalyzed kits isn’t known.”

And this isn’t an issue unique to Washington state &#8212 it’s a nationwide occurrence.

But now, under this new law, agencies must submit a testing request within 30 days of receiving a rape kit, unless the victim objects to the evidence being used. Supporters say this will help catch criminals; again, on the surface, it’s hard to argue with that.

The truth is, however, it is a mostly symbolic bill that won’t necessarily deliver the results you think it will. Now, that’s not to say it’s not the right kind of symbolism or that it’s the wrong message to send. I don’t think that, necessarily; it is certainly an added bit of pressure not to commit the crime, and a commitment to rape victims that the crime will be investigated. I think we can all get behind those messages.

But this bill is unlikely to lead to a huge uptick in arrested rapists. In fact, this bill does more to blur the truth about why rape kits aren’t tested to begin with.

Why wouldn’t you need to test a rape kit? A number of reasons including you don’t always need it to convict. When might you not need it to convict? A confession. Indisputable video evidence. A rape victim taking his or her story back, or their unwillingness to press charges in the long run.

You don’t need rape kits tested in those scenarios. Now maybe you want to anyway just for a bit of extra proof, but when you have a confession there’s no big reason to rush out and test the rape kit, if you’re going to test it all.

Why is this important? Because testing rape kits isn’t free. There are costs associated with the testing &#8212 between $250 and $500 to in Washington. That can cost the state $3 million based on the number of kits not tested that we know about. Why spend money needlessly? Why spend the money on the rape kit if we have a confession or irrefutable evidence? Or if it didn’t happen to begin with? That is not an efficient use of our funds; I’d rather those funds be used on resources for officers to catch the bad guys we don’t have evidence on.

And understand this bill doesn’t even require they be tested; it just requires the agency request the testing.

The Tribune says:

[T]he bill struck a compromise by requiring only that law enforcement agencies make the testing request within 30 days, without dictating that the rape kits be actually sent to the State Patrol Crime Lab within that time.

Representatives of the State Patrol had said the laboratory wouldn’t be able to test all the kits immediately, given the lab’s current level of funding, and that the lab wouldn’t have room to hold all the untested rape kits while they awaited testing.

This isn’t all to say there are no valid reasons for testing all rape kits. State Rep. Tina Orwall told the Tribune that this can also help police ID serial rapists. That’s a very valid point. Ultimately, I think as long as we can we can prioritize and really focus on the immediate need for the kits, I’m fine with this bill. But just understand how much of this is about symbolism: the symbolism that we’re going to be tough on rape (that’s a great symbol and cause). But I fear people are getting the wrong idea on why some of these kits are being neglected.