I wonder what this paragraph said:

Gina Scaramella, a spokesperson for the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, said a person cannot to faced use a rape kit if they are intoxicated. She added the plaintiff should have been able to receive treatment the following morning.

I can't figured it out with the "to faced use" typo--be forced to use? Well no kidding, they have to consent, which this woman obviously did since she was seeking it out. You've got to love heinous copy editing.

And people wonder why I didn't report it when I was assaulted. As for the "receive treatment the following morning," my cop friend told me after I was drugged that most or all of the traces are usually gone from the body by the following day. So if you don't have someone check you out right away, it may be impossible to prove that you were drugged.

I can't believe the cop saying there was no reason to believe a crime was commited. Um, how about listening to the woman and investigating to see if there was a crime? Then make your conclusion.

I live a few blocks from Howard, and it's frightening that this is the kind of treatment that women in my neighborhood are receiving. I don't understand the "to faced use" typo either - are there actual policies that a woman who is intoxicated can't request a rape kit?? That seems unbelievable, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

And isn't a woman reporting that she was raped enough “reason to believe a crime happened�?

I can't believe the cop saying there was no reason to believe a crime was commited. Um, how about listening to the woman and investigating to see if there was a crime? Then make your conclusion.

That is fucking scary and ridiculous. You know, even if she was intoxicated, that's not really much grounds to refuse investigation. Well, I'm glad there's plenty of cops around to give out speeding tickets, but none to do their job when real crimes are being committed. :/

I hope alaric reads this one so she can see just how easy and supportive the system is with all the improvements that have been made....

Kimmy already mentioned this point, but I wanted to emphasize it. After working for a rape crisis center, I learned, as Kimmy mentioned, that these rape drugs completely leave your system right away, leaving no traces for evidence of being drugged. Rape cases are dropped all the time because there was no evidence that the survivor was drugged. This situation leaves me outraged because here is a case where there is an opportunity to test for rape drugs, and she was denied BECAUSE SHE WAS ON THE DRUGS! For fucks sake...

I just cannot assimilate this. So, I've been out with a few friends, and I've had a few drinks, and some asshole rapes me. I walk into the police station and say "I need help, I need a rape evidence kit done, some asshole just raped me," and they say "Nope, because you have alcohol on your breath, we have no reason to believe a crime occurred."

Fuck that--the reason to believe a crime occurred is that I am fucking well telling you it occurred. Beyond that, it is your fucking job to gather what we call evidence, which is why I'm asking for a rape evidence kit.

And hello--cops are bad enough, but hospitals? She was denied the kit at hospitals? Because, what, the medical staff is qualified to decide whether or not a crime occurred?

You guys haven't met DC's finest. They're more interested in shooting 14-year-olds over stolen bikes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901380_pf.html) and in following people (like me) a mile and a half home from church at 9 in the morning to tell them that they've run a stop sign (I wish I were kidding, but I'm not) than in pursuing actual crimes.

For those of you that live in the DC area: I spoke with the woman's lawyer to see what action local activists can take (I am a board member of the DC chapter of YWTF). We are meeting this week to strategize and also so i can get more info... I will keep you posted. Thank you Jessica for bringing this to everyone's attention.

i know these laws vary from state to state but in illinois we have saseta (sexual assault survivors emergency treatment act). if someone (ANYONE!) comes into a hospital stating that they were sexually assaulted, they must be given a private room, a medical exam, emergency contraception, the choice to consent to a rape kit, PEP (an extremely expensive prophylaxis which lowers the chances of contracting HIV), and two follow up visits...all for FREE. on top of that, the police must be notified as soon as the disclosure has been made that there was a sexual assault and they MUST come asap in case the survivor wants to press charges. of course it doesn't always go down this way but its definitely a step in the right direction.

am i just naive or is illinois really on the "progressive" end of this issue....because if so, thats really fucking sad.

This may be a completely stupid question, but neither biology or law are my strong suits. If the worry is that the drug will be processed out of your body in a short amount of time, can you take your own sample? Maybe cut your finger and squeeze some into a small plastic bag? Would it be detectable in dried blood?

Obviously even dried blood can be tested for a match, would it be remotely admissible? Do I just watch too much TV?

My thinking here is if both medicine and the law drop the ball, is there anything we can do to help ourselves?

Gods, this is a terrifying time to be raising a daughter.

@ Roni:

Taking your own sample wouldn't work for a few reasons.

1. When blood is taken, it is fed directly into a vacuum-sealed tube that contains a preservative that stops alcohol/drugs from further metabolizing.

2. The evidence might be excluded as unreliable unless a third party watched the sample being taken and watched it until it went to the police/lab. An accuser claiming "this is my blood and I didn't add anything to it" may not be enough to establish the reliability of the sample.

3. There would need to be enough of a sample (preserved) to permit the accused to perform his own test on the evidence. If he isn't able to test the evidence, it could be excluded from the prosecution's case.

Hope that helps.

Back on topic: This is such a horrible story. It sounds like several people should be fired.

This incident (as told here, if that is accurate) is a travesty. Alleged victims should be encouraged to give physical evidence so that their accusations can be fully vetted and justice can be done. Denying the collection of evidence in this case is contrary to any good-faith attempt to investigate her claims.

"this is a terrifying time to be raising a daughter"

Yes. I am terrified.

I suddenly have visions of jodie foster. god damn that was back in the 80's. You'd think the whole "you were intoxicated" thing would be unacceptable to say to rape victom by now... however our objections it seem it's still a socially acceptable thing to say to someone whos just been assulted and terrorised... god.

You'd swear rape wasn't even a crime. Or if it still is, that almost nothing is considered rape. Just to bothersome to deal with, isn't it, law enforcement?

I really want to know what Gina Scaramella actually said. The bit added about how she "should have been able to receive treatment the following morning." concerns me--is she saying that an intoxicated person can't consent to a rape kit?

This is exactly why the BS term "gray rape" is so dangerous.

Just like Roni, I was wondering if it was even physically possible to save evidence if assholes wouldn't help you. So I did a bit of digging based on some knowledge that I had about GHB. Detecting GHB and roofies (whether possible for other drugs, not sure but I would assume so since they are all pretty much diluted in liquid that you have to piss...) can be done by examining urine. Maybe blood, too but I don't know that one. I have heard before that the best chance to collect evidence of drugs is the first piss one takes after a rape, and that 24 hours after the incident the body has pretty much ridden itself of this. Then I wondered, well, can you collect a DNA sample from urine to counter the argument of either no witnesses or so-s/he-says...and it looks like yes. You can collect DNA from urine (I even came across an ad for a biotech company that sells these kits), but a (very) perfunctory search makes it seem that this DNA disintegrates fast as well. This, of course, is one type of physical evidence, besides possible hair and semen samples.

HOWEVER - someone who has endured a sexual assault SHOULD NOT have to deal with all of this and conduct a self rape kit! This is maddening, and I agree with bubblex - where is the "things have gotten so much better for women, why would they choose to be 'weak' with the clothesline project" conversation?

I don't know much about drug testing, but if they can be detected in urine they can probably be detected in blood for longer.

But while DNA is retained in dried blood I am doubtful traces of a drug would be. It MIGHT work, if you can get about 3 mls, into a air-tight and preferably vacuum-sealed container and refridgerate it.

But I doubt it, and most people don't have the equipment let alone the coping ability for that :\

Oops. Already answered in a more succinct manner by Q. Never mind

Apologies if this double-posts, but had to add this PS - you may or may not want anticoagulant for this test Q. Can't say I have any idea how this particular test works, but not all blood samples require anticoagulant (even more useful of course is that they dont' all use the SAME anticoagulant)

The GW paper reported this, but the real bad actors here are Howard University Hospital and the DC cops. I've read some things that are not readily available, and what happened here is not in my view simply an example of bumbling. Howard and the DC cops acted in bad faith. Their conduct is a study in stubborn refusal to address the woman's complaint, even when her friends gave a clear account of what had happened. It was as if there were a secret policy to avoid wherever possible invistigating a rape allegation: if that's not "rape culture" then I don't know what is.

What difference does it make if she's drunk or not? Does a state of intoxication somehow change the fact that she was raped?

Can someone clarify this for me?

Sarah, in our rape culture it seems being raped changes the possibility of a woman being allowed to charge the rapist. Once an attacker rapes you, you are all of a sudden not believable. i guess because you might tell everyone that the patriarchy exists. /snark

BTW, I suspect that part of this might be the usual college rape-stat suppression. They might actually have a policy of stonewalling rape allegations to keep the school's numbers low.

I found this to be absolutely astounding that someone would be turned away from services at a hospital after they claimed to of been raped and had a date rape drug at an off campus party. Now I know that I don’t have any statistics but isn’t someone’s chances of being taken advantage of or raped even greater when they are drinking or already intoxicated as opposed to when they are completely sober? The article says she was also denied help when she went to the police. The police are here to protect and serve communities and its citizens, so again why was she turned down help from the police as well? I honestly just don’t understand this at all. Instances of rape are so common among college campuses today and only a very small percentage of rape victims actually come forward and it is depressing and unfortunate that this woman was denied help when she actually came forward.

I found this to be absolutely astounding that someone would be turned away from services at a hospital after they claimed to of been raped and had a date rape drug at an off campus party. Now I know that I don’t have any statistics but isn’t someone’s chances of being taken advantage of or raped even greater when they are drinking or already intoxicated as opposed to when they are completely sober? The article says she was also denied help when she went to the police. The police are here to protect and serve communities and its citizens, so again why was she turned down help from the police as well? I honestly just don’t understand this at all. Instances of rape are so common among college campuses today and only a very small percentage of rape victims actually come forward and it is depressing and unfortunate that this woman was denied help when she actually came forward.

"i know these laws vary from state to state but in illinois we have saseta (sexual assault survivors emergency treatment act). if someone (ANYONE!) comes into a hospital stating that they were sexually assaulted, they must be given a private room, a medical exam, emergency contraception, the choice to consent to a rape kit, PEP (an extremely expensive prophylaxis which lowers the chances of contracting HIV), and two follow up visits...all for FREE."

You know, that should be legal and available *everywhere*.

"Now I know that I don’t have any statistics but isn’t someone’s chances of being taken advantage of or raped even greater when they are drinking or already intoxicated as opposed to when they are completely sober?"

Those creeps seem to think someone's chances of *deserving* rape are even greater when they are drinking or already intoxicated...

To make this doubly disgusting, here are some national statistics:

"Roughly one in 20 (4.7%) college women reported being raped, and nearly three quarters (72%) of the victims experienced rape while intoxicated (Mohler-Kuo, 2004)."

And these are the ones coming forward.

BTW, I suspect that part of this might be the usual college rape-stat suppression. They might actually have a policy of stonewalling rape allegations to keep the school's numbers low.

That's exactly what I was thinking, Thomas. And if that's the case, we need to somehow make damn sure that parents of prospective students know how the school will treat their daughters if they get raped, and let them know that if the school's rape stats are low, it's due to fraud. If schools want to try keeping their reputations "clean" by fraudulently making it look like no rapes occur there, we have to make sure that instead they end up with a reputation for mistreating rape survivors and fostering a hostile environment on campus.

I see that the confusing quote in the news story has been cleaned up; it now reads: "Gina Scaramella, a spokesperson for the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, said a person cannot consent to a rape kit if they are intoxicated." But she was asking for the test; she wasn't being asked if she wanted it. Seems to me that's a different thing entirely.

I see a real Catch-22 here: If a woman is drunk (or drugged), she can't consent to sex, but she also can't consent to a test to see if she was raped. A real no-win situation. And while coming back the next day sounds reasonable, it means the woman must wait longer to clean herself up so that there's evidence for the test.

I can't help wondering if race has anything to do with this. The story doesn't give the woman's race, but the majority of students at Howard are African-American. Cops and probably doctors tend to treat African-American victims with less respect than they do whites. If so, that's another count for the lawsuit.

Apparently, some victims have to pay for their own rape kits:

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/322113.html

So those who are intoxicated can't get help of any kinda and the police can determine who is intoxicated and who isn't without any verification? It doesn't matter one bit if the person is or isn't intoxicated if the police can arbitrarily claim they are intoxicated. Then it's the word of the police against the word of the individual. That's just dandy, I'm sure it cuts down their workload quite a bit.

This is outrageous. I'm a little unclear from the article, but didn't she request a rape kit? She had two friends with her to help explain the situation? Why is this even a question? If she says she's been raped, she deserves a rape kit! It's negligent of both the medical center and the cops to deny it. If she appeared drunk, hmm, maybe that's because she was drugged, not that being drunk justifies rape, anyway. More to the point, she deserves decent medical treatment, and some basic human decency and compassion. So let's get this straight: if a woman was raped, she was "asking for it." But if she asks for a rape kit, no dice. That's seriously messed up.