Next entry: SC GOP official flunks sobriety test; invokes novel 'Palin Excuse'
Previous entry: A new reproductive rights video? Hell yeah!
Confederate Yankee and Jim Geraghty think they’ve got us dirty liberals on the “Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits” story. Never mind that it was the stated policy of the town and that a state law was passed specifically to counteract Wasilla’s ass-backwards policy. They’ve got spotty, poorly conceived research on their side!
First, our Rebel Fail:
We also know, via contact with the Wasilla City Clerk, that there were no rape kits charged to victims or insurers in fiscal 2000 (their computerized system only goes back that far), meaning that there is only the possibility of the unknown number of rapes in the 49 (or less) sexual assaults prior to the beginning of fiscal 2000 in mid-1999.
From the beginning of 1996 until the end of 2000, there were 49 reported sexual assaults in Wasilla, which “includes all associated sex crimes.”
Of those 49 (or less) sexual assaults, we don’t how many were rapes, or how many of those rapes required rape kits for which the city billed the victims.
Already, we’re stuck having to analyze a data set with which there are three problems. The first is that we have no idea which of these assaults are rapes and which aren’t. The second is that a policy which makes reporting rape inordinately expensive would push down the number of rapes reported. The third is that the data set is so incomplete that, according to the National Review, the number of reported rapes for which we have the information to determine how Wasilla’s policy was enacted was one.
One. As in two minus that number.
FBI records indicate that there was one rape in Wasilla in 2000. (The FBI did not collect records for previous years.) The state’s ban on charging for rape kits was passed in 2000. (The text has no enforcement date; the state legislature’s web site list the law’s “effective date” as August 14, 2000.)
Nonetheless, fiscal year 2000 began Oct. 1, 1999 and ended Oct. 1, 2000. Because we know one rape occurred in calendar year 2000, if it occurred before August 13, there should be at least one record of a victim being charged for the rape kit. (If the rape kit charge had occurred after Oct. 1, 2000, it would have been accounted for under fiscal 2001. But by this point, the state’s legislation would have gone into effect, and no charge would have been made.)
All of this would make perfect sense...except that the entire point of charging for rape kits is that even when a rape is reported, it discourages the victim from pursuing it any further by putting a financial obstacle in the way. One would think that these giant conservative minds would remember the old maxim that the surest way to get less of something is to tax it. When the government puts a $1,000+ tax on reporting a rape, it’s the surest way to ensure that rapes aren’t prosecuted and evidence isn’t collected.
In other words, the exactly one case that these brave crusaders have come up with worked exactly the way it should have under the Wasilla scheme - a rape victim reports the assault, then doesn’t get the expensive kit done. You can do this with any crime, really. Charge a person $1,000 to investigate a car theft, you’ll see fewer reported thefts and far fewer investigated thefts. It’s not rocket science.
But really, guys, keep pushing this. Show us that the rape lobby is ginning up another fake controversy. The only things they have on their side are objective facts and the historical record. Other than that, you’re golden.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Posted by
Jesse Taylor on 08:41 PM •
Permalink
Sarah Palin: Tough on crime!
Wow this is just a fool proof method of reducing crime! Too bad it can’t be extended to homicide. On second thought, maybe if we charge the investigation against people’s life insurance the silly victims won’t die.
Where are the Flying Kerners?!?!?
If bogus document kerning analysis doesn’t become part of this, I’m going to be very disappointed…
It’s good to know that Confederate Wankee is on this case! If he can prove that nobody actually paid for a rape kit, that proves that the law on the books was actually not… er, wait… hold on, I’m sure there’s a point here somewhere. Give me a couple of minutes to reach for one. Has anybody seen my proctologist’s gloves?
I’m trying to figure out what Confederate Yankee would see as the upside to continuing this story. It doesn’t matter whether or not Palin’s position affected people badly--the position itself was odious . If no one was negatively affected--a highly unlikely scenario, given Alaska’s much worse than normal problem with sexual violence--then Palin and Wasilla got lucky. That’s all.
The police chief must have had some idea how many rapes to expect, because he put out a budgetary number for rape kits. As I recall, he assumed rape kits would cost between 300 and 1200 dollars. From this he projected an annual expense between (I forget) and $14,000.
I’d guess he expected about ten rapes a year in his tiny town.
“I’m trying to figure out what Confederate Yankee would see as the upside to continuing this story.”
From his POV, it keeps the shit stirred up and gives him something to do besides masturbate to his new favorite VP candidate. Best case, it helps distract from her jaw-dropping unpreparedness for office and might even help continue McCain’s avoidance of Keating Five and his foundation work in preparation for The Lesser Depression we’re just beginning…
Ten reported rapes.
The state passed a law invalidating Wasilla’s practice. How can you possibly argue for Palin’s position when the entire state smacked her down.
Maybe that’s the real reason she ran for Governor--as petty revenge for not being able to help the rape based economy. Now she can eliminate rape in Alaska by not only charging for rape kits, but adding a tax for not submitting cheerfully to the rapists. If it’s inevitable…
Fuck these assholes. No other victims are charged for collecting evidence. Collecting evidence is clearly part of the job description of criminal investigators--you know, the ‘investigating’ part.
One would think that these giant conservative minds would remember the old maxim that the surest way to get less of something is to tax it.
Yeah, well, Treason-in-Defense-of-Slavery Yankee is conservative in the same sense that I’m a Cleveland Indian. I root for the team, and I’ll try to defend them when folks talk smack about them. But I know fuck-all about baseball, so my defenses sound kinda stupid and I certainly couldn’t get out on the field and help them win a game. Treason-in-Defense-of-Slavery is like that - he can jump into the fray and talk smack, but he seems to know fuck-all about conservatism beyond “my team good. your team bad. go team!”
he can jump into the fray and talk smack, but he seems to know fuck-all about conservatism beyond “my team good. your team bad. go team!”
You just described most of the conservatives in America today.
When it comes to pissing on women and anything connected to rape, conservative droids like Palin and her owners prefer to punish victims… and then play the victim card when they get caught.
When is this tundraSow going to be brought to justice?
I naturally wonder this:
Would these, um, fellows be taking this position (essentially, it doesn’t count if it was never enforced") if Palin had been a Democrat who passed a never-collected tax on church attendance?
The quibbling is amazing, but unsurprising. It is a (foolish) “tree” argument which permits them to completely breeze by the forest of underlying principle: that doing this—or even planning to do this to rape victims is appalling and no decent person anywhere on the political spectrum should accept it for a second.
Just so we’re clear on the ground rules:
Forcing rape victims to pay for their own rape kit is okay. Asking a VP candidate a question about her experience or policy is sexist and unacceptable.
I would pay good money to watch Ike’s lip curl in contempt at the current bunch. (Then again, Ike was always way better than he is credited with at reaping the benefits of other people’s dirty work while apparently remaining clean and above his lessers.)
If there weren’t enough rapes to justify caring about this, then there weren’t enough rapes to justify Palin and her police chief taking time to rewrite the budget to penalize victims. But they did take the time, implying that they disagree strongly with the wingnuts---there are rapes, they are expensive, and obviously the victims should pay for it, because rape is the victim’s fault.
I’m trying to figure out what Confederate Yankee would see as the upside to continuing this story.
The opportunity to get a story he worked on elevated to the mainstream media. That’s their main motivation, and it’s far and beyond winning elections. That’s why they went after me, and why they do most anything. They all want to be the next Drudge.
I’m trying to figure out what Confederate Yankee would see as the upside to continuing this story.
“Well, I and my other friends in the GOP base are depraved enough to think Palin/McCain’s support of rapists is awesome, so surely the rest of the universe must agree with us! Onward to victory and the Eternal Republican Majority!”
They all want to be the next Drudge.
And to think we’re living in a world where that is something to aspire to.
If they would start charging crime victims for all police services, not just rape kits, they could probably reduce Wasilla’s crime rate down to about zero.
Another minor detail: why would the charges even show up in the city’s accounts? If the victim has to pay for the kit on their own, that might show up in the accounts of the local hospital or clinic or doctor, but unless the city itself is a registered health care provider, there would be no city record. (I know that the official line was something about charging back the cost to the insurance company or the victim, but think how it would actually work once the police told the local hospital or clinic “we’re not paying for that”.)
“I just dropped by with present for warming of house. Instead, I find you grappling with local oaf.”
dejah thoris : “tundrasow”? I don’t care for her much either but watch the sexist name calling, OK?
another point to consider, if there really were so few rapes for which rape-kits would be necessary, why the heck was the Police Chief to vocal about the supposedly huge burden on their budget/the tax payers?
They argue everything but the premise of what the argument should be about
From his POV, it keeps the shit stirred up and gives him something to do besides masturbate to his new favorite VP candidate.
*guilty look*
I WASN’T DOING ANYTHING. >_>
Another interesting supposition…
If rape kits are redefined as ‘health care costs’ instead of ‘evidence collecting and charged to the victims’ insurance companies, if any--then wouldn’t the results of said “health care” be subject to HIPAA?
As in the police would need a signed release from the victim to view the rape kit evidence.
As in if the police didn’t ask for a signed release from the victim, the hospital would not release any information about the victim to the police.
PRESTO! No rape victims! The police receive no evidence that any woman was ever raped in Wasilla! And it doesn’t cost them anything! The charges just go away....
Quit flailing, you’re wrong and you need to admit it. I agree with Gerghty; with you liberal bloggers “It’s just smear and move on, no research or fact-gathering needed.” Unlike The well researched story on the Jawa report nailing the Obama campaign and Axelord to false Palin stories: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php
There’s no reason to assume the Wasilla City Clerk would have those billing records anyway. The victims get examined at the local hospital by a trained forensic nurse. Before Palin signed off on the budget cutting the funding, the police would pay for these exams, but they stopped doing so in 1998. Since the police wouldn’t pick up the tab, the hospital billed the patient, or their insurance company.
Furthermore, if the State hadn’t stepped in, the Palin administration’s little stunt could have disqualified Alaska for STOP grants under the Violence Against Women Act. Since 1994, all states have had to certify that some public agency is paying the out of pocket cost for rape exams for victims who cooperate with law enforcement. If the State had allowed the Palin administration to willfully disregarded the State’s official policy on paying for rape kits, the entire state could have lost >$500,000 in funding for programs to stop domestic violence.
“If the State had allowed the Palin administration to willfully disregarded the State’s official policy on paying for rape kits,”
What part of NO EVIDENCE ANYONE WAS BILLED FOR A RAPE KIT don’t you get?
frank davis, come on, you can admit it. You’re really just an AI and this is a Turing Test, right?…
What part of NO EVIDENCE ANYONE WAS BILLED FOR A RAPE KIT don’t you get?
What part of A LAW WAS PASSED BY THE ALASKA LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY TO STOP WASILLA FROM DOING THIS are you not getting?
If rape kits are redefined as ‘health care costs’ instead of ‘evidence collecting and charged to the victims’ insurance companies, if any--then wouldn’t the results of said “health care” be subject to HIPAA?
As in the police would need a signed release from the victim to view the rape kit evidence.
Police don’t need a signed release to look at health care information when a crime is involved. They just have to say they want it.
Really? The “entire point of charging for rape kits is that even when a rape is reported, it discourages the victim from pursuing it any further by putting a financial obstacle in the way”?
Wow. I wonder what the evidence for that is.
And the part of “A LAW WAS PASSED BY THE ALASKA LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY TO STOP WASILLA FROM DOING THIS” that I’m personally not getting is the part where you establish that with some evidence other than a 2008 Dem partisan’s ad hoc say so. Like, you know, some actual reason to believe it. See, the fact that you can type out, without any actual support, that a law was passed to prevent something from happening, does not constitute evidence that anyone was ever billed for a rape kit. What part of the need for evidence don’t you get? Oh, I know: All of it.
“Before Palin signed off on the budget cutting the funding, the police would pay for these exams, but they stopped doing so in 1998. Since the police wouldn’t pick up the tab, the hospital billed the patient, or their insurance company.” Wow, that’s a cute theory. But there’s no support for any proposition within it.
You’re pwned on this. Just another astroturf lie from the left.
See, Stewart, there’s this wonderful thing called the internet. Using the internet, you can look up things you’re not sure about and become enlightened.
(The Frontiersman, the Wasilla local paper, should answer your questions.)
And the part of “A LAW WAS PASSED BY THE ALASKA LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY TO STOP WASILLA FROM DOING THIS” that I’m personally not getting is the part where you establish that with some evidence other than a 2008 Dem partisan’s ad hoc say so.
Here’s an idea—maybe before you started spouting off on things you know nothing about, you should have done something simple, like Googling “rape kits alaska legislature.”
The very first hit is the story from USA Today. Here’s the CNN story.
Oh, wait, I forgot I was dealing with one of those delusional morons who thinks that all mainstream media is in a giant liberal conspiracy, so therefore having stories in major news outlets doesn’t count. And if your choice is between reporting from a major news outlet and something you pull out of your ass, you choose your ass every. single. time. And then you wonder why everyone is laughing at you.
By the way, is the former police chief in on this horrible liberal conspiracy? Because he freely admits that their policy was to charge rape victims for evidence collection. Is he making it all up? How far does the conspiracy go, man, how far does it go?!?!?!?!
David Stewart: Still believes the whole world disappears when he covers his eyes…
Oops, the rest of my comment went somewhere else.
It would have been silly to make that law were they not afriad this was being done.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Sarah Palin: Tough on crime!
Wow this is just a fool proof method of reducing crime! Too bad it can’t be extended to homicide. On second thought, maybe if we charge the investigation against people’s life insurance the silly victims won’t die.