Where Rape Victims Are Forced to Pay for Their Own Forensic Exams

Why should sexual-assault victims have to pay the state to investigate the crimes against them?



To hear many people tell it these days, the most pressing concern when it comes to sexual assault is making non-enthusiastic consent a crime. Rape is underreported, they say, and therefore we must encourage more victims to come forward by making it clear the state thinks only yes means yes. Rape is underreported, yet there are much bigger barriers to emboldening victims than insufficiently robust consent statutes. One that receives proportionately less attention: In states across the U.S., rape victims are forced to shoulder the cost of their own forensic exams. 

It sounds almost too unbelievable to be true, doesn't it? We don't ask home-invasion victims to cover the cost of dusting for fingerprints or the families of homicide victims to subsidize blood spatter analysis. But rape victims are being billed for the cost of collecting forensic evidence in the crimes against them. 

This runs contrary to federal law, which says states or municipalities must fund investigating rape allegations as they would any other crime. When the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was reauthorized in 2005, it stipulated that all states must either provide a free forensic medical exam directly or provide reimbursement for such an exam, regardless of whether a victim ultimately decides to press charges or cooperate with law enforcement. The 2013 reauthorization (which takes effect in 2015) specifies that victims can't be charged up front for the exam (also known as a "rape kit") and asked to seek reimbursement from insurance later.

But they say the devil is in the details, and the VAWA doesn't provide many, leaving it up to states and municipalities to work out who covers what. Thirty-four states pay for forensic exams using money from their general victim compensation funds, according to a May report from Urban Institute. (These funds are generally built from fines and penalties paid by convicted offenders, not tax dollars.) Eleven states leave it to local law enforcement or prosecution funds; some use a combination of special funds and money from state public safety or health and human services departments; and three, including Louisiana, leave it to the county or parish to cover the cost. 

In Louisiana, local coroners are supposed to provide the free forensic exams. "But in many cases, such as in New Orleans, cash-strapped coroners outsource that responsibility to another entity" such as local hospitals, The Times-Picayune reported in September. And these hospitals vary greatly in how and whom they bill. Some eat the whole cost themselves, or did until recently. Some cover testing for forensic evidence but bill victims for things like pregnancy and HIV tests. Some send patients the full tab, some bill insurance companies, and some bill the state. Some require anyone seeing a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner—the only hospital staff qualified to collect forensic evidence from rape victims—to be admitted through the emergency room, which adds hundreds of dollars to the total tab.

"Whether a patient gets charged-and how much-varies according to what hospital they go to, who the admitting staff on duty are, and whether the billing employees know the processes for charging rape victims," Times-Picayune reporter Rebecca Catalenello found in talking to both rape victims and hospital staff. 

The cost of collecting forensic evidence can vary, but it tends to run upwards of $1,000, so this isn't some minor expense we're talking about. Victims who are mistakenly billed by hospitals for rape kits can apply for reimbursement from the Louisiana Crime Victims Reparations Board—but not if they have any felony convictions in the past five years, have been on parole recently, were doing anything illegal (like using drugs) at the time of the assault, were assaulted while incarcerated, or have acted in any way that the board determines "contributed to the crime."

When I first read about this astonishing situation in Louisiana, I thought perhaps it was some sort of state anomaly. My colleague Lauren Galik, the Reason Foundation's director of criminal justice reform, tells me that Louisiana is aces at infuriatingly unjust criminal justice policy. Surely other states have more reasonable mechanisms for funding forensic tests? 

Some do. Too many don't. In places where crime-victim funds are used to pay for rape kits, many continue to impose conditions on victims, at least according to their websites. Maine's crime-victim reparation site says a victim must come forward within five days to be eligible for funds, "unless there is a good cause for delay." In Arkansas, Montana, and North Dakota, it's 72 hours. The majority of sites I looked at said crime victims must cooperate with law enforcement in order to be eligible, despite the VAWA directly forbidding this.

Some states cap compensation for the testing at a few hundred dollars. And in a lot of states, the victims fund websites specifically note that they are a "payer of last resort", and attempts must first be made to recoup costs from a victim's insurance company. The Louisiana Crime Victims Reparations Fund, for instance, states that it is "a secondary source that pays for certain out-of-pocket expenses related to the crime" and attempts will first be made to collect the money from a victim's health insurance, disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. 

That's the practice for all crime victims, mind you—someone who is severely beat up in the course of a robbery would be asked to seek insurance coverage for their hospital bills. Yet the collection of crime-scene evidence on law enforcement's dime is a given still. The crime victim's fund may or may not cover medical care, but there's no question that the police department will pay for the gathering and testing of things like fingerprints and potential DNA evidence.

With rape, the victim's body may be the only crime scene, and collecting forensic evidence & receiving medical care are part of the same process. It's not that states have some totally nefarious or mysogynistic plot to treat rape differently than other crimes; but it does show that we still don't know how to treat rape in the criminal justice system and there's a lot of room for discussion and reform. 

NEXT: Turkey Wants Backup Against ISIS, Everybody Hates Nancy Pelosi, More Bad Ebola News: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That poor bastard who got colonoscopy-raped by state agents looking for probable cause up his butt had to sue to not get billed for the actual rape.

    1. They didn’t rape his butt. They made love to it.

  2. Why should sexual-assault victims have to pay the state to investigate the crimes against them?

    Cuts down on the false rape accusations. Helps weed out the unreliable witnesses, too, that can thwart a successful prosecution.

    1. I would add an ammendum that the fee includes the cutting off of the dudes dick and balls if caught.

    2. It’s not a perfect solution, but the state has to do something to stem the tide of women getting their vag’s swabbed out at the hospital and then filing false rape charges just for kicks.

    3. Um, no.

    4. How is that not true of any other crime?

      If we charge homeowners to investigate their houses for burglaries, it would sure cut down on false burglary reports.

      1. Cops don’t investigate burglaries. They fill out a police report so you can give it to your insurance company.

    5. You’re a bit stupid, aren’t you. Who do you think is willing to pay more, a person who voluntarily goes to the police and is willing to go to court to spite some innocent guy, or a person who has been raped and would dread to go through an internal exam and the trauma of having to talk about the rape in court?

      Why are you on a site called ‘reason’?

  3. I saw posted on facebook I a jeezable article stating Paul Ryan wants to make a law so rapist will sue their victims to not get an abortion.

    1. Pretty sure he wants to force women to marry their rapists once the rapist is out of jail, if there is a child.

      Source: seems like something Ryan would do.

  4. We don’t ask home-invasion victims to cover the cost of dusting for fingerprints or the families of homicide victims to subsidize blood spatter analysis.

    It would be rather inappropriate to charge for stuff the cops aren’t going to do regardless.

    1. +1 “Fill out this form and submit it to your insurance company.”

      1. “Claim denied: claimant did not clearly identify on the diagram (P16.S4.SS15) where they were violated.”

    2. Fingerprints are actually taken by police.

      The police don’t run hospitals or medical labs. Somebody has to pay for those services.

  5. If rape victims have to pay for investigations, maybe they should start shopping around for higher-quality private investigators. Then they might consider hiring attorneys who work for them, instead of relying on government-paid prosecutors, whose jobs aren’t to get compensation for victims anyway.

    1. Re: Eric Hanneken,

      If rape victims have to pay for investigations, maybe they should start shopping around for higher-quality private investigators.

      Or search Yelp for Equalizers

    2. Rape Insurance ?

      1. I think the Steelers looked into buying some of this when Ben Roethlisbergers’ legal troubles were in the news.

      2. You should email that idea to CA, they’ll probably pass a bill soon and Moonbat will sign it.

        1. Just make rape illegal, that should…oh wait.

    3. Then what? Hire a hit man?

      1. Certainly not! A hit womyn! Armed with a big…well, you know.

  6. For all the nonsense that modern ‘feminists’ waste their time on (to include the faux college campus rape issue which they want to hand to university bureaucrats), they completely ignore the real issues that do exist.

    I guess something like this is tougher to report on than the use of the word ‘bossy’ or a long winded diatribe that dances around what affirmative consent actually is.

    1. I have to agree. Rape, along with most other violent crime, is at or near 50-year lows in the US. A woman reading this in South Africa, for example, would probably roll her eyes and say “first world problems, huh? Geez, those American gals really have it tough.”

    2. As pointed out by many others (taking my turn now), solving problems only takes power away from the Professional Grievance Industry. Problems are only valuable in as far as they can sway an election, ballot measure, of budgetary consideration.

      1. After my brother and I heard an advertisement for the Susan G. Komen organization having an event to raise money for finding a cure for breast cancer he asked me “If you found a cure for breast cancer tomorrow, what are the chances that the Susan G. Komen organization would hunt you down and kill you before you could tell anyone how to implement it?”

        My answer – “100 fucking percent”

        1. They would hire their Planned Parenthood financial partner to perform a post birth abortion. And state that they are pro-funding and you are anti-funding.

    3. If the feminist twits that drive the movement now focused on real problems they might have to do real work ?. and that would make the status quo VERY seasick. Expecting Liberal Intellectuals to actually WORK?!? What are we, BARBARIANS?!?

      (actually, of course, Barbarians would either put them down or treat them as holy, depending on how their culture deals with obvious madmen.)

  7. So why should rape victims have to pay the state to investigate?

    Uh… Sequestration?

    I mean, that seems to be the excuse du jour after the White House break-in incident.

  8. There’s going to be plenty of new rape victims in CA soon, at least on college campuses, and the victims are mostly going to be the accused. CA has went full on Orwell.

    ‘Get out of our bedrooms, conservatives! But, please get into our bedrooms, liberals!’

    1. Just WHY is that, anyway? Do liberals have bigger tits or something?!?!

      1. In my experience, the liberals are more inclined to worry about the “rights” of those who want to tit-suck off everyone else, than they are about the “right” to NOT have your tits sucked on. So they are in favor of heterosexual MEN over WOMEN at the end of the day, despite ALL of their blather about feminism, and gays, yada-yada!!!

  9. What, if any, evidence would you expect to find if the victim doesn’t report the rape immediately? If the victim waits until after they have showered or have washed their clothes the tests are pointless. I agree that rape victims shouldn’t pay for their tests but it is perfectly reasonably to require that they report the rape quickly and that the victim co-operates fully with the authorities.

    1. Reporting isn’t the same thing as getting the forensic tests. Reporting means actually filing a report with the police, which someone could decline to do at first even if they went and got the tests.

      1. How are both activities not wrapped up together?

        “Hi, I was raped and want to be forensically examined, but I’m not so interested in giving an officer a report so they can go arrest the fucking bastard?”

        If you show up at the hospital and say I was raped, don’t they call the police, who come to take your statement? How do you get forensically examined without initiating a criminal investigation (and concomitant Reporting)?

        1. Like ENB said, you can decline. Mandated reporting only applies to children, seniors, and dependent adults (e.g., the mentally retarded).

          1. I think wylie’s point is, why would one undertake the former but not the latter?

            “I was raped and want to have a forensic examination to confirm this, but I don’t want to report the bastard who did it!”

            …doesn’t seem to make much sense.

            1. 1. It makes plenty of sense if you’re not sure if you want to report, but want to leave your options open.

              2. People who have just experienced something traumatic often make decisions that, in hindsight, aren’t sensible.

          2. I see a lot wrong with compelling someone to report (there’s something alarmingly Ministry of Truth-y about that statement), but at the same time I’m bothered by the thought that a woman would a) require the state pay for the testing while b) keeping the results of the test in her back pocket while she decides whether to pursue charges. Getting back to the burglary example, it’s possible that a homeowner would decline to press charges if the fingerprints end up being her son’s friend, but imagine then requiring the state to sit on that evidence if there’s a possibility the kid is sizing up other houses for a little B&E.

          3. Like ENB said, you can decline.

            Soo…state will pay for the exam if you choose to make it part of a criminal investigation. If it is not part of a criminal investigation (i.e. you don’t want to involve the po-po) then you pay for it in one of the myriad other ways people handle health checks.

            I don’t see what is wrong with this. As others have pointed out, if you call the cops in to investigate a burglary, it is now up to them to run the investigation- including to press charges.

      2. I think this might have been in response to the bit about a 72 hour or week time limit in some states?

        If you wait three days, I would certainly expect the evidence to be less easy to get, or less clear; and for that reason it makes a bit of sense to say “if you want us to cover it, come in quickly so it will be effective”, you know?

      3. Reporting isn’t the same thing as getting the forensic tests. Reporting means actually filing a report with the police, which someone could decline to do at first even if they went and got the tests.

        I don’t think so. All of the cases I worked as an advocate involved chain-of-evidence, which required the kit to be immediately turned over to law enforcement. There it had to be linked to a case, which started with a report. Forensics labs that processed the kits worked for law enforcement, not the hospital.

        Anything collected that wasn’t entered into evidence was useless in court, including for getting warrants, etc.

        In addition, the decision whether to prosecute was made by the district attorney, not the victim. The DA could, and sometimes did, prosecute even if the victim objected. Of course an uncooperative victim made it a very difficult case.

  10. Why not just teach rapists not to rape? Problem solved! /sarc

    1. How does the rapist even know if it’s rape or not if they haven’t filled out all the proper consent forms, paid all the fees, and waited 10 months for the office of sexual consent to get back to them with a decision?

      1. There should be a 30 day waiting period before you can legally give consent to sex. This will stop rapes of passion much the same way waiting periods for gun ownership stops crimes of passion. /sarc

    2. Don’t laugh. I’ve received several Facebook shares by relatives with propaganda from women’s organizations in Mexico saying that we should teach men not to rape, as if telling them that they will be put in jail is too subtle.

      1. I think they mean teach men to not try and have sex with them.

      2. We just need to nudge them towards better behavior. Social engineering of every microcosm of human behavior is not only desirable, but very doable, nothing could possibly go wrong, we’re going to put our top men on it.

      3. Funny how many things we post here as sarcastic jokes making fun of prog-tards is actually a pretty accurate portrayal of real arguments that they actually make. Funny, and pathetic

    3. Why not just teach rapists not to rape? Problem solved! /sarc

      Even better, why not just pass a law against it? It’s working for guns and drugs.

  11. If you are going to live under a state, with public defenders, state prosecutors, and state medical examiners, why should the accused, or the accuser be subject to pay the gathering of evidence ?

    1. This. Things like rape kits are supposed to be what all those taxes are paying for. If we have to live under the a government monopoly for this criminal justice, why the fuck should the victim have to pay for the rape kit? Should the family of the deceased have to pay for the murder investigation?

      1. The family of the deceased will need to pay for the bullets the officer used to render him deceased.

        1. Dweebston. If you are going to live under a state, would rather have police,
          or a police state ?

    2. As far as defense lawyers go, maybe someone would want one who will (be able to) do their job.

    3. If they have to pay for every rape kit, how will they be able to pay for anyone’s EBT?

  12. This runs contrary to federal law, which says states or municipalities must fund investigating rape allegations as they would any other crime.

    Wait. Am I on the right website? Is this article championing federal mandates over state’s rights in who they make pay?

    1. Not all libertarians are federalists, and I didn’t see any “championing” anyway.

    2. Wait. Am I on the right website? Is this article championing federal mandates over state’s rights in who they make pay?

      That is what I said.

      This is like a Libertarian TOLL article.

      I would venture to bet (and I think I would win a lot of money) that libertarians side on billing the victim for the entire investigation and having the victim later take the PERP to civil court to be made whole.

      1. I support feminists putting their money where their mouths are and offering to foot the bill themselves. This seems, like birth control, to be a non-issue when you remove the impetus of the state to pay for the procedure in question.

        1. Are you claiming tax-funded contraception is the same thing as tax-funded rape kits?

          1. They may not be the same thing but I think libertarians would expect everyone to pay for their own thing.

            1. Fuck off, troll.

            2. Like Warty said. “Fuck Off”. I may be an Anarchist, but not every Libertarian is an Anarchist.

            3. Or they choose to include rape kit coverage in their health insurance.

              Or non-government (philanthropic) institutions choose to pick up the tab.

              My right to bear arms is constitutionally protected yet I don’t see and don’t expect the government to pick up the tab for me purchasing firearms and ammunition.

          2. In the sense that outside state funding there’s utterly no debate to be had, yes. And, of course, there are significant complications if we assume state funding–inflated costs, e.g. school tuition, or compelling cooperation from putative victims, which came up upthread.

            That said, I’m not against state-funded rape kits. My only point is that it’s a splendid opportunity for charitable donations.

        2. It’s not like rape kits are bankrupting the nation — and unlike contraceptives, making rape kits available for free falls in line with one of the government’s proper functions (investigation of crimes in order to carry out justice).

          1. That only applies if there was an actual crime. I can’t call the police and demand they dust my house for fingerprints just because I want to see who my kids invited over for parties while I was gone for the weekend.

      2. Perhaps in an anarchist system where no one paid taxes and there was no police some anarchist or variant there of might make that argument. In the system tgat we have now thats not necessary the case ir at the very least you would need to widen the conversation way beyond rape victims.

        1. If you could elect to not pay taxes for services then you might be on to something.

        2. Rape Insurance.

      3. Mary, this incarnation is better than the last one, I will give you credit. Linking to youtube is almost as obvious as calling people “goober” but not quite. If you can keep the posting down to ten posts per thread, you might actually keep up the facade for a bit longer.

      4. that libertarians side on billing the victim for the entire investigation and having the victim later take the PERP to civil court to be made whole.

        Some libertarians also support a VAT….IN EXCHANGE FOR DROPPING OTHER TAXES. I’m all for privatizing tha police, but they don’t keep receiving tax dollars in that scenario. While they are tax-payer-funded….INVESTIGATE THE FUCKING CRIMES YOU’RE PAID TO INVESTIGATE.

        1. I’m waiting to see a case in which the victim of larceny has his remaining belongings, or recovered belongings, seized by the state because the property was involved in the commission of a crime.

          Mighty nice things you got here. Shame it’s in such an awful neighborhood. Say, now, just what are you doing trying to incite burglaries like that? I’m afraid we’re going to have to confiscate your plasma TV and couch set.

            1. In Pittsburgh, federal prosecutors last year devastated Jane Ward after she had fully cooperated with them in testifying to help solve the murder of her husband, John Ward. Prosecutors decided that John Ward had been a drug dealer and that all of his previous income was drug-related. They proceeded to confiscate almost all of the assets of the widow (who had her own legitimate business); federal officials arrived with a truck at the Ward’s home and carted off all the family’s furniture. Prosecutors even sought to confiscate all the proceeds from Ward’s life insurance; Jane Ward and her three children were forced to go on welfare, according to Terrance Reed, Ms. Ward’s lawyer and one of the nation’s leading authorities on forfeiture law.

              I guess I didn’t need to wait long, after all.

              I’m going to go pour myself a drink.

        2. Why “INVESTIGATE THE FUCKING CRIMES” when they will get your money whether they are successful or not? They only have to do enough to convince the sheeple that they are protecting them. Apparently, doling out speeding and parking tickets and tackling drunks on COPS is enough.

    3. I think it’s a relevant piece of information in this sort of article, regardless.

  13. It’s easier to show police the evidence of a home invasion or homicide than a rape. But if you say your home was invaded but there was no forcible entry or stolen diamonds, for instance, there will probably be nothing done. Or if you say your boyfriend was murdered because you haven’t seen him in a few hours, they’ll probably hang up on you (or shoot your dog)

    1. Last time my home was invaded, it was a homeless guy who I had been a little too friendly with. He came in through a window after breaking it while I was at work, and was totally surprised that I was pissed at him when I came home and found a broken window and him on my couch. He quickly left.

      The cops came after I called, and they asked if they could search the place for drugs. I told them I knew who broke the window and came in, and they asked if they could look for drugs. I asked if I could fill out a report and press charges, and they asked if they could look around for drugs. Eventually they left when I wouldn’t let them search for drugs.

      Cops don’t give a shit when a crime is committed against a citizen. But they’ll go the distance for crimes against the state.

    2. They’ll stay on the line long enough to get your address. Then they’ll hang up on you and come to your house to shoot your dog.

    3. Precisely. Reason’s War on Women beat reporter doesn’t fail to disappoint once again.

  14. Homeowner: What’s this?

    Officer: It’s a bill for the expenses.

    Homeowner: Bill, I’m sorry, what now?

    Officer: It’s all in detail.

    Homeowner: *reads bill* Fingerprint dust? You’re charging me for fingerprint dust?

    Officer: Yes… you don’t expect us to work for free.

    Homeowner: And the booties? You’re charging me for the booties the detectives wore?

    Officer: The gall of some people… yes, this stuff isn’t free, you know!

    1. “The Law (enforcement) Perverted !!!

  15. So this is maybe a problem in some parts of Louisiana and … ?

  16. Why should sexual-assault victims have to pay the state to investigate the crimes against them?

    Seems to me you’re already jumping to conclusions, namely that a sexual assault has taken place. Perhaps the right question to ask is: “what physical evidence should there be before the police test someone for sexual assault”? That should require a bit more than someone merely wanting to get tested.

    Why? First, because without corroborating evidence, all a rape kit shows is that two people have had sex with no way to show that an assault took place. Second, because there is a huge backlog of processing rape kits, it should be limited to cases that actually have a chance of standing up in court.

  17. Sorry, but this seems kind of a bait-and-switch. The expectations from the headline is that, even in cases where there is a clear demand on the part of the victim to prosecute, the police demand they pay for their own forensic testing (certainly something that reasonable people can agree is wrong). In the body, we learn that the “problem”, at least in some cases, is that the state isn’t giving out these services when such an intent isn’t clear. That one, to me, isn’t so clear. Regardless of what federal law is (doesn’t federal law also indicate that local law enforcement is supposed to turn illegal aliens over to the Feds for deportation?), the proper role of the state is to protect the rights of the individual. This is done by having a system of prosecution to identify and punish those who violate others’ rights. The forensic test exists as a means to support that process. A demand that forensic tests be provided at taxpayer expense, when there is no intent to prosecute, strikes me as a demand for the state to provide a service outside its proper scope.

  18. These are hospital expenses for work that is partly/mostly clinical. If you don’t file a criminal complaint, I don’t see why the state should have to pay, as without a criminal complaint its really just an odd medical procedure.

    Complaining that afederal statute imposing costs on the states is being evaded to leave payment for a medical procedure in private hands strikes me as an odd position for a libertarian to take.

  19. I think the state should pay for the exam, and if the person refuses to press charges, recants testimony, files false charges or otherwise refuses to cooperate with the investigation, they should be made to reimburse the state.

  20. Calling the accuser the victim DURING THE INVESTIGATION is to violate the basic principles of our legal system. The burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the accuser, including the cost of the investigation. If a judgement is ruled in favor of the accuser, only then is it appropriate for the accuser to be reimbursed and called a victim.

    1. Along those lines, I have never liked “innocent until proven guilty.” A connotation is that you are guilty. I prefer “innocent unless proven guilty.”

  21. I am surprised this article is posted here. I thought most libertarians are against giving rape victims anything for free?! How is giving some people things for free and not others make sense to you? oh i’m against food stamps and affordable care because that is giving free things away but its fine to give it to a woman who has been raped because she might be a white woman, right? I’m sorry i can’t follow your logic but i am surprised to see this article here on this site.

    1. I am surprised this article is posted here. I thought most libertarians are against…

      Well, it’s obvious that you aren’t very smart. So do yourself and us a favor and just go to a web site that is commensurate with your level of intelligence, like the Huffington Post or ThinkProgress.

  22. What happened to this site? Are there any females left? Are there any males over 24?

    “Cuts down on the false rape accusations.”

    I sincerely hope that none of you have to deal with a sister, wife, close friend who has been raped. Who has to go through the indignity of a rape kit. Who then has to worry about pregnancy, HIV, and other STDs.

    Given the actual statistics of rape, it’s far more likely you already know at least one woman who has been (assuming you know any women at all).

    False rape allegations: 2-8%
    (One example of “false” or “unfounded” allegation that counts toward those statistics: http://freethoughtblogs.com/al…..statistic/)
    Unreported, unprosecuted actual rape: 60% according to the Justice Dept.
    Rapists who actually serve time: 3%

    Five years gone and you’ve turned this place into a den of prepubescent misogyny. Don’t bother responding, I won’t be back. I have to go wash my hands now. And maybe throw up.

    1. “I sincerely hope that none of you have to deal with a sister, wife, close friend who has been raped.”

      I sincerely hope that you do not have to deal with a brother, father, close friend who has had his life torn apart by vindictive accusations of false rape.

      Your bias in favor of women and against men is strong for all to see. We live in a society that is supposed to have a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, until proven guilty. You on the other hand think that a woman’s word is sufficient to apply guilt to any man. News flash, you fool, women lie at least as often as men. To trust women more than men is simply to out yourself as the sexist pig you are.

      1. women lie at least as often as men


        It is obvious that you aren’t famililar with the INjustice system because if you were you would know that there is a strong bias in favor of men, especially white men. because most judges are white men and most police are white men, and most prison guards are white men. you know who is not mostly white men? the people in jail and there victims. yet you come here and post ridiculous lies about how there is bias and unfairness against white men. LOL that’s a joke. if your a black woman on trial you are at the mercy of white police and a white judge and probably a white jury, then when you are of course found guilty you are going to go to a prison with white guards who will probably treat you like dirt. then when you get out you will go apply for a job from a white employer who will go, ‘oh no sorry, you were in jail and we believe in the system.’ if you were white half the time the cops just let you go home. your the one who is biased and your bias is amazing.

        1. you would know that there is a strong bias in favor of men, especially white men. because most judges are white men and most police are white men, and most prison guards are white men.

          No, I don’t know that. Almost all the men, white or black or brown or yellow, that I know are decent human beings that go out of their way to be fair.

          Just because you are a racist and a bigot doesn’t mean everybody else is.

  23. Well at the very least the timeliness of reporting requirements make sense as the physical evidence won’t really be useful past a certain point so why would the state pay for a test that isn’t going to actually reveal any pertinent physical information?

    Otherwise it’s pretty ludicrous to charge the victim for material evidence relating to the crime at hand.

  24. This is about the hospital shareholders trying to get paid any way they can. My wife was hit head-on by a crackhead who was driving on the wrong side of the road. The hospital first tried to get our insurance company, then us, to pay the crackhead’s medical bills. She was unlicensed and uninsured. We had already paid her ambulance bill when we figured out what was happening. our credit is destroyed, and we keep getting calls from whoever bought the alleged debt from the hospital. I think they started the process by trying to slip her bills in with ours, hoping we would pay and not notice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.