Sexual Assault Victims Fund

I suspect that women (as well as men) who are sexually assaulted are a bit more traumatized than someone who stubs their toe. Many of them may need counseling or medical treatement that they may not be able to otherwise afford. I assume the fund would handle counseling services.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Te...ictims+rape+detection+kits/1581267/story.html

Texas hospitals charging sexual assault victims for rape detection kits


As if coming forth with an allegation of sexual assault wasn't demeaning enough in many parts of North America, Texas has quietly decided to allow hospitals to charge a fee as high as $1800 to victims for the rape kits used to prove an attack.

Despite Texas' crime victim compensation fund being flush with cash, and most parts of the United States seeking to lessen the stress involved in a sexual assault investigation rather than increase it, Texan women have to hand over a credit card before their investigation can commence - or face debt collectors afterwards.

...


Yeah, such a terrible thing to try to raise money so sexual assault victims don't have the added pain of having to pay money to get justice.

 

So do you think all victims should be required to pay to produce evidence, or does this only apply to sexual assault victims?

For example, if you're assaulted, should you be required to pay the police to do fingerprint testing or DNA testing?

 

So you don't mind paying a $5.00 entry fee for the owner of the establishment to pocket as long as part of that fee (or a new tax on adult businesses) doesn't go to a sexual assault victim's fund?

 

Im not taking sides, but the law is payed through our tax dollars. The hospital isn't.

 

But shouldn't the law pay the hospital's fees to collect evidence for rape cases? Why should the victim pay to provide prosecutorial evidence in cases of rape?

 

Why tax strip club patrons? Are they more likely to sexually assault someone?

 

Probably because it's not common sense. What if the guilty person has no money? What if they are found not guilty - who pays then? If it's the police, you don't think this creates an incentive for the police dept to manufacture evidence or do other things to ensure guilt?

How do you determine what is frivolous? Let's say you have a monster company and a poor person who was injured by them. The poor person is going to have low quality lawyers vs. a much larger multi-million dollar defense. Should poor people just not be allowed to sue since there's a chance they would lose? They just have to suck it up?

 

Seeing as you compared sexual assault to a stubbed toe, I'm not surprised by your complete lack of sensitivity or even basic humanity.

 

I like you, Fatty. I like your posts, I like the stories, I voted for your unbanning. But your position on this issue makes you look like a major-league asshat.

People who are injured as a result of violent crime should be helped, whether that be hospital bills or rape kits or whatever. They need the assistance, and it's in our power to give it to them, without breaking the bank. They didn't ask for what happened.

By the way, and this is something you might not have considered, but I spoke to a nurse the other day who frequently performs sexual assault examinations. These nurses, at least here, do predominantly child cases, because unfortunately, a large majority of rape cases involve children or teens, at least here in Nueces County. I read a statistic recently that 30% of rapes in Texas involve children under the age of 12. That's not including all the kids between 12 and 17. Given that, do you still think we don't need to help out these victims?

 

So in other words, you have no idea how to answer any of the multitude of problems your suggestion has.

 

FFB's curmudgeonly complaints to one side, I can't believe Texas is not paying for rape kits. We made fun of Wasilla for trying to avoid paying for them, but the whole state of Texas is doing the same thing? That's shameful (and, I would think, unconstitutional).

 

Why is it that people often feel the need to substitute 'common sense' for 'I haven't thought this through'?

 

edited...i need to read this closer before commenting.

 

So what do we do when I get a conviction on a rapist and he gets 20 or 40 or 60 years in prison? Does the victim wait until he gets out of prison to get reimbursed? Who pays the bill in the meantime? Should we put him on probation so he can pay the debt, instead of sending him to prison?

This idea doesn't make any sense. It would be great if the criminal justice system to be self-sustaining with fines, but it doesn't work that way in practice.

 

Why not take some of the huge settlements levied against companies in court and use that to pay for fees like this? After the victim receives their medical, pain/suffering, loss of work etc., we could take the remaining judgement and use it to pay for court fees.