Rape kits
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
To Quote the Daily Show
"Whats the big deal, they were raped not robbed"
(yes I know im going to hell)
In a serious note to a serious issue, as bad as paying for a rape kit sounds as an attack on Palin , you have to remember that that is the US.
If your two year old child is hit by a drunk driver, you still have to pay his medical bills, including medical attention that did nothing to prevent his death.
So if you make a greiving mother pay for inneffectual treatment of her murdered toddler, why on earth would you expect the state to pay for rape kits?
All health care should be free, thats my view.
"Whats the big deal, they were raped not robbed"
(yes I know im going to hell)
In a serious note to a serious issue, as bad as paying for a rape kit sounds as an attack on Palin , you have to remember that that is the US.
If your two year old child is hit by a drunk driver, you still have to pay his medical bills, including medical attention that did nothing to prevent his death.
So if you make a greiving mother pay for inneffectual treatment of her murdered toddler, why on earth would you expect the state to pay for rape kits?
All health care should be free, thats my view.
It's an evidence kit that emergency room workers use to collect evidence from the bodies of rape victims (semen, skin under fingernails, etc). Some places have actually billed rape victims for this to be done since their insurance companies wouldn't pay for it. It was apparently an issue in Sarah Pallin's town when she was mayor so it's been in the news recently.
It is absolutely despicable that anyone would expect a rape victim to pay to have evidence of a crime collected. Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocritical mysogynist... unless they also think murder victims' estates should pay for collecting evidence in murders, robbery victims should pay for collection of evidence to prove robberies, etc.
Not if the drunk driver has any insurance or any assets. You can sue for all of them (or rather, your health insurance company can sue if they covered the care). In reality few hospitals would be willing to risk the bad PR by sending a bill to parents of a dead child like this.
A rape kit isn't treatment, it's a way of collecting evidence to catch the scum that did it.
Does the woman of the child pay for police forensic work to catch the person that ran over her child?
No, so your analogy is moot.
Apparently a police chief in Alaska who didn't want them cutting into his budget.
Govenor Palin thinks the vivtim should pay and in her state they do.
I notice someone said yes, do they wish to reveal themselves or be a coward.
True enough. Unfortunately Alaska has some of the worst sexual assault statistics in the entire country.
That has to be the most ignorant question ever asked. :angryfire:
Read your own question; rape victims
They are victims.. maybe bill the rapist for the kit once due process has been taken and the individual is found guilty.
Then again I believe in chemical castration for rapists, and the death penalty for murderers.
The huge difference I see between a rape kit and medical treatment is that one serves a purpose to the woman, the other serves a purpose to society. Paying for something that will make a difference to your health will make sense to a woman who's been traumatized. But, paying for something that will draw the whole process out with court, etc., has been shown to be something women shy away from even when it doesn't mean a bill to them in the end.
What other parts of criminal investigations should we start charging the victims for? Should we charge the mother of a missing toddler for the crime scene unit that comes in to look for fingerprints in the child's room? Should we charge the mother that Zz mentioned about, whose child was hit by a vehicle, for the assessment of paint chips to prove that the drunk was the one who hit them? Where exactly do we draw the line?
edited to add (sorry... didn't mean to almost directly echo avro's argument... whoops)
What other parts of criminal investigations should we start charging the victims for? Should we charge the mother of a missing toddler for the crime scene unit that comes in to look for fingerprints in the child's room? Should we charge the mother that Zz mentioned about, whose child was hit by a vehicle, for the assessment of paint chips to prove that the drunk was the one who hit them? Where exactly do we draw the line?
edited to add (sorry... didn't mean to almost directly echo avro's argument... whoops)
8O......Seriously, I am used to police reports stating the "perp" had a "rape kit".........rope, duct tape, knife, gun,blindfold, etc........This being the case, I do believe they should have to buy their own.
On the other hand, the victim.........of course not.........how ****ing cheap can we be!!!:angry3:
Stupid premise, stupid answers, no?
On the other hand, the victim.........of course not.........how ****ing cheap can we be!!!:angry3:
Stupid premise, stupid answers, no?
o.k. I am going to take a guess you are a young lady.
You should be enraged at such a suggestion. I see so many attacks against women rights, and women actually just stepping aside.
So lets ban abortions along with charging for rape kits. :angry3:
So regardless how idotic this idea is, you are saying that I am incorrect.
So in your debate, this is a good question?