By the way, a rape exam takes two to four hours and is invasive and painful. This is just the medical evidence gathering, and doesn’t include any interviews with the police.
A recent bill was passed in Louisiana so that the state would pay the bill for rape kits. Before this – the rape victims were billed!!! I can’t even wrap my head around that. It’s probably happening in other places too. Is there any other crime where the victim is billed for the forensic gathering of evidence?
Not painful unless a woman finds a gyn exam with a Pap smear painful…they scream and cry on TV to make it dramatic. It can be emotionally traumatic depending on the circumstances, but unless the situation is highly unusual…not painful.
118 - dstark: I am sorry you had to go through all that testing and hope you are okay. Good luck.
142 - momofthree: If it isn't too personal: What is your experience with rape exams? I have always found pap smears fairly uncomfortable, and sometimes painful. In my experience, doctors try to deliberately distract and relax patients by asking them questions about their interests. I've never had a pap smear/exam last longer than a few minutes. Just lucky.
Alh, thanks. I think I’m good. The doctor was a little conservative. He was making sure I’m ok. Lol
I don’t want to go through another prostate biopsy again. 
I sure hope you don’t have to!!!
Sounds awful.
You men (re 145) are such wimps there’s a reason we women have the babies and I had 3 with no drugs much to my dismay. Anyway, alh your pap shouldn’t be painful, if you are comfortable with your provider you could discuss this to find out if there is a reason for the pain and yes the process goes fast and yes distraction is a familiar tactic
Men are wimps. I am a wimp. No argument there!
My wife tells me this on a constant basis!
If Pap smears never hurt, then what’s the distraction for? Plenty of women find them uncomfortable, and some women find them painful. And I’d venture to suggest that a lot more women find vaginal examinations painful if they’ve just been raped.
Also, I have never had a two to four hour gyn exam, have you?
Rape kit exams are not neutral. They’re humiliating and the patient is usually really vulnerable. And if there has been forcible sex and vaginal or rectal tears, it sure is painful. I did them during my training. It is not the same as the pelvic exam associated with getting a pap smear.
momofthreeboys: Are you a medical professional?
@dstark: hi! I don’t think I said anything about a “wrong outcome”. I said that Krakauer was clearly biased against the police and Pabst (his tone and attribution of ulterior motives rather than simply reporting what was said and done imply such). It’s his book and he’s free to make any insinuations he believes will sell books but it made me question his ability to be objective. The “gang rapes” weren’t prosecuted as they weren’t provable. Remember that not being able to prove something “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the same as saying something didn’t happen. The bloody pants had been discarded and were not available as evidence if I recall correctly. Again, not saying things didn’t occur; just noting that law enforcement personnel aren’t necessarily part of a conspiracy if they are unable to proceed with charges due to evidentiary issues.
@kibbles , ok. Thanks. I don’t think Krakauer ever said he was objective on this issue.
I don’t know what the consent laws are in Montana, Isn’t it kind of hard to give consent when you have an alcohol blood level of .219 two hours after an alleged assault? The accuser had a blood alcohol level close to .25 at the time of the assault.
I am going to ask a different question. What do you need for a rape case to be provable?
Evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. Obviously different in every case. I’m not quibbling that Krakauer ever stated he would remain completely objective–as I’ve noted, that wouldn’t sell many books
Ok…and how do you know there wasn’t enough evidence to try the gang rape case?
Just because Pabst didn’t try the case? Thst doesn’t sound like proof.
This is the same office that didn’t try the case where they had video of the guy slipping the drug into the woman’s drink. Their notion of “enough evidence” and my notion of “enough evidence” don’t correspond.
I’m objecting to ad hominem insults. Of course, I’m used to people “like you” doing that when you disagree with somebody–or when you haven’t carefully read what the person said.
But that’s not what you said before. Which is why I suggested you might want to put it a different way.
With little or no evidence, a prosecutor needs to decide if the crime or the dangerousness of the offender creates a significant societal threat and if so, the prosecutor might proceed even with a lower likelihood of success. I’m sure the concept of “enough” evidence is tightly linked to what is known about the individual case. There is very little one size fits all in our legal system. Perhaps the offender acted under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and could better be rehabilitated by a noncriminal treatment program than by prison and the situation doesn’t warrant the cost, expense and time of a full prosecution when a plea deal would be a stronger solution. I think this type of situation was illustrated in the book over the discussion of punishment of the case that did go to trial.
I think there are plenty of reasons why a particular case might not make it all the way to the courtroom. As northwesty I think,pointed out the incidence of rape reports nationally is decreasing but I don’t believe anyone has the actual statistics on how many accusations come to full trial or reach a plea deal. If people don’t report, then they aren’t part of the verifiable statistics.
Prosecutors are most often elected and the justice system starts at the local level. It is the will of the community that will define and determine how law enforcement is applied and how change can be effected. We’re seeing that right now in our country surrounding social issues. Change will only come if local communities want change.
Here’s a research question that might be interesting to answer: are there prosecutors who are particularly aggressive with respect to rape cases, and if so, do they have significantly higher conviction rates than other prosecutors do? Similarly, are there police forces that have trained their people better, and do they make more arrests that result in convictions? The prosecutor in Missoula may be terrible, but the one in Durham, NC was terrible, too, with a very different kind of outcome. It may not be appropriate to project those specific cases generally.