Al Franken: S.2736 – Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2009
Al Franken continues his crusade for women by introducing new legislation to remove an institutional bias against women. For context, review his “Anti-Rape” Amendment- H.R. 3326 discussing how ADR disenfranchises employee’s whom are subjected to outrageous contract stipulations.
The legislation will work to reduce the national backlog of over 180,000 untested rape kits currently in police storage. It will also address several other problems that work to deny justice to victims of sexual assault – including the denial of free rape kits to survivors of sexual assault and the shortage of trained health professionals capable of administering rape kit exams. “These backlogs have serious consequences for law enforcement and public safety,” said Sen. Franken. “We just learned of a case where a rapist struck both a pregnant woman and a minor while the rape kit for one of his earlier victims sat unprocessed at a crime lab. It takes about a week to process a DNA evidence sample and there is no reason that every rape kit completed should not be tested in a timely manner.”
· Requires jurisdictions applying for federal funds to implement plans to halve rape kit backlogs in a two-year period.
· Creates monetary incentives for jurisdictions to reduce their rape kit backlogs, promptly process incoming rape kits, and report their backlog numbers.
· Creates an annual reporting mechanism for rape kit backlogs across the nation.
· Requires states to be responsible for the full, upfront cost of rape kit examinations. Victims should not have to pay for rape kits and seek reimbursement.
· Requires that health professionals notify victims that they have a right to a rape kit examination free of charge.
· Creates an additional funding stream for training of sexual assault forensic medical personnel examiners through the Grants to Encourage Arrest Program.
· Defines “trained examiner” in a way that will allow rural and tribal areas to use grant funds authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to pay for admissible rape kits, even if they don’t have certified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners to perform them.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Al Franken for another win. How unconscionable is it for victims of sexual assault to go without recourse because of a bureaucratic backlog? Actually, this is a re-emerging battle many women are forced to fight. Out of the 2008 presidential campaign comes a quote from Wasilla, “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.” He also added, “The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. I’d like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things.” To have such a bias suggests that the real issue isn’t the money, but the definition of this crime. Would you make a victim of any other crime every pay for the forensic tests? Never, it would be at odds with society.
Then the crux of this logic is that women are not taken seriously, that rape is a “two way street” crime. Bill O’Reilly has a quote I could never forget, it encapsulates this mentality perfectly.
So anyway, these two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they’re moronic girls and, you know, they don’t have a car. So they’re standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they’re drunk. They separate, which you never do. All right. Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk. And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her. Bill O’Reilly
It is twisted logic to try and blame the victim for the assault they incur, as if they baited it. S.2736 is a great step toward helping women traumatized not only by the assailant, but the uncaring system.
Keep tabs on this Freshman Senator, he is top notch. It’s a weekend so enjoy a video.
I had my doubts because he can be such a partisan MFer, but so far . . I am in love.
Guess which group will suffer the most from this. Hilarious how DNA testing for convicted criminals was supposed to free so many and all it did was mostly convict the convicted of other crimes. A large part of this is solved if you get women out of the work of being a soldier and stop pretending a women is as good a soldier as a man. Fight this fight at home if you want, our military is doing something a bit more important and cant afford running around pretending equality in the trenches. These are warriors. Not office space pantywaists.
Thanks again for this insightful comment. I never knew that pursuing rapists through simple DNA testing was highly ineffective and the crime more easily stopped by taking women out of the military.
J, are you somehow able to comment from the past? Most of what you say sounds like it came right out of the 1950s.
Great article, Michael.
Rape does not only happen in the trenches, J. This has little to do with the military and much to do with some twisted versions of equality and justice in rape cases. Al Franken definitely has proven his worth in the Senate with this legislation.
I dunno… whether New Jersey counts as “in the trenches” or not is still up for debate. Plus O’Reilly said they got bombed.
Not highly ineffective, but not the results so hoped for by its advocates. Its always sold as the key to freeing so many innocent prisoners and yet time and time again merely tattooing another case of rape on an already imprisoned degenerate. Its not what the sob sisters sell it as. Look at what your type did in Ohio. You put a rapist away for 15 years. 15 years for rape. And now look what that animal did once he got out. Put real teeth into the punishment for rapists. Never let them out. No rehab, no more Sex Offenders list where the burden is put on society to keep an eye on these people, put them in jail forever. We’ve all heard female complaints about how rape is taken lightly in this “male dominated society”. Consider the complaint heard. Put the rapist away forever.
Life is isn’t monotone. There are different levels and aggravations for types of sexual assault. We must find strength to view both victim and criminal as people. While victims deserve the utmost attention and consideration, the offender too must be treated fairly. Unfortunately our system is in such a state of neglect and overpopulation that rehabilitation never occurs… leading to a perpetual cycle of violence. As a society I would think that there is a high interest in reforming prisons – or maybe thats too far removed for politicians seeking votes? It sounds better to get tough on crime when actually the soft touch may be far more effectual.
Enough with the mickey mouse crap. Peoples actions are what we are talking about. This touchy feely, “soft touch” approach is in existence now. Murdering children and no death penalty. 12 and 13 year old boys klll like adults and not even life sentences. Rapists out in 10 or 15 years? And you think we need a softer approach? What would you add: more open work release? Bring your rapist to work week? When and where has this “it takes a village” crap ever worked. Why is there this assumption that a democratic society should have so few in jail. High incarceration can only mean oppression? We all know who is disproportionately representin in prison. Is that your real mission. A high interest in reforming persons? What is that “high interest“? For Goodness sake? For recognitions sake?
You are part of the tribe that has raped the culture of the “50s” America. Now you think it is my responsibility to help this sick and perverse culture get on its feet? Ever consider that this culture is one of earned misery. You chose perverse behaviour, you live with certain consequences. No impulse control, prison will take care of that. If that isnt incentive enough, you wont ever learn. What interests me is when those who wanted no part in the bizarre are forced to have their loved ones see it and or subsidise it. Like the Ammanns of your neck of the woods, why not just leave those who don’t subscribe to your vision the hell alone. We want no part in your worship of everything but, and your preference for the perverse. Now lets hear your persuasive argument for forced integration.
I agree with both the article (very well done) and with Neffs.
And I hesitate to type this since it’s probably just proof of my own stupidity, but I can’t even tell what J is talking about.
Nobody can. At this point, I’m not even sure if he is for real or if he is really a liberal having fun satirizing the most obnoxious and extreme parts of the far right wing.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
http://politicalcartel.org/2009/11/03/poes-law-fundamentalism-and-parody/
Bingo! Why the censoring impulse. Are you so thin skinned. These complaints sound like kiddos who havent heard someone say an obscenity. If you cant take a heated exchange, well then, this world is going to provide you with a new title, victim. Is this what they teach kids now in public schools. “I dont like what I’ve heard, I’m offended.” Real world kid–is the word Kid still acceptable? Counsel, anyone? Im offended. Does that matter? Help!
There is a difference between a “heated exchange” and blatant racism with other offensive epithets sprinkled in. Go away.
Hey J, you want real world? Put your name and your face alongside your public statements.
Try going to any physical location owned by a corporation and shouting personal attacks and racist slurs. See what happens. Real world: they will kick your ass out.
Goodbye, J
While I do not fully agree with the ban of J, I respect the editorial decision to omit his comments. While transparency, freedom of speech, and idealogical openness all reinforce the need to visibly confront an intellectually adversary. Further, I believe that hateful commentary visible to all will undermine its insidious objective.
J does not advocate from a mere adversarial fringe, but one more representative of idealogical lunacy – the ravings of an idiot at odds with the promotion of intellectual blogging.
We should entertain dissent as far as logically permissible and allow considerable latitude. Yet, a key factor here is that we operate on the web. Myself and the editors of Political Cartel put our integrity at stake with every post and act thoughtfully.
I currently respect and understand the decision to “censor” J. In thinking of a circumstance for which I would be compelled to advocate his return… One such instance may be shedding his anonymity and expressing himself as a reasonable person in a public setting.
If this logic assuages the staff, it is my recommendation to use this comment as a template should another need arise. Thoughts?
He sounds like the disgruntled spammer from the Daily Musto. I think it’s just that subtype.
Problem is, I bet a lot of right-wing types kind of agree whether they say it or not with him.