I Am Evidence is a documentary film which premiered in 2017. It is about the criminal justice system in the US with special focus on the history of untested rape kits.
Here is some basic information about this film:
** Directors: Trish Adlesic and Geeta Gandbhir
** Producers: Trish Adlesic and Mariska Hargitay
** Production company: HBO Doc Films
** Run time: 89 minutes
When a woman reports a rape to the police, a rape kit is made. All available and relevant evidence is collected in a box which is then placed in a warehouse.
In an ideal world, each case will soon be investigated by the local police. The evidence will be tested. Testing the evidence may reveal the identity of the perpetrator, who may be tried in a court of law and (if he is found guilty) may be punished with a fine or jail time or both. In this way justice is done, and the victim may get some kind of closure.
Unfortunately, the world is not ideal. In the real world, things are often very different. In many states, thousands of rape kits are placed in a warehouse and then completely forgotten.
In many states, the cases are never investigated; the evidence is never tested; the identity of the perpetrator is never revealed. He is never tried in a court of law; he is never punished; he is free to commit more crimes; justice is not done, and the victim does not get any kind of closure.
Why? What is the reason? According to this film, it is all a question of budgets and manpower.
Each state has its own police force. Each police force decides how to spend the money that is allocated to the force.
Which kind of crime are we going to investigate? How much time are we going to spend on each case? Do we take the easy cases first and ignore the cases which are difficult? Are some crimes more worthy of our time than others? How are we going to prioritize? Each police force will have its own set of priorities.
In this film, we learn the sad reality of the rape kits: when rape kits are placed in a warehouse, they are often forgotten. When the police force runs out of space, older rape kits may simply be destroyed, because these cases will never be investigated anyway and the evidence will never be tested anyway.
The directors of this film interviewed fourteen survivors of a rape case on camera. In the end, they decided to use only four cases which come from three states: California, Michigan, and Ohio.
The number of witnesses was reduced to four in order to present a clear and comprehensible message to the audience. If you present fourteen different cases, the result may be confusing, because there are too many details.
I think this decision was correct. This film has a message that is clear and easy to follow. Having fourteen witnesses instead of only four would not make a stronger case, but merely make the film more difficult to follow.
In this film, we learn that some rape cases seem to be more important than others:
** If the victim is a white woman, the case is more likely to be investigated than if the victim is a woman of colour.
** If the victim has a personal connection to the police force - if for instance her father or brother or husband is on the force - her case is likely to be investigated.
In this film, we learn what happens when a police force decides to go ahead and make a systematic investigation of all rape kits in their possession; when a police force decides to test the evidence of each case in their possession.
The results can be divided into three categories:
# 1. DNA testing does not find any match with criminal databases.
When this happens, the investigation comes to a dead end. This is sad, but some cases cannot be solved.
# 2. DNA testing finds some matches with criminal databases.
When this happens, the investigation can proceed. The perpetrator may be located and may be brought in for questioning. The perpetrator may be tried in a court of law and if he is found guilty, he may be punished. The victim may get some kind of closure.
# 3. DNA testing finds that the same person was responsible for several rapes.
When this happens, it shows how wrong it was (and is) to leave the rape kits untested in the warehouse. If the first case had been investigated at once, the perpetrator might have been caught and the following rapes might have never happened. If the police had done their job from the beginning, they would have been able to prevent future crimes.
This result is highly embarrassing for the police force, because it shows that they failed to do their job which is summed up in the slogan:
“To protect and to serve.”
What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of two review aggregators:
76 per cent = IMDb
92 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the general audience)
100 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the professional critics)
On the Roger Ebert Website, Nick Allen offers 3 of 4 stars (i.e. a rating of 75 per cent).
I understand the numerous positive reviews. This film is a powerful document about a serious issue. It is highly recommended.
PS # 1. The following article is available online: Amanda Holpuch, “I am evidence: the shocking film on the truth about untested rape kits,” The Guardian, 13 April 2018.
# 2. Mariska Hargitay is an actress who is best known for her role as Olivia Benson on the NBC drama Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. She is one of the two producers of this film and she appears in a few scenes. For more information about her involvement in this issue, see the following item:
Mariskia Hargitay, “Rape kit backlog and destruction is outrageous,” CNN Opinion, 3 December 2018.
PS # 3. For more critical comments about the issue, see the following item:
Billy Binion, “Mariska Hargitay Is Wrong About the Rape Kit Backlog,” Reason, 19 August 2020.
The subheading of this article says:
“Untested rape kits are a national scandal, but more funding isn’t the answer.”
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment