For anyone who wishes to understand a little bit more about what it can actually be like to bring offences like this to justice, I'd recommend Australian author and former Judge's Associate Bri Lee's memoir 'Eggshell Skull'. Obviously it's about her experiences in Australia. It also differs a little from the offences referenced in this article because her complaint was in relation to a childhood incident.
The reason I think its insights are relevant despite some major differences of context compared to this article is that the general barriers she faced at every step of the way trying to get some justice (despite being a Judge's Associate and the daughter of a well known and respected police officer) speak to the broad realities of navigating justice systems when you've been assaulted.
A total lack of understanding of these processes leads to people saying things like 'well there probably wasn't enough evidence' or 'the cops probably needed their finite resources for something bigger/worse' like they're unimpeachable axioms that exist in a vacuum.
The lack of critical thinking (or curiosity, or empathy?) about the (many, broad) realities of reporting crimes, or dealing with cops and the justice system if you're one of the few that make it far enough in the systems is just so frustrating to me. The thought terminating cliches that rely on the assumption that there's a just and relatively simple explanation for these stats get my goat.
In Eggshell Skull, Lee describes how many times she had to actually contact police in order to get them to even start a file, let alone getting them to actually take a report.
From first (and second) hand experience, the cops just turning people away (and lying about 'someone will be in touch') also applies to victims showing up at a police station immediately after an assault, clothes torn, not yet covered in the soon to bloom bruises. They don't even direct people to attend crisis centres or the hospital who will actually collect evidence following an assault. A friend of mine has described how the police (in a major metropolitan city) literally laughed and said 'men can't be sexually assaulted' when he brought in a male friend immediately after it had happened. They were then threatened with arrest by the cop when they asked to see someone at the station other than this front desk cop because they wanted to make a report. Arresting them would not be justifiable, but the intent of the threat, however empty, is pretty clear. Also good effing luck getting justice if the arrest threat was actually followed through. The cops are an active barrier to timely collection of evidence and a report. What is someone who keeps pushing for opening a case then left with? Little or no physical evidence and a report made maybe weeks after the event. It doesn't exactly set up a case all that well. Oh, I guess the cops aren't going to resource this case when that's all they've got to go on. The amount and quality of evidence and witnesses and whatnot doesn't seem to make a difference for these things but I've got no experience with that.
I guess I just wish people understood a little bit more about how things can work IRL and that it's not clear and simple. I know random internet anecdotes are worthless (especially the second hand ones) but maybe consider that things don't necessarily work the ways you think they do.
I'm also skirting around one of the more pertinent questions when crime stats like this pop up. What is the actual function of police? It's evident that it's not to solve crimes. That's maybe a discussion for another time.
The reason I think its insights are relevant despite some major differences of context compared to this article is that the general barriers she faced at every step of the way trying to get some justice (despite being a Judge's Associate and the daughter of a well known and respected police officer) speak to the broad realities of navigating justice systems when you've been assaulted.
A total lack of understanding of these processes leads to people saying things like 'well there probably wasn't enough evidence' or 'the cops probably needed their finite resources for something bigger/worse' like they're unimpeachable axioms that exist in a vacuum.
The lack of critical thinking (or curiosity, or empathy?) about the (many, broad) realities of reporting crimes, or dealing with cops and the justice system if you're one of the few that make it far enough in the systems is just so frustrating to me. The thought terminating cliches that rely on the assumption that there's a just and relatively simple explanation for these stats get my goat.
In Eggshell Skull, Lee describes how many times she had to actually contact police in order to get them to even start a file, let alone getting them to actually take a report.
From first (and second) hand experience, the cops just turning people away (and lying about 'someone will be in touch') also applies to victims showing up at a police station immediately after an assault, clothes torn, not yet covered in the soon to bloom bruises. They don't even direct people to attend crisis centres or the hospital who will actually collect evidence following an assault. A friend of mine has described how the police (in a major metropolitan city) literally laughed and said 'men can't be sexually assaulted' when he brought in a male friend immediately after it had happened. They were then threatened with arrest by the cop when they asked to see someone at the station other than this front desk cop because they wanted to make a report. Arresting them would not be justifiable, but the intent of the threat, however empty, is pretty clear. Also good effing luck getting justice if the arrest threat was actually followed through. The cops are an active barrier to timely collection of evidence and a report. What is someone who keeps pushing for opening a case then left with? Little or no physical evidence and a report made maybe weeks after the event. It doesn't exactly set up a case all that well. Oh, I guess the cops aren't going to resource this case when that's all they've got to go on. The amount and quality of evidence and witnesses and whatnot doesn't seem to make a difference for these things but I've got no experience with that.
I guess I just wish people understood a little bit more about how things can work IRL and that it's not clear and simple. I know random internet anecdotes are worthless (especially the second hand ones) but maybe consider that things don't necessarily work the ways you think they do.
I'm also skirting around one of the more pertinent questions when crime stats like this pop up. What is the actual function of police? It's evident that it's not to solve crimes. That's maybe a discussion for another time.