Is it really all the evidence collection, or the evidence from the rape kit? Because other evidence isn't mentioned in the kellysue blog you linked to, only hospital evidence.
If it's simply the rape kit issue, then I'm curious as to how that compares with other crimes. If a burglar comes in to your home and whacks you over the head with the skillet he's stealing from you, don't you have to pay for the resultant hospital bill? Then again, that's not evidence for the crime so maybe it's not comparable.
But what about someone who's been injured in a way that medical professionals would need to examine their body for clues? This is "CSI" territory, I'm sure, but what if a key bit of evidence is the way someone was stabbed, or the size of the blade? Who pays for that? I would assume the original reports, pics, etc. from the hospital were paid for by the patient, and then the state uses that info/evidence to investigate or get a conviction.
#1: In *civilised* countries, you pay for neither emergency medical care nor evidence gathering. As such, your means to do so is not relevant to how likely your attacker is to be caught and prosecuted.
#2: Are you therefore implying that if I can't afford to go to a hospital in your backwards third-world hellhole, that no competent attempt to gather evidence about my attack will ever be made? An insuranceless sew-up-the-wound-and-bill-patient-$2000, complete with oh-so-helpful "stab wound, 30 stitches and prescription for antibiotic" report is all that will be given to the police?
#3: I'm sure you're entirely aware that were I to die, this expense would *not* be spared on the forensic side and my estate would *not* be billed for it. "Because the victim was poor and lived" seems like a truly shitty reason to either not investigate or stick them with the bill.
THis is why i don't go to the bible belt. Its better to hang out in more advanced civilized countries like India, or Mali, maybe Nigeria, if you're feeling adventurous.
No, I don't have any idea who pays for what in an autopsy. I deliberately did not bring up autopsies because my knowledge of them is even more scanty than my knowledge of who pays for hospital bills, evidence gathering, etc. Perhaps my post wasn't clear, but those questions I asked were actual questions, not hypotheticals or merely conversational.
My personal experience is entirely with people who were in car wrecks and, in two cases, who were attacked. They had to pay hospital bills even though they were victims, even if the perpetrator of the crime was caught and convicted.
I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it, and I don't think simply asking questions about it or considering what might be behind the so-called "reasoning" implies I agree at all.
I'm just not the kind of person who reads a few words from someone's blog and gets all up in arms about the issue of the day. For good or ill, I like to know more details about the situation before fully forming an opinion. So I guess you can assume what my opinion is ("uncivilised" and "shitty", is my guess) but even *I* don't know what it fully is yet. I don't know enough about what's going on.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-27 10:56 pm (UTC)If it's simply the rape kit issue, then I'm curious as to how that compares with other crimes. If a burglar comes in to your home and whacks you over the head with the skillet he's stealing from you, don't you have to pay for the resultant hospital bill? Then again, that's not evidence for the crime so maybe it's not comparable.
But what about someone who's been injured in a way that medical professionals would need to examine their body for clues? This is "CSI" territory, I'm sure, but what if a key bit of evidence is the way someone was stabbed, or the size of the blade? Who pays for that? I would assume the original reports, pics, etc. from the hospital were paid for by the patient, and then the state uses that info/evidence to investigate or get a conviction.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-28 12:12 am (UTC)#2: Are you therefore implying that if I can't afford to go to a hospital in your backwards third-world hellhole, that no competent attempt to gather evidence about my attack will ever be made? An insuranceless sew-up-the-wound-and-bill-patient-$2000, complete with oh-so-helpful "stab wound, 30 stitches and prescription for antibiotic" report is all that will be given to the police?
#3: I'm sure you're entirely aware that were I to die, this expense would *not* be spared on the forensic side and my estate would *not* be billed for it. "Because the victim was poor and lived" seems like a truly shitty reason to either not investigate or stick them with the bill.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-28 01:18 am (UTC)THis is why i don't go to the bible belt. Its better to hang out in more advanced civilized countries like India, or Mali, maybe Nigeria, if you're feeling adventurous.
/Really, Arkansas is worse then all those.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-28 02:04 am (UTC)My personal experience is entirely with people who were in car wrecks and, in two cases, who were attacked. They had to pay hospital bills even though they were victims, even if the perpetrator of the crime was caught and convicted.
I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it, and I don't think simply asking questions about it or considering what might be behind the so-called "reasoning" implies I agree at all.
I'm just not the kind of person who reads a few words from someone's blog and gets all up in arms about the issue of the day. For good or ill, I like to know more details about the situation before fully forming an opinion. So I guess you can assume what my opinion is ("uncivilised" and "shitty", is my guess) but even *I* don't know what it fully is yet. I don't know enough about what's going on.