[knowthevibes]

Immoral to give survivors options other than the largely unused hospital and law enforcement processes? Any sexual assault counselor should know that survivors most often do not want to be re-traumatized through being physically manipulated by another individual. If COVID-19 has shown us anything, it is that remote options ARE feasible. Self-use kits were used in Monterey and Marin counties in California out of necessity (https://www.ksbw.com/article/monterey-county-das-office-allo...), and necessity breeds widely used innovation. It would make sense to die on this hill if the current system was survivor-centric. But it is not. You’re putting far too much faith in a system built to reflect and serve the interests of law enforcement and hospitals, not the needs of survivors. Moreover, further research will show you that the startup explicitly encourages survivors to visit a hospital or contact law enforcement if at all possible. Not only is your information outdated, but it is also misleading. Try keeping your personal value statements (and your baseless interpretation of criminal law?) out of the conversation. Ask sexual assault survivors what they would like to see instead.

[glaive123]

It's interesting to see the only comments defending this startup are from newly created accounts.

The article you shared appears to conflict with what this startup is offering.

> It's being called a "temporary protocol" that so far, has only been used once on April 5. Nassoura said the process starts by the victim calling law enforcement and then, "The officer goes to the victim's residence, places it (the sexual assault test) on the front door step, waits in the vehicle. The victim then goes to the front door gets the sample and they begin a zoom video call." That zoom video call involves a forensic nurse, the detective and a victim advocate. Once the victim's statement is taken by the officer, the nurse is the only one that remains on the call. The victim then self-collects the sample under the nurse's guidance and direction.

And to your point:

> Moreover, further research will show you that the startup explicitly encourages survivors to visit a hospital or contact law enforcement if at all possible.

The problem is, this startup's business model specifically relies on victims not visiting the hospital.

> Ask sexual assault survivors what they would like to see instead.

They would probably want their evidence to be admitted in court, rather than raise reasonable doubt.

[dogma1138]

This is the issue here the issue of CoC isn’t about what happens to the kit once it’s submitted but how the collection is done.

What ever temporary protocol California or any other state has put into place I can guarantee you that it involves the forensic nurse not only instructing the victim on how to use the kit but verifies that the victim collects samples only from themselves and that these samples are sealed in an tamper resilient bag/container by the victim in clear view of the nurse.

As in the nurse has to watch the victim swab their own vagina, anus, finger nails and any other body part that may have DNA evidence and place the swab in a bag and seal it.

The seal would then be inspected by law enforcement and the lab and the CoC would be documented and preserved.

At that point the amount of doubt is more or less identical to having consensual sex to gather DNA evidence and then falsely accusing someone of rape which can happen regardless of where the evidence collection takes place.

This is the part these kits cannot provide and this is why they cannot be admissible there is quite a big difference between having consensual sex to collect DNA evidence which is easier to prove and just being able to take a cotton swab to someone toothbrush or water bottle.