Oh, So THAT'S Why

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm not saying I'd refuse to pay for the rape kit if it involved emergency contraception, Morrigoon. But there is a reasonable argument to be made that emergency contraception should not come out of the police department budget.

There are plenty of medical needs that may arise out of a rape (a 30-day supply anti-retrovirals to pretect against HIV for example) and this is the only one -- so far as I know -- where there is a default assumption that the police will pay for it. I have no idea what the line item cost is for them either.

I'm just putting forward that it isn't patently absurd to argue that the police should not be paying for it. Do I care if they do? No. But just like with many other issues of inconsistency, I may not particularly care but if the question is put bluntly then I do acknowledge that it is inconsistent.

In my neck of the woods, a fellow just got a life sentence for what was arguably statutory rape of his twelve year-old. As I gathered from the article, a hefty component of his sentence was an enhancement for great bodily injury in the form of the girl's pregnancy. I assume that passing a disease would result in a similar enhancement. Thus, "law enforcement" arguably has a financial interest in keeping incarceration costs down by preventing evidence that would support such an enhancement from ripening.

On the other hand, come budget time, "law enforcement" also has a financial interest in its crime victims appearing as victimized as possible. As a crime victim myself, I don't say this cynically, but the reality is that law enforcment is a government agency like any other, and it is interested in manipulating public opinion for self-interested reasons.