Ms Ross, interesting article. However, two points I feel missed are; First. Police do not get to choose what cases prosecution is started or followed up on. Unlike police, Prosecutors (local, state and federal) are graded on their win/ loss records. This is especially problematic in Florida and the Federal systems causing prosecutors to only be willing to proceed with “low hanging fruit”. Sexual assault cases are rarely such. So it becomes a case of “judicial economics” for investigators. Given shrinking budgets, killing overtime and hiring. Anti police sentiment chasing away seasoned cops and recruits alike and the CSI effect making juries believe there should be masses of science in the court, there simply is not the time or personal to do the job correctly.
Am I defending, NO! But this is the reality that the media should not ignore in the chase for a story.
Second; the “two experts” you used for background, one unnamed and one from Army CID. The Army has a long and notorious reputation for lack of prosecutions and failure the few times they do charge. (See the DoD report on sexual assault in the military.)
By simply using experts that have “research or investigations” on their resume to bolster your story is of poor journalistic quality.
In closing, can law enforcement do better? Sure! Does media hatchet jobs of the poor men and women trying help the situation? I think not.
bombsbulletsandbooze10 karma
Ms Ross, interesting article. However, two points I feel missed are; First. Police do not get to choose what cases prosecution is started or followed up on. Unlike police, Prosecutors (local, state and federal) are graded on their win/ loss records. This is especially problematic in Florida and the Federal systems causing prosecutors to only be willing to proceed with “low hanging fruit”. Sexual assault cases are rarely such. So it becomes a case of “judicial economics” for investigators. Given shrinking budgets, killing overtime and hiring. Anti police sentiment chasing away seasoned cops and recruits alike and the CSI effect making juries believe there should be masses of science in the court, there simply is not the time or personal to do the job correctly. Am I defending, NO! But this is the reality that the media should not ignore in the chase for a story.
Second; the “two experts” you used for background, one unnamed and one from Army CID. The Army has a long and notorious reputation for lack of prosecutions and failure the few times they do charge. (See the DoD report on sexual assault in the military.) By simply using experts that have “research or investigations” on their resume to bolster your story is of poor journalistic quality.
In closing, can law enforcement do better? Sure! Does media hatchet jobs of the poor men and women trying help the situation? I think not.
View HistoryShare Link