“Bipartisan” Group of Senators Embrace Forensic Bias and Bogus Science

Senators Feinstein, Ernst, Durbin and Murkowski recently announced that: “After nearly three years of negotiations, we have reached an agreement on a bipartisan framework to strengthen, modernize and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA].” Aspects of the framework so blatantly endorse radical agendas that one wonders what was negotiated. Then there is euphemistic commitment to attack the integrity of the criminal justice system—an approach that is more subtle but equally clear.

The euphemism is “trauma-informed law enforcement responses.” (These are usually used in sex crimes cases.) To the uninitiated that sounds benign. Those familiar with the criminal justice system know “trauma informed” is cover for a dark reality. It refers to precise methods which: 1) Replace forensic objectivity with bias. 2) Attack presumption of innocence and rights of the accused. 3) Contradict science.

Objective forensic methods begin by assessing the veracity of those alleging crimes (complainants). Some complainants have unreliable memories. Some interpret incidents through distorting prejudices. Some intentionally file false reports. Accurately understanding an incident requires critically analyzing the statements of every person concerned.

Investigating on the assumption that one person’s testimony is true: 1) Prejudices how investigators look for other evidence. 2) Prejudices how other evidence is interpreted. 3) Commits valuable resources before the merits of a case are sufficiently known—impeding the ability to pursue real offenders. 4) Can lead to the arrest and conviction of the innocent.

“Trauma informed methods” insist investigators “start by believing” the claims of a single person (the complainant). This is irresponsible enough if those claims are internally consistent. But “trauma informed methods” insist complainants should be believed even when they contradict themselves. They "justify" this by contradicting scientific evidence that trauma enhances memory—claiming trauma enhances memory. Evidence of dishonesty or unreliability is then twisted into “proof” of veracity.

The results of this are appalling. It has become common to prosecute those accused of sexual assault without substantial evidence. This has bogged down prosecutors’ officers and led to plummeting conviction rates. A common “solution” has been “affirmative consent” laws giving “sexual assault” broad and meaningless definitions—which turn normal sexual behavior into legal “rape.”

Outside the criminal justice system “trauma informed methods” have led to disciplinary procedures that exclude key evidence and impose harsh punishments on the falsely accused. The “logic” of such methods is to prefer punishing the innocent over exonerating the guilty.

How, then, have these methods gained acceptance? Preexisting ideological commitments. One holds that women are “victim group” victimized by men. This leads to the belief that we should “believe women [complainants]” rather than accused males. The other was critiqued by sociologist Frank Furedi in his book Therapy Culture. Two aspects of “therapeutic ideology” are key.

First: Therapeutic ideology distorts the purpose of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system exists to: 1) Determine facts. 2) Punish the guilty. 3) Exonerate the innocent. 4) Protect society by deterring crime and isolating offenders. Defendants enjoy a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes the right to have evidence objectively assessed. The need for proof overrides mental health concerns.

What if proving guilt negatively impacts victims’ mental health? Victims must first have principles of justice explained to them—then choose between accepting the mental health consequences and declining to press charges.

Therapeutic ideology wants the criminal justice system to stop prioritizing justice—and make “therapeutic care” its primary goal. In practice this means prioritizing the mental health of victims over justice for the wrongly accused. How jail time impacts the mental health or general well-being of the wrongly accused is disregarded.

Second: Therapeutic ideology is committed to an unscientific theory which claims human psychology is innately fragile. This theory begins by assuming: 1) Such fragility exists. 2) All people will be traumatized by certain experiences. It then insists people who give no indication of being traumatized by those experiences must either be “suppressing” trauma or have other mental health problems. Unpleasant experiences normal to daily life are categorized as “traumatic” and “scaring.”

An extreme manifestation of this is the “snowflake” phenomenon—college students insisting they “need” test postponements, counseling sessions and “therapy puppies” to “cope” with the “trauma” of favored candidates losing elections.

Fragility theory obvious cannot accurately assess either: 1) What experiences are traumatic rather than unpleasant. 2) The effects of truly traumatic experiences. But "trauma informed methods" build on its presuppositions. They begin with that fact that it is unpleasant for sexual assault victims to have to prove their cases—then insist that because it is unpleasant it is traumatizing.

If “traditional” methods of examining sexual assault complainants are insufficiently sensitive to legitimate mental health considerations a different alternative is needed.

It’s first step would be researching new methods. This would involve collaboration of law enforcement, legal and mental health experts. Law enforcement and legal experts would need to set out the standards of rigorous investigation. Then mental health experts could assist in developing the most “trauma sensitive” methods compatible with those standards.
 
by is licensed under