Appears California is allowing the victim's DNA to be used when it identifies a prior crime committed by them. 


https://news.yahoo.com/rape-victims-horrible-reason-silent-140028363.html

[Army of One]

Shit a...!

[opens and closes his fists while pacing around angrily, trying to keep his thoughts from coming out in mimicked actions]^§
§ If you know anything about me, you'll know that this stim comes about when I'm extremely angry about something, and to go this far means the person/people who has allowed this to happen is pretty much irredeemable and, in my opinion, deserving of violence. It's also a recently developed stim, which should kind of give you an idea of just how bad the world has gotten.

[Between Angela's Legs]

I raised essentially this same question in an earlier thread:

the attempted rape of Nancy Ling Perry on Nov 12, 1973

The earlier case was decades ago, so DNA testing wasn't involved, but to me it posed exactly the same ethical question: if evidence obtained during a rape (or attempted rape) investigation points to the victim being herself involved in serious, unrelated, crime, should that evidence be used or admissible?

Rereading that earlier thread, it seems to me that some people were being rather noncommittal, reluctant to fully come down on either side. It SHOULD be a difficult call to make, ethically speaking. Perry was probably involved in some way in the assassination of a respected Black community leader, Marcus Foster, but was herself a victim of an unrelated attempted rape. If evidence obtained in the rape investigation had pointed to Perry's involvement in the Foster murder, should she have been charged?

For minor crimes I would say really strongly that, no, the rape victim should be able to come forward and report the rape without being afraid of herself being charged with some minor crime. For extremely serious crimes--and the crime Perry was accused of was extremely serious--I'm not so sure.

[Badman]

Reverse the roles for a minute. If some guy was badly assualted in a fight and the police collected his blood from the scene along with the assailants and it was flagged and it turned out he was wanted for a rape 20 years ago, should he be prosecuted? A crime is a crime. It's up to the judicial system to decide if prosecution is warranted.

Becoming a victim of a crime does not somehow absolve you of a previous crime you've commited. Having a pussy is not a get out of jail free card. IMHO.