Category: Victim-Centered Investigations

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 21, 2022

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Link: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/39a64d5a-0551-4b9d-9814-521b9af00a18/E0B849C39D8A38B26A503509BD6824E8.vawa-reauthorization-act-of-2022.pdf

Section 205

Subtitle Q—Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training for Law Enforcement

4 ‘‘SEC. 41701. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED TRAINING FOR

6 LAW ENFORCEMENT.

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

8 ‘‘(1) the term ‘Attorney General’ means the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the

10 Office on Violence Against Women;

11 ‘‘(2) the term ‘covered individual’ means an individual who interfaces with victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking,

14 including—

15 ‘‘(A) an individual working for or on behalf

16 of an eligible entity;

17 ‘‘(B) an administrator or personnel of a

18 school, university, or other educational program

19 or activity (including a campus police officer or

20 a school resource officer); and

21 ‘‘(C) an emergency services or medical employee;

23 ‘‘(3) the term ‘demonstration site’, with respect

24 to an eligible entity that receives a grant under this

25 section, means—

1 ‘‘(A) if the eligible entity is a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4)(A), the

3 area over which the eligible entity has jurisdiction; and

5 ‘‘(B) if the eligible entity is an organization or agency described in paragraph (4)(B),

7 the area over which a law enforcement agency

8 described in paragraph (4)(A) that is working

9 in collaboration with the eligible entity has jurisdiction.

11 ‘‘(4) the term ‘eligible entity’ means a State,

12 local, territorial, or Tribal law enforcement agency;

13 and

14 ‘‘(5) the term ‘mandatory partner’ means a national, regional, or local victim services organization

16 or agency working in collaboration with a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4).

18 ‘‘(b) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall

20 award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to collaborate with their mandatory partners to

22 carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising

24 investigative policies and practices to incorporate

1 trauma-informed, victim-centered techniques designed to—

3 ‘‘(A) prevent re-traumatization of the victim;

5 ‘‘(B) ensure that covered individuals use

6 evidence-based practices to respond to and investigate cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

9 ‘‘(C) improve communication between victims and law enforcement officers in an effort

11 to increase the likelihood of the successful investigation and prosecution of the reported

13 crime in a manner that protects the victim to

14 the greatest extent possible;

15 ‘‘(D) increase collaboration among stakeholders who are part of the coordinated community response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

19 ‘‘(E) evaluate the effectiveness of the

20 training process and content.

21 ‘‘(2) AWARD BASIS.—The Attorney General

22 shall award grants under this section to multiple eligible entities for use in a variety of settings and

24 communities, including—

1 ‘‘(A) urban, suburban, Tribal, remote, and

2 rural areas;

3 ‘‘(B) college campuses; or

4 ‘‘(C) traditionally underserved communities.

6 ‘‘(c) USE OF FUNDS.—An eligible entity that receives

7 a grant under this section shall use the grant to—

8 ‘‘(1) train covered individuals within the demonstration site of the eligible entity to use evidence10 based, trauma-informed, and victim-centered techniques and knowledge of crime victims’ rights

12 throughout an investigation into domestic violence,

13 dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including

14 by—

15 ‘‘(A) conducting victim interviews in a

16 manner that—

17 ‘‘(i) elicits valuable information about

18 the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

20 ‘‘(ii) avoids re-traumatization of the

21 victim;

22 ‘‘(B) conducting field investigations that

23 mirror best and promising practices available at

24 the time of the investigation;

1 ‘‘(C) customizing investigative approaches

2 to ensure a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach to the community being served;

4 ‘‘(D) becoming proficient in understanding

5 and responding to complex cases, including

6 cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking—

8 ‘‘(i) facilitated by alcohol or drugs;

9 ‘‘(ii) involving strangulation;

10 ‘‘(iii) committed by a non-stranger;

11 ‘‘(iv) committed by an individual of

12 the same sex as the victim;

13 ‘‘(v) involving a victim with a disability;

15 ‘‘(vi) involving a male victim; or

16 ‘‘(vii) involving a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (commonly referred to

18 as ‘LGBT’) victim;

19 ‘‘(E) developing collaborative relationships

20 between—

21 ‘‘(i) law enforcement officers and

22 other members of the response team; and

23 ‘‘(ii) the community being served; and

24 ‘‘(F) developing an understanding of how

25 to define, identify, and correctly classify a re-

1 port of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

3 ‘‘(2) promote the efforts of the eligible entity to

4 improve the response of covered individuals to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

6 stalking through various communication channels,

7 such as the website of the eligible entity, social

8 media, print materials, and community meetings, in

9 order to ensure that all covered individuals within

10 the demonstration site of the eligible entity are

11 aware of those efforts and included in trainings, to

12 the extent practicable.

13 ‘‘(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TRAININGS ON

14 TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED APPROACHES.—

15 ‘‘(1) IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING

16 TRAININGS.—

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General

18 shall identify trainings for law enforcement offcers, in existence as of the date on which the

20 Attorney General begins to solicit applications

21 for grants under this section, that—

22 ‘‘(i) employ a trauma-informed, victim-centered approach to domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

1 ‘‘(ii) focus on the fundamentals of—

2 ‘‘(I) trauma responses;

3 ‘‘(II) the impact of trauma on

4 victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

6 and

7 ‘‘(III) techniques for effectively

8 investigating domestic violence, dating

9 violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

10 ‘‘(B) SELECTION.—An eligible entity that

11 receives a grant under this section shall select

12 one or more of the approaches employed by a

13 training identified under subparagraph (A) to

14 test within the demonstration site of the eligible

15 entity.

16 ‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall consult with

18 the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime in

19 order to seek input from and cultivate consensus

20 among outside practitioners and other stakeholders

21 through facilitated discussions and focus groups on

22 best practices in the field of trauma-informed, victim-centered care for victims of domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

1 ‘‘(e) EVALUATION.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of

3 Justice, shall require each eligible entity that receives a

4 grant under this section to identify a research partner,

5 preferably a local research partner, to—

6 ‘‘(1) design a system for generating and collecting the appropriate data to facilitate an independent process or impact evaluation of the use of

9 the grant funds;

10 ‘‘(2) periodically conduct an evaluation described in paragraph (1); and

12 ‘‘(3) periodically make publicly available, during

13 the grant period—

14 ‘‘(A) preliminary results of the evaluations

15 conducted under paragraph (2); and

16 ‘‘(B) recommendations for improving the

17 use of the grant funds.

18 ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

19 are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General

20 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027

21 to carry out this section.

Believe the Victim Campus Department of Justice Investigations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Start By Believing Title IX Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Railroading the Innocent: 5,200+ Petition Signers Demand an End to ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 16, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Railroading the Innocent: 5,200+ Petition Signers Demand an End to ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / June 16, 2021 – An online petition is demanding an end to the use of so-called “victim-centered” investigative methods. “Victim-centered” approaches serve to remove the presumption of innocence and tilt the investigation in favor of the complainant (1). Such investigative philosophies are becoming widespread both in the criminal legal system and on college campuses.

The petition highlights the account of Matt Rolph of New York, who was accused of sexual assault by his former long-term girlfriend. Despite the fact that a jury found him innocent of all charges, Hobart College launched a “victim-centered” investigation that ignored inconsistencies among the witness statements. Rolph sued the college, with Judge Elizabeth Wolford eventually ruling in his favor (2).

Inexplicably, Congress has been supportive of such “victim-centered” methods.

Recently the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1620, which endorses “victim-centered” investigations. The bill defines “victim-centered” as asking questions of a complainant “in a manner that is focused on the experience of the reported victim.” (3) This description is an admission of the biased nature of such investigations, because it says nothing about focusing on the experiences of the defendant, or seeking to verify the truth (or falsity) of the allegation.

“Start By Believing” is another “victim-centered” philosophy that has enjoyed generous government support. Over the years, the “Start By Believing” sponsor has received $9.5 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Justice and other sources (4).

“Trauma-informed” is yet another victim-centered ideology that has been derided as “junk science.” (5) Healthcare providers now are being instructed in circular “trauma-informed” thinking. According to a New York State nurse who attended one such training, “Current trauma-informed training teaches that a patient who remembers every detail of an incident, or a patient who remembers little to nothing of an incident, both indicate a trauma has occurred.” (6)

Two years ago the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) successfully organized to defeat ABA Resolution 114. The resolution sought to establish an “affirmative consent” standard on the basis of flawed trauma-informed science (7).

The National Registry of Exonerations, which tracks wrongful convictions of the innocent, found that investigative misconduct contributes to 35% of all wrongful convictions. The investigative misconduct includes concealment of evidence, fabrication of evidence, witness tampering, misconduct in interrogations, and making false statements at trial (8).

The names of the petition signers, now numbering 5,278 persons, are available for inspection (9). The online petition continues to accept additional signers: https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations

Citations:

Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Defense Attorneys Should Tell Police Chiefs to Halt Program that Will Bias Investigations, Worsen Wrongful Convictions, and Target Black Men

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 12, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Defense Attorneys Should Tell Police Chiefs to Halt Program that Will Bias Investigations, Worsen Wrongful Convictions, and Target Black Men

WASHINGTON / February 12, 2021 – SAVE is today calling on defense attorneys to urge the International Association of Chiefs of Police to promptly suspend a proposed program to promote so-called “victim-centered” investigations around the country (1). Such methods serve to negate the presumption of innocence and remove investigative impartiality.

“Victim-centered” approaches, sometimes referred to as “trauma-informed,” are known to bias the conduct of police investigations, which contribute to one-third of all wrongful convictions (2). A recent National Registry of Exonerations report documents five ways in which biased police investigations contribute to wrongful convictions (3):

Concealment of evidence
Fabrication of evidence
Witness tampering
Misconduct in interrogations, or
Making false statements at trial

Such guilt-presuming investigations were found to target Black men. For murder cases, 78% of Black exonerees, compared to 64% of White exonerees, were victims of official misconduct. The misconduct disparity was even greater for drug crimes: 47% among Blacks and 22% for Whites, according to the National Registry of Exonerations (3).

A recent editorial describes victim-centered investigations as a “Pandora’s Box” because they place “emotional sympathy, prejudice, and ideologically driven agendas above cool-headed forensic and legal reasoning.” (4)

On January 28, 2021, CPI sent a letter to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, calling on the group to suspend the project (5). To date, the IACP has not acknowledged or provided a substantive response to the letter.

The inter-related problems of police accountability, wrongful convictions, and racial bias have been repeatedly cited as top legislative priorities for 2021 (6,7,8). Defense attorneys are urged to tell the International Association of Chiefs of Police to suspend its unethical and harmful “victim-centered” program. Contact IACP Executive Director Vincent Talucci at talucci@theiacp.org , or telephone: 703-836-6767.

Citations:

Investigations Start By Believing Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: New Resource for Defense Attorneys: Mounting an Effective Defense in Proceedings Tainted by ‘Victim-Centered’ Philosophy

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 3, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Resource for Defense Attorneys: Mounting an Effective Defense in Proceedings Tainted by ‘Victim-Centered’ Philosophy

WASHINGTON / February 3, 2021 – A new report released today addresses the growing influence of guilt-presuming “victim-centered” concepts in criminal proceedings. Titled, “Defending Against ‘Victim-Centered’ Proceedings: Guide for Criminal Defense Attorneys,” the report features strategies and verbatim statements to counter bias during each stage of the legal process:

Voir Dire
Opening Statement
Cross Examination: Complainant
Cross Examination: Investigator
Cross Examination: Prosecution Expert Witness
Closing Argument

“Victim-centered” approaches, also known as “trauma-informed” or “Start By Believing,” are gaining wider acceptance among police officers, prosecutors, and even judges in sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse cases:

Investigative bias by police officers has been linked to 35% of all wrongful convictions (1). But the International Association of Chiefs of Police makes the claim that “Victim-centered, trauma-informed approaches to crime can support victim recovery and engagement with the criminal justice system.” (2)

Prosecutors increasingly are invoking victim-centered theories. One of the most common theories is the complainant experienced “tonic immobility,” resulting in the person being unable to resist an impending assault. This claim has been refuted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (3).

Judges are being urged to embrace victim-centered philosophy, as well. The website of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, for example, reveals, “The NCJFCJ’s work with courts is informed by a focus on trauma using a universal precautions approach that assumes children and families involved in the court system have experienced some form of trauma that may be mitigated through court-based interventions.” (4) Policies that “assume” a party has been traumatized serve to vitiate the presumption of innocence and harm judicial impartiality.

Many authorities have voiced criticism of “victim-centered” and “trauma-informed” methods. Defense attorney Scott Greenfield ironically reasons, “The ‘trauma informed’ approach is not to ask, not to question, but to believe.…Who is the victim would seem to be a critical question, but ‘trauma informed’ policing says it’s the woman and should it be the falsely accused man, too bad, so sad. Take a bullet for the cause, guy.” (5)

Victim-centered methods remove a defendant’s due process right to a fair investigation and adjudication. Defense attorneys making discovery requests of police, prosecutors, and judges are urged to ask if they have received “victim-centered” training in order to assess the potential for actual bias and/or the need for recusal.

The new report, developed by SAVE, is available online: https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Defending-Against-Victim-Centered-Proceedings.pdf

Links:

Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Start By Believing Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

One-Third of Wrongful Convictions Involve Police Manipulation of Evidence

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 21, 2021

One-Third of Wrongful Convictions Involve Police Manipulation of Evidence. With ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations, It May Get Worse.

Center for Prosecutor Integrity

January 21, 2021

The National Registry of Exonerations has catalogued every exoneration in the United States since 1989. Recently the NRE published a report on the long-standing problem of police misconduct. Titled, “Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent,” the document is based on the review of 2,400 exonerations (1). Overall, the analysis found that 35% of the cases involved police officer misconduct and 30% implicated prosecutorial misconduct.

The document reveals that police actions that lead to a conviction of an innocent person typically involve the manipulation of evidence in order to increase the likelihood of a conviction. The manipulation of evidence by police officers falls into five categories (some cases fell into more than one category):

Witness Tampering — 13% of wrongful convictions

Procuring false testimony — Inducing a civilian witness to testify to facts the officer knows the witness did not perceive (3% of wrongful convictions)
Tainted identifications – Deliberately inducing a witness to identify a suspect during a lineup, whether the witness recognizes that suspect or not (7% of wrongful convictions)
Improper questioning of a child victim – Repeated, insistent, and suggestive questioning of a child, precluding the child from denying that he or she was a victim of sex abuse (3% of wrongful convictions)

Misconduct in Interrogations – 7% of wrongful convictions

Actual or threatened violence
Sham plea bargaining and other lies about the law
Threats to relatives and other third parties

Fabricating Evidence – 10% of wrongful convictions

Fake crimes – Making false claims as ordinary lay witnesses, saying the defendant committed a crime that never happened, often involving the planting of contraband (5% of wrongful convictions)
Forensic fraud – Presenting false evidence against the defendant, concealing/distorting true evidence that might have cleared them, or planting false evidence (3% of wrongful convictions)
Fabricated confessions – Making up confessions by the defendants that in fact did not occur (2% of wrongful convictions)

Concealing Exculpatory Evidence – 7% of wrongful convictions

Impeachment of prosecution witnesses:
- Incentives provided to testify
- Inconsistent statements
- Criminal records and histories of dishonesty
Substantive evidence of innocence:
- Forensic tests
- Alternative suspects
- Evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime

Perjury at Trial – 13% of wrongful convictions

False statements about the conduct of investigations
False statements about witness statements

Overall, there were only small differences in percentages of official misconduct for White versus Black exonerees. But for murder cases, 78% of Black exonerees, compared to 64% of White exonerees, experienced official misconduct. The misconduct disparity was even greater for drug crimes: 47% among Blacks and 22% for Whites.

As noted above, misconduct by police officers contributed to 35% of the 2,400 wrongful convictions. The NRE report reveals that virtually all of the cases consisted of actions designed to manipulate the evidence to increase the likelihood of a conviction. A majority of the cases involved the direct manipulation of evidence – fabricating and concealing evidence, and making false statements at trial. The remaining minority of cases involved the indirect manipulation of evidence by means of witness tampering and misconduct in interrogations.

What are prospects for the future?

In recent years, activists have been promoting the use of so-called “victim-centered” approaches, both in the criminal justice system and on college campuses. A recent announcement from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, for example, makes the claim that “victim-centered” approaches “can support victim recovery and engagement with the criminal justice system” and “promote enhanced victim and community safety while helping law enforcement solve and prevent crime.” (2)

Despite the feel-good aura of this gauzy description, the reality of “victim-centered” approaches is that they compromise investigative impartiality, bias evidence against the defendant, and predispose to wrongful convictions. Victim-centered methods (3):

Presume the guilt of the defendant and refer to the complainant as a “victim”
Avoid asking probing or detailed questions in order to not “retraumatize the victim.”
Reflexively attribute inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements to life-threatening trauma.
“Cherry-pick” the evidence in order to increase the likelihood of a finding of guilt.
Write the investigative report in a way to portray the sexual contact as non-consensual.

One Department of Justice report, “Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence,” went so far as to urge victim-centered investigations to hand “control of the process back to the victim” (p. 9) and even allow the complainant “to request certain investigative steps not be conducted” (p. 13). (4) The ill-considered report was later removed without explanation or notice. The original DOJ press release with the defunct link can still be seen online (5).

If we want to curb the police manipulation of evidence and ensuing wrongful convictions, we need to discourage the use of “victim-centered” approaches, and work to restore police investigations that are impartial, balanced, and fair (6).

Citations:

Believe the Victim Campus Title IX Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Campus Administrators Need to Restore Impartial Investigations, or Face a Surge in Costly Lawsuits

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 11, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Campus Administrators Need to Restore Impartial Investigations, or Face a Surge in Costly Lawsuits

WASHINGTON / August 11, 2020 – SAVE has published an analysis that documents a dramatic increase in judicial decisions against universities involving biased investigations of sexual assault allegations. In 2014-2016, the average number of lawsuits alleging faulty campus investigations averaged three decisions per year. In 2020, that number is projected to reach 30 judicial decisions against colleges and universities, a 10-fold increase in the span of a few years.

Such investigations go by a variety of names: “trauma-informed,” “Start By Believing,” and “victim-centered.” These investigative approaches discount the presumption of innocence and begin with the assumption that the complainant is being fully truthful. As a result, exculpatory evidence is often discounted or ignored.

Five examples illustrate the due process deficiencies that judges considered in the university lawsuits:

In Neal v. Colorado State University-Pueblo, the university opened an investigation into a male student after a classmate saw a hickey on that student’s girlfriend’s neck during class. The girlfriend swore to the university the sex was consensual, but the university decided to “investigate” anyway. The university gave the male student less than 24-hour notice to the hearing and refused to give him a copy of the investigative report.
In Doe v. Regents of University of California, a female student accused a male student of sexual assault without providing any witnesses or evidence. Without any investigation, the university put the male student on interim suspension and then did not allow him access to the investigative report once one was created.
In Doe v. Purdue University, the university withheld the investigative report, which included a made-up “confession” by the accused student.
In Doe v. Brandeis University, the institution refused to interview the accused student’s witnesses, refused to inform him of what he was being investigated for, and refused to allow him to review the investigative report.
In Doe v. Syracuse University, the accused student alleged that the university trained its investigators that “perpetrators of sexual assault are supposedly rational actors who plan, practice, and become habitual rapists and sexual predators… [and that] inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account [is] evidence that her testimony is truthful, because of alleged trauma.”

On May 6, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new regulation that would require campus investigations to be impartial and free of bias. In response, the State of New York filed a lawsuit requesting a Preliminary Injunction against the Title IX regulation (1). SAVE then filed an Amicus Brief highlighting the fact that, “The Regulations require that any coordinator, investigator, decision-maker, or any person designated to facilitate an informal resolution process be free from conflict of interest or bias.” (2) The SAVE Brief urged the Court to reject the New York complaint.

This past Sunday, Judge John Koeltl issued a ruling denying the State of New York request (3). In the opinion, the judge favorably quoted a key provision from the new regulation:

During an investigation of a formal complaint, the school must “[p]rovide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint, including the evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely in reaching a determination regarding responsibility and inculpatory or exculpatory evidence whether obtained from a party or other source, so that each party can meaningfully respond.” (page 12)

The new Title IX regulation is slated to take effect this coming Friday, August 14 (4). SAVE urges campus administrators to carefully review investigative policies and procedures to assure compliance with the new regulation.

The SAVE analysis, “University Administrators Need to Assure Impartial and Fair Investigations, or Face Legal Consequences,” is available online (5).

Links:

Sexual Assault Start By Believing Victim-Centered Investigations

Too Little, Too Late: Review of EVAWI’s Updated Report on ‘Effective Report Writing’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 13, 2020

Center for Prosecutor Integrity

In 2006, End Violence Against Women, Inc. (EVAWI) published a report titled, “Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex.” This report was deeply concerning, given its specific guidance that investigators begin their probe with an “initial presumption” of guilt for the prime suspect. Noting numerous other concerns with this report, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity called on the Department of Justice to stop funding this project, which cost taxpayers over $8.9 million. [1]

In response, EVAWI updated their report, published under the same title. [2] This commentary reviews EVAWI’s 2019 version.

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity believes the need for a therapist to “believe the victim” is appropriate. But for an investigator or detective, “start by believing” is not appropriate because it undermines due process and violates numerous ethical codes of conduct.

Unfortunately, the central “believe the victim” concepts continue to be evidenced throughout the revised EVAWI report. The manual continues to be expressly designed to train investigators to prepare an investigative report that will “successfully support the prosecution of sexual assault cases” and to “record suspect statements, especially those that corroborate the victims account.” Investigators are also trained to “document suspect statements, especially those that corroborate the victim’s account or provide an implausible or even absurd version of reality. “ [2]

As does the original version, Effective Report Writing meticulously avoids the use of the neutral words “complainant” or “accuser,” and instead refers to complainants as “victims”. In a landmark case involving Brandeis University, District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote it is presumptuous to assume someone is a victim in the investigative context because “[w]hether someone is a “victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” [3]

Responding to criticisms by 300 legal professionals and scholars, EVAWI’s revised report avoids certain prejudicial statements from its earlier report, e.g., instructing investigators to “make sure” the incident does “not look like a consensual sexual experience” by making the complainant “appear more innocent”. [3] No longer does the report state should there be inconsistencies in witness or defendant statements, investigators should highlight only those that “corroborate the victim’s statement.” [4]

In a related development, last year Drs. Susan Brandon and Sujeeta Bhatt evaluated a separate EVAWI report titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims.” [5] Noting numerous scientific flaws, Brandon and Bhatt published a detailed critique of EVAWI’s report.[6] In response, EVAWI made numerous revisions to their report, which Dr. Brandon noted in a recent Commentary.[7]

Both from Dr. Brandon’s recent Commentary and this one, it appears that EVAWI is reluctantly acknowledging there are risks in training investigators to be biased in favor of the identified victim. It’s a start, but 14 years after the original publication of its flawed report, EVAWI still has a long way to go to move from its advocacy of guilt-presuming investigations to embracing thorough and unbiased investigations.[8]

Links:

[1] https://www.evawintl.org/grants.aspx

[2]https://www.evawintl.org/library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=43.

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/VCI-Open-Letter-7.20.18.pdf

[4] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/SAVE-Believe-the-Victim.pdf

[5] https://www.evawintl.org/Library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=842

[6] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx

[7] http://www.saveservices.org/2020/03/commentary-on-evawis-revised-report-on-the-neurobiology-of-trauma/

[8] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/doj-complaint/

Investigations Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations Violence Against Women Act

VAWA Fresh Start: ‘Trauma-Informed’ Provisions in VAWA are Junk Science

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 29, 2019

The House version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization – H.R. 1585 – features a Demonstration Program on Trauma-Informed Training for Law Enforcement. Section 206 states:

The Attorney General shall award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising policies and practices to incorporate trauma-informed techniques.

“Trauma-informed” theorizes that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are so traumatized by the experience that they are unable to recall key details of the incident, and may offer contradictory accounts.

Despite its intuitive appeal, scientific research reaches a very different conclusion. According to neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt and Susan Brandon:[1]

The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.

Now, a second article has come out that highlights the dubious science behind trauma-informed. The article is written by Iowa State University researchers Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, who are leading an international research team to develop interview methods for the FBI and CIA to reduce false confessions. The article summary emphasizes:[2]

Some of the training programs Lyles and Meissner examined suggest that investigators can determine the veracity of a Title IX complaint by watching the behavior of the respondent during the interview. The researchers say there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of such an approach. They also found no scientific evidence that victims and perpetrators have different neurobiological responses to the same event, as some programs claimed. [emphasis added]

Rather than relying on hocus-pocus notions of “trauma-informed,” Meissner urges:

By asking open-ended questions, investigators avoid inserting any bias. If they have information from social media, video surveillance and witnesses, they can use that evidence strategically to assess credibility of the subject and verify the information they have collected.

For years, the Violence Against Women Act has been based on unproven criminal justice theories and gender ideology. So it’s no surprise there is no evidence of VAWA’s effectiveness. This time, we have a historic opportunity to take a Fresh Start. We need to assure that VAWA respects Constitutional principles, avoids bias, and is based on solid science.

Citations:

[1] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx

[2] Training for Title IX Investigators Lacks Tested, Effective Techniques. Science News. October 28, 2019. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191028093945.htm

Victim-Centered Investigations

Don’t let the Facebook censors ‘disapprove’ our campaign for justice

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 17, 2019

One of the ways we promote our campaign to end “victim-centered” investigations is to place Facebook ads. We’ve been doing this since March when we first started the Change.org petition to end these biased methods. You can see the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations

Four days ago, Facebook approved an ad promoting this petition. There was no nudity, obscenity, or vulgarity. Simply a plea for justice. Since Monday, we spent $357.88 to promote the ad to a broad audience.

But this morning, we had a RUDE AWAKENING — Facebook send us an email saying they did a “closer review,” and decided the ad “doesn’t comply with our Advertising Policies.” Which specific “Advertising Policies,” they didn’t say. You can see the actual email, below.

This was pretty shocking, to say the least!

SO PLEASE SHARE THIS PETITION ON YOUR FACEBOOK AND TWITTER PAGES, and sign our petition: https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations

We’re not going to let the Facebook censors stop our campaign to end “victim-centered” investigations!

+++++++++++++++++

Email received from advertise-noreply@support.facebook.com on May 17, 2019 at 5:34 am ET:

Start By Believing Victim-Centered Investigations

‘Start By Believing:’ Good for Counselors and Therapists, Bad for Detectives and Investigators

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 9, 2019

Start By Believing is an investigative philosophy that has received millions of dollars in funding from the U.S. Department of Justice over the years.[1] Start by Believing describes itself as a “global campaign transforming the way we respond to sexual assault.”[2] Its basic message is simple: Persons who come forward to report their assault should be treated with courtesy and their complaint taken seriously. And no one would disagree with that admonition.

But Start By Believing also seeks to fundamentally change the way investigators and detectives conduct their investigations. Ethical codes require investigators to approach their work with impartiality, honesty, and fairness. For example, the code of the International Association of Chiefs of Police states, “The law enforcement officer shall be concerned equally in the prosecution of the wrong-doer and the defense of the innocent. He shall ascertain what constitutes evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice.”[3] [emphasis added]

This article reviews three Start By Believing documents and highlights selected factual and logical flaws.

1. The foundational report of Start By Believing is titled, “Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex.” Let’s consider the wording of the title: “Using the language of non-consensual sex.” This phrase sends an unmistakable message that the investigator should slant his or her investigative conclusions in order to conform to that ideological imperative.

Accordingly, investigators are supposed to begin with an “initial presumption” of guilt,[4] a step that research has shown to contribute to tunnel vision, faulty investigative conclusions, and wrongful convictions.[5] Investigators are then expected to focus on witness statements that “corroborate the victim’s account” — this phrase is repeated multiple times throughout the Effective Report Writing document.

If the document’s intent still is not crystal-clear, the manual tells investigators to make sure the incident does not “look like a consensual sexual experience” (pages 15-16) by making the complainant “appear more innocent” (page 13). So if it turns out it was the complainant who initiated the sexual encounter, that inconvenient fact might be omitted from the final report.

2. A second report from Start By Believing is titled “False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate Non-Stranger Sexual Assault.” Just like the “Effective Report Writing” manual, this document’s title betrays its real purpose, which appears to be to:

Dismiss any real possibility that the allegation may be false, and
“Successfully” prosecute sexual assault — “successfully,” of course, is understood to mean a conviction is reached.

In allegations of non-stranger sexual assault, the central issue, in most cases, is whether the sexual encounter was consensual or not. Amazingly, the issue of how to determine the consent of parties to engage in sex is not addressed. Upon reflection, this is not surprising when we consider the title of the first publication, “Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex.” If non-consensual sex is a predetermined conclusion, obviously there is no need to address the issue in a publication on “False Reports.”

“Confirmation bias” refers to the tendency of investigators to take mental short-cuts and seek out information that confirms their initial “hunch” that a certain suspect is indeed the culprit.[6] The “False Reports” document does concede that investigator confirmation bias can be a problem. But then the document turns truth on its head, claiming that the “reality” of “confirmation bias” is the implicit bias of criminal justice personnel against victims of sexual assault. This surprising conclusion is not backed up not any government survey or research study published in a peer-reviewed journal. Rather, it comes from an opinion piece written by a police captain from West Hartford, Connecticut and published in the Police Chief Magazine.[7]

3. The report, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims“ endorses the claim from “trauma-informed” advocates that sexual assault claimants may give inconsistent accounts of the incident because of faulty cognitive encoding caused by the “trauma” of the incident (page 31). [8] But neurobiology experts have disputed that claim. For example, Susan E. Brandon, PhD and Sujeeta Bhatt, PhD have written:

“Current data do not support the notion that trauma memories are different from other autobiographical memories – in fact, research shows that trauma and non-trauma memories do not differ, at least in healthy populations…There is some evidence that fear memories are [actually] richer in sensory details.”[9]

The frosting on the cake? All of the Start By Believing documents refer to “victims,” never “accusers” or “complainants.” George Orwell would be impressed.

It is appropriate for counselors and mental health professionals to use Start By Believing methodologies. But detectives and investigators are not therapists; their job is to uncover the truth of the allegation in an impartial and objective manner.

Citations:

[1] https://www.evawintl.org/grants.aspx

[2] https://www.startbybelieving.org/home/

[3] http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3352

[4] https://www.startbybelieving.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Military-Action-Kit.pdf

[5] https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/policy_research/pdf/Macfarlane_Wrongful-Convictions.pdf

[6] https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1406&context=dissertations

[7] http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/implicit-bias-and-law-enforcement/

[8] https://www.evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=842

[9] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/AIR-FORCE-FETI-STUDY.pdf , Exhibit C