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