WendyMcElroy.com

Critiques of such methods often focus either on its failure to provide due process for the accused or flaws in the psychological and psychiatric theories on which it is based. Others have examined ways in which it leads to bias in the collection of evidence, the extent to which public awareness of such theories has formed the way those claiming to have been assaulted interpret their past and articulate their claims and factors motivating people to assume that those accused of sexual assault must be guilty.

Another argument contrasts the first origins of “victim centered” and “trauma informed” methods as “an appropriate and useful interview method meant to help counselors and law enforcement officials minimize victim re-traumatization and encourage reporting of sex offenses” and the subsequent bastardization of such principles. Some legal organizations active work out to combine positive elements of these methods with the presumption of innocence for the accused, an approach endorsed by the Title IX Administrators in its call “to incorporate trauma-informed investigation and interviewing methods into its best practices provided that they do not compromise the ability to obtain credible, relevant evidence.”

Relatively little attention, however, has been given to the broader adverse impact distorted forms of victim centered” and “trauma informed” victim centered” and “trauma informed” methods can have on the criminal justice system.

The first of these is the fact that all the arguments made for assuming the truthfulness of those making allegations of sexual assault would logically apply to all crimes that traumatize victims. End Violence Against Women International—a strong advocate of “victim centered” and “trauma informed” investigations—inadvertently admitted as much when it argued that there is no “scientific basis for the belief...that the traumatic stressor of being sexually assaulted impacts the brain any differently than other traumatic events.” Extending the investigative methods in question to all traumatic crimes would result in much of the criminal justice system operating on a presumption of guilt.

At the same time, ironically, the broad use of such methods would quite literally make it easier to get away with murder. If in dealing with killers claiming self defense detectives assumed that “inability to recall crucial parts of an alleged assault [that necessitated defensive killing], a changing story” should not be considered factors that “raise questions or doubt about a claim,” that since “these behaviors can be considered evidence that an assault occurred” they must necessarily constitute corroboration of the killer’s claims. Whether or not those claiming self defense are likely to be lying or those alleging rape are likely to be telling the truth is of limited value for two reasons. The first is that detectives must objectively examine the facts of each particular case, to be unprejudiced by the statistically likelihood that a person making a particular type of claim will be honest or dishonest. The second is that while those claiming self-defense only need to use the pertinent theories of mental health to create reasonable doubt as to whether they committed murder, those using them to support the veracity of individuals making rape allegations must use them to overcome reasonable doubt about whether a rape took place.

Yet another problem is the squandering of resources. Police officers, district attorneys and judges have limited time, funds, etc. Biased investigations and prosecutions do not just result in the conviction of the innocent. They also detract from the ability of the police to track down real criminals. Time and effort spent convicting the innocent is time wasted, as is that spent on cases in which exonerating evidence is discovered later than it would have been by an unbiased investigation.

Those promoting the now common forms of “victim centered” and “trauma informed” investigative methods are not only failing to be objective in their assessment of rape allegations. They are also failing to take an objective look at the broader implications of their own theories. And this is because they post emotional sympathy, prejudice and ideologically driven agendas above of cool headed forensic and legal reasoning.