A thought on dealing with cases like Cosby

[Bronzeage]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

The basic problem with this idea is that the accused can claim they were denied "due process" if evidence is collected for a prosecution at some undetermined future date. The accusation is recorded, but the accused has no reason to preserved his/her own alibi or other records. If I had to account for my movements for the past six weeks, I could probably manage it. If I had to state where I was on this day 10 years ago, that would be another matter. This is why we have a statute of limitations for many crimes.

The real solution to this problem is to have prosecutors who take this kind of charge seriously, so a victim could have some faith in the system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem here is that most of this stuff is he-said-she-said and there will be people who are simply upset with the powerful person. Despite your fantasy that she never lies about rape the data says otherwise--an allegation without evidence backing it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when you have someone who is likely to be a target of false allegations.

The reality is that those who are actually guilty do not do it only once, though, and thus what I propose would make them much more likely to be caught (and thus less likely to misbehave in the first place.)

What the fuck does that have to do with my post?

I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive whenever I out-reason you which is any time I respond to you.

Pretending you don't think she should always be believed doesn't make it not obvious that's your position. In the real world you have to strike a balance between the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused.

Exactly what is tha magic number of sexual assaults the rich and/or famous can get by with before you consider it important enough to actually investigate an alleged assault? I’m interested in understanding how many presumably female victims are worth a potential slight to some rich man’s reputation? Does it matter if the victims are make? What if they are children? Do you have a cutoff age at which point you might think that it is sufficiently outrageous to actually investigate? Does it matter if the accused rapist is black, if the victims are white?

I didn't say one should never investigate--this proposal was intended to help with the ones that don't want to come forward. And you're ignoring the fact that he-said-she-said isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You want your allegation taken seriously, go to the police at once while there still is evidence to be gathered.

I wonder if you can explain to me, as you might explain to your significant other, your mother, your sister, why a rich famous man’s reputation is more important than getting justice for the very first victim to come forward.

And how about the first extortionist to come forward?

FWIW, lettres des cachet have been out of vogue for a couple of centuries.

But protecting sufficiently wealthy sexual assailants never goes out of fashion.

I'm not about protecting the guilty. I'm about making sure they're actually guilty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for the rest of you ‘men’ responding to this: so glad to see that you have no problem with rich and famous men raping women, up to a certain undefined number, at which point you might consider it important enough to expect the police to do their job.

I wonder if you can explain to me, as you might explain to your significant other, your mother, your sister, why a rich famous man’s reputation is more important than getting justice for the very first victim to come forward.

FWIW, lettres des cachet have been out of vogue for a couple of centuries.

But protecting sufficiently wealthy sexual assailants never goes out of fashion.

That's what struck me about the proposal in the OP. People could report a sexual assault but if they were afraid of retaliation, of losing their jobs or being labeled a troublemaker or a slut, then the report would be hidden away until evidence of other crimes was collected, the amount necessary being determined by the person who recorded the initial report.

In what way would this proposal have stopped Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, or Harvey Weinstein early on in their sexual predations? Or is stopping serial sexual predators not the point?

The whole point of it is the serial predators in positions of power.

The reality is that people are afraid to speak up in such a situation. Thus the situations tend to continue until someone is no longer in a position to fear retaliation and bold enough to say something, at which point you get a bunch of metoo's.

My approach means that people can speak up en masse without having to find the other victims and convince them to come forward. It's all about making it easier to speak up. I can't understand why your side doesn't like it--are you perhaps letting perfect be the enemy of good?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, if these reports are sealed and kept by local police, why would anyone expect these local police spread around the locality, state or country to necessarily check their cache of reports whenever someone makes an open allegation?

BTW, I don't see this proposal helping only rich predators, but all sexual predators who have vulnerable victims who need to keep the jobs or fear retaliation/deportation.

Agreed. The rich and powerful are the primary ones in such a position but you certainly could see the same thing say with illegals.

What I find fascinating is that apparently there is this widespread belief of massive amounts of false reports. Bill Cosby had 60 accusers. Suppose 90% of them made false claims. That means 6 of them are telling the truth. In fact, if 98% were making false claims, that means 1 was telling the truth.

Simply a mass of accusers isn't enough. You could probably find a hundred Republican women that would say Obama raped them.

Seems to me that the only way this proposal makes sense is if one assumes an incredibly high rate of false claims. So, on what basis do people who think this is a good idea feel that women (or men) are incredibly likely to file a false claim?

No. The point is people are afraid to come forward because one claim very well might be false. Most of the time these things are kept quiet by the cops because they know it's often about revenge rather than rape. Get a bunch of independent accusers at once and it's almost certainly not false.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren's idea is a good one

Can you or Loren point to any cases where"bandwagon" false claims arose or were a problem? And why would anyone expect police in different jurisdictions to keep vigilance and correlate cases once someone was publicly accussed?

To date, the usual rape apologists "civil libertarians" have used handwaving to promote this proposal.

A bandwagon of false claims isn't normally a problem. The problem is when you're faced with one allegation it's very hard to know true from false. I'm suggesting a way to make it easier to get a bandwagon of true claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How will victims #3-15 find out about victims #1 and #2 if their reports were filed away and not acted on by law enforcement?

Apparently you didn't read it. The reports are filed away but the index isn't. When there are enough reports that the victims feel comfortable coming forward en masse the computer automatically alerts the cops.

If Loren's proposal is just a way for authorities to wait until they have enough evidence to prosecute, how is it different from what we have in place already?

The point is to make it easier to come forward en masse. It's not meant to replace any existing approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is different because the parameters are set by the victims, giving them encourement to come forward. And I see no reason why a victim couldn't set their number at zero, meaning their report would be considered by the police immediately.

There would be no reason for zero--use the existing system in that case. It's simply a rape report.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem with this idea is that the accused can claim they were denied "due process" if evidence is collected for a prosecution at some undetermined future date. The accusation is recorded, but the accused has no reason to preserved his/her own alibi or other records. If I had to account for my movements for the past six weeks, I could probably manage it. If I had to state where I was on this day 10 years ago, that would be another matter. This is why we have a statute of limitations for many crimes.

I am not intending to replace the statue of limitations. As you say, there's a very good reason for it.

The real solution to this problem is to have prosecutors who take this kind of charge seriously, so a victim could have some faith in the system.

And you have some evidence they don't take them seriously now? (Allegations might be mistaken {sober person doesn't believe the decisions they made while drunk}, allegations might be false. Also, allegations might contain too many errors to bring to trial.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The real solution to this problem is to have prosecutors who take this kind of charge seriously, so a victim could have some faith in the system.

I am not seeing any reason why you can't do both.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In other words, you don't know that false claims are a problem in these situations.

I can't name which ones or how many are false claims. I am reasonably certain that false claims do happen now and then. Why wouldn't they?

The only way they all come forward at the same time is if anallegation is made public, otherwise there is motivation for these people to come forward. So, keeping ithem sealed defeats the very purpose you claim.

They come public when X number of them are filed, and X is set by the complainants themselves. Did you not read that part? And there is nothing being added here to stop them from not sealing their record, and asking the police to act on it immediately.

A better idea is to have the police take these claims seriously and investigate them instead of taking them lightly.

Police should be doing that anyway. That is not mutually exclusive from this at all.

This does more to protect an alleged rapist than to convict one, because those who would be encouraged by a public report that might have occurred will not come out.

This assumes that a first public report will happen. Are you so confident that it always will? That it will happen fairly quickly? How many Bill Cosbys do you think are out there who never get caught because nobody ever makes that first public complaint against them to the police? This is an attempt to break down that barrier. It allows people to come forward en masse, with no individual having to be that first public report on their own.

Had this sort of system been in place, perhaps the first 2 or 3 would have registered a sealed complaint even though they dared not come forward directly, and then these complaints may have been unsealed and gone public rather quickly (as there were 3 of them already not just 1), and maybe this could have been stopped at the 3rd victim instead of the.... how many were there alleged against Cosby? 60 or something? That's a lot of victims potentially saved.

 

[Underseer]

Rightists*: There's no such thing as rape! That's just some shit women make up to persecute men with their female privilege!
Also rightists: Black people are rapists! We have to build a wall to protect us from them thar Mexican rapists! I haven't fucked my sister in like a whole week!

* Includes conservatives and libertarians, who just happen to use the same arguments to take the same positions on the same issues.

 

[laughing dog]

Simply a mass of accusers isn't enough. You could probably find a hundred Republican women that would say Obama raped them.

Interestingly, none have come forward, so I say bs to that.

No. The point is people are afraid to come forward because one claim very well might be false. Most of the time these things are kept quiet by the cops because they know it's often about revenge rather than rape. Get a bunch of independent accusers at once and it's almost certainly not false.

Thank you for admitting the problem is with the police.

 

[Bronzeage]

The basic problem with this idea is that the accused can claim they were denied "due process" if evidence is collected for a prosecution at some undetermined future date. The accusation is recorded, but the accused has no reason to preserved his/her own alibi or other records. If I had to account for my movements for the past six weeks, I could probably manage it. If I had to state where I was on this day 10 years ago, that would be another matter. This is why we have a statute of limitations for many crimes.

I am not intending to replace the statue of limitations. As you say, there's a very good reason for it.

The real solution to this problem is to have prosecutors who take this kind of charge seriously, so a victim could have some faith in the system.

And you have some evidence they don't take them seriously now? (Allegations might be mistaken {sober person doesn't believe the decisions they made while drunk}, allegations might be false. Also, allegations might contain too many errors to bring to trial.)

Let's see how this works in practice. When a person goes to the police and says "Bilbo Celebrity raped me," the police are going to start with the standard questions of "when and where." If the story appears plausible(which is different from possible or probable) they go to Bilbo and ask him where he was at the specified time. Or do they?

What's the line where an investigation is started, or a secret file is started?

 

[laughing dog]

I can't name which ones or how many are false claims. I am reasonably certain that false claims do happen now and then. Why wouldn't they?

Neither you nor LP can point to actual false claims in these situations, but these must somehow be a problem because we believe they must come up. That is YEC talk.

They come public when X number of them are filed, and X is set by the complainants themselves. Did you not read that part?

They become public when X are filed and noticed by the police. No one has addressed how X will be monitored across jurisdictions. And the police in many areas are a real problem with their nonchalant to active discouragement of reports.

And there is nothing being added here to stop them from not sealing their record, and asking the police to act on it immediately.

Except giving them an official way of not going public.

Police should be doing that anyway. That is not mutually exclusive from this at all.

But LP and other rape apologists argue that the police are doing their job when they bully women to recant true allegations or fail to act vigorously in their investigations. This proposal gives those police even less incentive, since they now have an official out for doing their investigations - just convince the victim to make a sealed complaint with X = 20.

This assumes that a first public report will happen. Are you so confident that it always will?

It iwll happen more frequently and quickly without the sealed option.

 

[Arctish]

Let's see how this works in practice. When a person goes to the police and says "Bilbo Celebrity raped me," the police are going to start with the standard questions of "when and where." If the story appears plausible(which is different from possible or probable) they go to Bilbo and ask him where he was at the specified time. Or do they?

What's the line where an investigation is started, or a secret file is started?

And let's see what happens if we follow Loren's suggestion that the person reporting a rape gets to decide how many other potential rape victims have to come forward before a prosecution becomes possible.

Potential Victim 1 wants her report sealed until there's at least 3 other reports. Police and prosecutors won't advance the case even if there's enough evidence to charge the suspect.

Potential Victim 2 comes forward a few months later. She wants to have her report sealed until there's at least one other report. Authorities can't tie her report to Potential Victim 1's because 1's report is still sealed, so her case goes nowhere.

Potential Victim 3 comes forward a few years later and wants her case brought to trial ASAP. Her case and PV2's move forward without 1's, even though PV1's report would make the case stronger. PV1 might have the best, clearest evidence backing her claim but it's of no use whatsoever because it's still sealed away somewhere.

In what way would this stop a serial sexual offender sooner than having each accusation brought to trial as soon as sufficient evidence to support the allegation is found?

Loren has explained the reason he's making this proposal: "The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons."

Loren thinks having a large number of potential victims coming forward in a short amount of time is a problem because some of them might be 'jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons'. He says there's no way to be sure if the problem is real, as though normal police department investigations of allegations won't happen if there's more than 2 or 3 victims reporting sexual assaults at the same time.

Consider Larry Nasser's accusers. Only seven had been identified when he took a plea deal and agreed to having his victims testify in court, but scores more came forward once they knew their reports would be taken seriously. Is that a problem? Is it such a problem that law enforcement should delay bringing a case to trial until there's additional known victims?

 

[Toni]

Let's see how this works in practice. When a person goes to the police and says "Bilbo Celebrity raped me," the police are going to start with the standard questions of "when and where." If the story appears plausible(which is different from possible or probable) they go to Bilbo and ask him where he was at the specified time. Or do they?

What's the line where an investigation is started, or a secret file is started?

And let's see what happens if we follow Loren's suggestion that the person reporting a rape gets to decide how many other potential rape victims have to come forward before a prosecution becomes possible.

Potential Victim 1 wants her report sealed until there's at least 3 other reports. Police and prosecutors won't advance the case even if there's enough evidence to charge the suspect.

Potential Victim 2 comes forward a few months later. She wants to have her report sealed until there's at least one other report. Authorities can't tie her report to Potential Victim 1's because 1's report is still sealed, so her case goes nowhere.

Potential Victim 3 comes forward a few years later and wants her case brought to trial ASAP. Her case and PV2's move forward without 1's, even though PV1's report would make the case stronger. PV1 might have the best, clearest evidence backing her claim but it's of no use whatsoever because it's still sealed away somewhere.

In what way would this stop a serial sexual offender sooner than having each accusation brought to trial as soon as sufficient evidence to support the allegation is found?

Loren has explained the reason he's making this proposal: "The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons."

Loren thinks having a large number of potential victims coming forward in a short amount of time is a problem because some of them might be 'jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons'. He says there's no way to be sure if the problem is real, as though normal police department investigations of allegations won't happen if there's more than 2 or 3 victims reporting sexual assaults at the same time.

Consider Larry Nasser's accusers. Only seven had been identified when he took a plea deal and agreed to having his victims testify in court, but scores more came forward once they knew their reports would be taken seriously. Is that a problem? Is it such a problem that law enforcement should delay bringing a case to trial until there's additional known victims?

The real ‘problem’ with Loren's scenario is that Loen lacks the courage or honesty to acknowledge that he sees the potential for false accusations rather than the Crome of rape. Rape is not a ‘problem:’ it is a crime. And indeed, it is personal.

 

[arkirk]

The problem here is that most of this stuff is he-said-she-said and there will be people who are simply upset with the powerful person. Despite your fantasy that she never lies about rape the data says otherwise--an allegation without evidence backing it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when you have someone who is likely to be a target of false allegations.

The reality is that those who are actually guilty do not do it only once, though, and thus what I propose would make them much more likely to be caught (and thus less likely to misbehave in the first place.)

What the fuck does that have to do with my post?

I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive whenever I out-reason you which is any time I respond to you.

Exactly what is tha magic number of sexual assaults the rich and/or famous can get by with before you consider it important enough to actually investigate an alleged assault? I’m interested in understanding how many presumably female victims are worth a potential slight to some rich man’s reputation? Does it matter if the victims are make? What if they are children? Do you have a cutoff age at which point you might think that it is sufficiently outrageous to actually investigate? Does it matter if the accused rapist is black, if the victims are white?



As for the rest of you ‘men’ responding to this: so glad to see that you have no problem with rich and famous men raping women, up to a certain undefined number, at which point you might consider it important enough to expect the police to do their job.

I wonder if you can explain to me, as you might explain to your significant other, your mother, your sister, why a rich famous man’s reputation is more important than getting justice for the very first victim to come forward.

FWIW, lettres des cachet have been out of vogue for a couple of centuries.

But protecting sufficiently wealthy sexual assailants never goes out of fashion.

Just like Loren to want a special system for the uber rich and powerful. A rapist needs to be prosecuted after the first rape, not some arbitrary number of rapes or gropes or discriminations or recriminations. Tony has it right....do what we are supposed to do with these creeps. Honest investigation, charging and taking to trial in every case...no plea bargain, no certain arbitrary number of reported offenses. We should not do this for murder and we should not be doing it for rape.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Neither you nor LP can point to actual false claims in these situations, but these must somehow be a problem because we believe they must come up. That is YEC talk.

Are you telling me that you think they never happen? You need strong evidence to convince you that they happen now and then? Do you think people are beyond making false reports? Not even one? That sounds more like YEC to me.

They become public when X are filed and noticed by the police. No one has addressed how X will be monitored across jurisdictions. And the police in many areas are a real problem with their nonchalant to active discouragement of reports.

So build a national database. What's the problem?

And there is nothing being added here to stop them from not sealing their record, and asking the police to act on it immediately.

Except giving them an official way of not going public.

Ah. Is your concern that victims who now come forward publicly will stop doing that if they can do it sealed? If so, why think that? And what of the victims who don't now come forward but would come forward under this system because they feel safer doing so? Do they not exist? Is Loren overestimating them? If so, why think that?

Police should be doing that anyway. That is not mutually exclusive from this at all.

But LP and other rape apologists argue that the police are doing their job when they bully women to recant true allegations or fail to act vigorously in their investigations.

I haven't seen Loren write that. This looks like libel.

This proposal gives those police even less incentive, since they now have an official out for doing their investigations - just convince the victim to make a sealed complaint with X = 20.

First, what is your evidence that police are out to screw over victims like this? Second, why would the victims be so pliable? If it is the victim's right, why wouldn't set X to what they want to. And nothing precludes us from getting police oversight to discourage officers from poor behaviour.

This assumes that a first public report will happen. Are you so confident that it always will?

It iwll happen more frequently and quickly without the sealed option.

Where is your evidence for that? What is your reasoning behind that?

 

[laughing dog]

Are you telling me that you think they never happen? You need strong evidence to convince you that they happen now and then? Do you think people are beyond making false reports? Not even one? That sounds more like YEC to me.

I think false allegations are a real issue when there is only one. I think the fact that neither the proponents of this proposal can come up with an instance of false reports in these situations is strong evidence that false reports are not a problem. Moreover, as I pointed out, unless one believes that the proportion of allegations that are false is very high when there are lots of complaints, it doesn't really make a material difference. As I and others have pointed out, it appears the issue of false complaints in this OP is is more about protecting the reputation of serial harasser/rapist than really doing anything about nailing these sexual predators.

So build a national database. What's the problem?

I live in the real world, not some fantasy world with hand-waved solution.

Ah. Is your concern that victims who now come forward publicly will stop doing that if they can do it sealed? If so, why think that? And what of the victims who don't now come forward but would come forward under this system because they feel safer doing so? Do they not exist? Is Loren overestimating them? If so, why think that?

This is not hard. Right now, a victim has two choices - make a complaint that is public or not make a complaint. If the victim is unsure about coming forward to make a public complaint, he or she may be persuaded to do so, because that is the only way to get this person. Under your proposal, there is now a 3rd option - sealed allegation with no investigation. But a public complaint, according to the OP, draws more complaints. A sealed complaint does not.

I haven't seen Loren write that. This looks like libel.

I seriously doubt your read everything in this forum or everything LP writes.

First, what is your evidence that police are out to screw over victims like this? Second, why would the victims be so pliable? If it is the victim's right, why wouldn't set X to what they want to.

Victims of sexual assault, especially right after the assault, are traumatized. And they are not always rational. Nor do the police necessarily or always take their complaints seriously. It is not a matter of deliberate screwing over. Even LP admits this with his statement in this thread that “Most of the time these things are kept quiet by the cops because they know it's often about revenge rather than rape.”

And nothing precludes us from getting police oversight to discourage officers from poor behaviour.

I live in the real world, not some fantasy world with hand-waved solution.

Where is your evidence for that? What is your reasoning behind that?

Sealing a complaint means it is not made public. Unless victims are always 100% sure of sealing a complaint or not making one at all, that means there is a chance a complaint will become public if there is no chance of sealing it. Which suggests that the option of sealing will mean, all other things equal, a longer time before this behavior goes public.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And let's see what happens if we follow Loren's suggestion that the person reporting a rape gets to decide how many other potential rape victims have to come forward before a prosecution becomes possible.

Potential Victim 1 wants her report sealed until there's at least 3 other reports. Police and prosecutors won't advance the case even if there's enough evidence to charge the suspect.

Potential Victim 2 comes forward a few months later. She wants to have her report sealed until there's at least one other report. Authorities can't tie her report to Potential Victim 1's because 1's report is still sealed, so her case goes nowhere.

Potential Victim 3 comes forward a few years later and wants her case brought to trial ASAP. Her case and PV2's move forward without 1's, even though PV1's report would make the case stronger. PV1 might have the best, clearest evidence backing her claim but it's of no use whatsoever because it's still sealed away somewhere.

In what way would this stop a serial sexual offender sooner than having each accusation brought to trial as soon as sufficient evidence to support the allegation is found?

What you are missing is that each victim's case can't be brought forward to trial because many are never started with a complaint. This aims to change that.

Bill Cosby has 60 accusers once all was said and done. For the sake of argument, let's say all of those accusers were victims and that there were no false allegations. That would mean that 59 victims didn't come forward until 1 victim did so publicly. Had that 1 victim not come forward so bravely, Cosby may have never been caught. Many others like him probably aren't. Had this system been in place, these 59 victims could have made sealed complaints and set X = 59, and Cosby would have bee caught sooner. Perhaps some of them wouldn't have even made a sealed report, lets say even most. Let's shave that number down to x=25 then. Now, what if some of these allegations are false and shave it down to x = 20. We don't have research to show where X is likely to be set by victims of sealed reports, but I very much doubt it would be anywhere near as high as 20. My guess would be closer 1 or 2. So there is a clear benefit here. We would have potentially saved dozens of victims in Cosby's case.

Loren has explained the reason he's making this proposal: "The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons."

He has given two reasons. His detractors are fixated on the second and are ignoring the first. Why is that?

Some problems I see with this system, and questions I have for Loren:

1. In a case like Cosby's this would catch much him quicker, but in a run of the mill case where it isn't a serial rapist and only a single rape, a good point has been raised that this gives the option to a victim who would come forth anyway to do it sealed, so nothing ever happens and the rapist isn't brought to justice. So would you modify this system to account for that? And how would you do so? It may do more harm than good overall. Does anyone here know if most rapes are one offs or serial?

2. Anonymous tip lines exist for much the same reasons as this. Would you integrate them with this? Maybe have the tip line encourage them to come forward through this system but otherwise not mention this system at police stations?

3. The logic behind this seems to apply beyond rape, and generally to crime. Would you advocate putting using this against crime bosses, etc, where people are afraid of getting killed or otherwise damaged for being witnesses against powerful people? If they knew there were other witnesses standing with them, they may come forward more readily, yes?