The student would identify a problem such as why sexual assault kits at the hospital do not include the opportunity for a urine sample. This problem exists because sexual assault advocates believe defense attorneys will use the results to assassinate the character of the victim. The student would then develop a hypothesis such as, “Sexual assault kits taken at the hospital should include a urine sample.”
The student would then discuss the idea that having a urine sample would show that a victim had been drugged. Most date-rape drugs are metabolized in a matter of hours. So having a sample immediately following the assault would provide investigators with what they need to move forward on the case.
Critics would say that the character assassination experienced by the victim trumps that of the value where the investigator could prove the victim was drugged. The student would discuss the research in these areas.
Following a discussion of the literature, the student would discuss the implications of the policy change. In this case, what would likely occur within each institution where the urine collection practice would be established at the evidence collection stage? The student would then close the paper with a thoughtful conclusion.
Option 2:
The student may choose another topical discussion that might include:
Are the guidelines for child forensic interviews founded upon empirical
research?
Should law enforcement be required by law to have mandatory training in
child interviews?
Mandatory reporting of abuse supersedes privilege in certain circumstances. Should it be expanded to other parties? Why or why not?
