Rape is the unlawful sexual activity carried out forcibly or under threat. Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact that occurs without the consent of the recipient. Every two (2) minutes, an American is sexually assaulted. There are about 288, 820 victims that are ages 12 and up that are victims of sexual assault and/or rape in the United States every year. (RAINN). According to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest Network, aka RAINN, the youth is at a higher risk for sexual violence. People between the ages of 12 and 34 are at the highest risk years for sexual assault. People that are senior citizens (ages 65+) are 92% less likely to be a victim of sexual assault or rape. Girls and women …show more content…
Items that are often in a rape kit includes clothing, hair, saliva, semen, blood, and any photographs of the victim’s body or any type of potential evidence. Rape kits are supposed to be a factor that plays a large role in the capture and conviction of suspects, but often these kits can go untested. The kits become ineffective in aiding the victim. For example, rape kits can become ineffective when they are booked in as evidence but not actually tested. The DNA analysis is being carried out but not in a timely fashion. Per WhiteHouse.gov, in 2015 there was an estimate of 400,000 untested rape kits in the United …show more content…
the United States, involves victim compensation. Docketed March 27, 2013. An elected detainee sued the Unified States government under the Elected Tort Claims Represent threatening behavior, saying he was sexually abused by jail watches. The question for the situation was regardless of whether the central government could be sued and held at risk for the activities of its workers when the representatives confer certain damages. Often, for acts like threatening behavior, the administration must be sued if the demonstrations were conferred amid a period when the worker was acting inside the extent of that representative 's obligations. Both the region court and the checking on redrafting court expelled the case because the demonstrations were not dedicated under the extent of a law implementation officer 's business, which both courts characterized as acts that occur just when the officer is leading ventures, seizures of confirmation, or captures. In any case, the court could not help contradicting the lower courts ' sentiments. In a consistent choice, the Court decided that business obligations of law implementation authorities are not as constrained as the lower courts expressed. Therefore, casualties might have the capacity to sue the legislature for damages submitted by law requirement authorities, regardless of the possibility that the mischief happened amid an action other than a hunt, seizure, or capture, as was professedly the case in