As the supervisor in charge of the Minneapolis Police Department's sex crimes unit for a large period during which the writers of the special report "Denied Justice: When a Rape is Reported and Nothing Happens," (July 22-August 12) analyzed rape reports, I would like to respond to their findings and conclusions.
First, a little background on myself. I served on the MPD for over 41 years. I served extended lengths of time as a uniformed patrol officer and as an investigative sergeant in sex crimes and robbery/homicide. I spent my last 20 years as a lieutenant, including two stints as the head of the sex crimes unit. Bottom line: I was a Minneapolis officer with abundant experience and training.
Now, back to the "Special Report." Oversimplification and faulty conclusions are rampant in the report. They start from the first column and continue to the last paragraph. The article totally misrepresents the investigative process for rape, even though I made myself available to the authors from the inception of their research.
Misrepresentation: "In almost a quarter of the cases records show police never assigned an investigator."
Report's conclusion: Police don't care and are basically incompetent.
Fact: I personally read all 700 cases assigned to the sex crimes unit every year. I was in charge of assigning a case or not assigning it. There was a logical reason for each of these assigning decisions, which were based on whether the case could be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is the level of proof needed for a criminal conviction in the American system of justice. This standard has been in place for more than 200 years.
After reviewing numerous reports and some research, if it showed we could not reach this level of proof I did not assign the case. I usually had fewer then eight investigators in my unit. I did not want to waste valuable investigative resources on cases that could not result in a criminal conviction. That is the prudent thing to do as a public servant.