Trib editorial: No excuse for state’s backlog of untested rape kits |

Trib editorial: No excuse for state’s backlog of untested rape kits

James Knox | Tribune-Review
Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale

More than 1,200 potential rape victims across Pennsylvania have been left waiting in an intolerable limbo of law enforcement because the invasive rape kits to which they consented have sat untested in crime labs and police storage rooms. Equally intolerable is how this backlog grew while funding to keep up with kit testing apparently didn’t.

It should never have reached this point.

By law, testing is supposed to be completed within six months. Some of the backlog dates to the 1990s, according to a Trib report.

In 2016, state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale flagged Pennsylvania’s rape-kit backlog in an audit that found only a third of about 1,000 police agencies were complying with state law. He has called on Gov. Tom Wolf and the Legislature to allocate more funding for kit testing in 2018-19. And last year, Mr. Wolf increased the allocation by nearly $2.5 million, according to a spokesman.

But funding should have kept pace to meet the increasing number of untested rape kits. Now, Mr. DePasquale said, “it will likely take years to effectively eliminate Pennsylvania’s backlog at the current pace.”

The state has reduced its backlog from 1,800 untested rape kits last year, and testing can lead to identifying criminals, DePasquale said. Meanwhile, potential sexual offenders, who often are repeat offenders, remain free.

Failure to keep up with the caseload, when the means to identify potential rapists sits in storage, is inexcusable.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.