Googling the Trail of a Serial Rapist

theodp writes "Innovative Interactivity has a behind-the-scenes look at the Washington Post's On the Trail of a Serial Rapist series. Information Designer Kat Downs details her experience designing and building the impressive interface for the series, including the use of Google Maps to track the rapist. Wary, perhaps, that it might encourage vigilantism, the WaPo stopped short of allowing readers to add their own input to the maps and urged anyone with additional information to contact the police."

Comments

Some black guy...

[will.perdikakis]

He was 21ish and 5'7" in 1997 and 6'1" and in his 40s now?

I understand the DNA links, but the other cases?

Re:Some black guy...

[Enderandrew]

He wasn't measured at 5'7" and then measured at 6'1" later. The victim's statement described the attacker as 5'7" in one case, and another victim many years later described the attacker as 6'1".

If you only look at cases with DNA evidence, two cases right next to each other in 1997 have a victim describing the attacker as 5'6", and the next case has a victim describing the attacker as 5'10". DNA says this is the same person.

It would seem that either the DNA evidence is completely flawed, or the victim's guesses at the attacker's height is flawed.

I'll take

[Anonymous Coward]

Therapist for $400

Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

Tracking people in this fashion is unethical, even if it is a rapist. Leave it to the authorities -- this is vigilantism, nothing more. And that's not something that we can tolerate in an information-saturated society. Anytime a person is tracked electronically like this by someone with a personal agenda, it's wrong. There should not be exceptions, because the moment we allow that line to be crossed, we damn all of us to the potential to have our privacy invaded under false pretext.

You want to help? Volunteer your services to a responsible authority like the local police. Work with them and follow their ethical guidelines. Believe me, they want citizens to come to them and the system functions best when done under professional and ethical oversight by a disinterested party. This kind of behavior, however well-intentioned, harms those efforts and undermines the entire system of justice.

Re:Vigilantism

[bluefoxlucid]

If somebody has maliciously assaulted you, tracking them down is not unethical. If somebody has made a habit of maliciously assaulting people at leisure, tracking them down is a service to mankind.

Re:Vigilantism

[Anonymous Coward]

And if we allow random individuals to each make their own judgments about who deserves to be hunted down, then we've reverted to anarchy. That's the trade-off of living in a modern civilization: you agree to give up your right to randomly hunt down whoever you think deserves it, in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either. The police exist for exactly this reason, and the occasional (and even occasionally systemic) abuses aside, they do a reasonable job of it.

Re:Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

If somebody has maliciously assaulted you, tracking them down is not unethical. If somebody has made a habit of maliciously assaulting people at leisure, tracking them down is a service to mankind.

Speaking as someone who was sexually assaulted, yes, tracking the person responsible down is unethical. In my case, they filed it under miscellany and never interviewed him, and less than a month later, three more cases turned up and the guy skipped state. The police never followed up, and so he's very likely still out there. I did the responsible thing and contacted the authorities once I got out of the hospital. Granted, I did it while staring at the floor, stuttering, and being held by a friend, but I did do it.

Can I say I'd do it the same way if it happened again? No, not really. It was a traumatic experience and I won't sit here and say if given half a chance I wouldn't have returned the favor at the time. But I don't think two wrongs make a right, and feeding this guy to a woodchipper because the police wouldn't do their job, while maybe emotionally fulfilling, isn't right. So I have to stand by what I said -- vigilantism is not a public service. A public service would be my day in court, along with the others who that son of a bitch hurt. So I do understand the motivations behind such behavior on a very personal level. I don't agree with it.

Re:Vigilantism

[Moridineas]

Really? Are you advocating a criminal-victim right of confidentiality or something? As a criminal, I have the right to privacy of my crimes?

I get the core of what you're saying--vigilantism can be bad--but I see absolutely nothing wrong in this case. The police (and other shows like America's Most Wanted) regularly share far more information about ongoing cases than is on this webpage. It's a neat little mashup sure, but that's all. Who knows if more victims will come forward after recognizing something in the description, or a friend/acquaintance of the rapist realizes something is going on, etc?

Re:Vigilantism

[MozeeToby]

The only tracking that they're doing is tracking where the crimes took place. Go look at the site, all that's there is a timeline, with a Google map, street view, and text blurb for each attack. It isn't like they've followed the guy on the subway and found out where he lives, they're simply organizing all the data that was doubtlessly available from other sources into a single, easy to follow graphical representation.

Re:Vigilantism

[pclminion]

How is determining a person's location equivalent to vigilantism?

Re:Vigilantism

[guruevi]

The authorities have no duty to protect anyone: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

The best thing to do about crime is to stop it yourself whenever you see it going on. If you have the nuts for it, you can become a bounty hunter and hunt people down yourself for a living.

Re:Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

Why? You explained your circumstances, but I don't understand your reasoning. If anything, it's the police who ignore you who are unethical. It's not unethical to do their job when they won't.

I can't (nor should I be allowed to) assume police powers because the person or group that has them doesn't want to excercise them. That's lunacy. If I want to track this guy down privately, using lawful channels, and the police are willing and able to prosecute -- it's a win for everyone. But if they don't, my only lawful recourse is to go to the media (weren't interested), protest (one person with a sign didn't exactly make an impact), write letters (got form letter replies and courteous brush-offs), and try to help the other victims to find him and build a case against him (only found one of the three I knew about, and that person didn't want to rehash an old wound).

Don't kid yourself -- I tried. I did more than this website did, and with less fanfare. But I never crossed the line of going public. The risk of someone being misidentified and harmed by that isn't one I am willing to take, then, now, or ever. I want him as bad as anyone else who's ever been raped. That doesn't give me the right to endanger innocent lives to correct that injustice.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.

Except that you are given no such assurance. The only assurance you are given is that the police will try to track down the person who hunted you down after the fact. The police in the United States have no legal duty to protect you. The Supreme Court has said as much.

The police exist for exactly this reason, and the occasional (and even occasionally systemic) abuses aside, they do a reasonable job of it.

Tell that to all the rape/murder victims out there. The sad reality of the situation is that you are the one who is ultimately responsible for your own well being. The police sure as hell aren't.

Re:Vigilantism

[corbettw]

And what happens when a DA declines to prosecute you and the guy's family decides his fate was undeserved and comes looking for you for vengeance? Where does it end?

Part of living in a civilized society is giving up your "right" to vengeance and letting the authorities take care of the problem. If they don't, the solution is to get better authorities, not to take the law into your own hands.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

For example, inciting a riot or encouraging criminal activity is not covered.

I fail to see how repeating information that is already in the public domain constitutes incitement to riot.

"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Keep your kids away from him" <--- free speech
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Let's go burn his house down!" <--- not free speech

Re:Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

Just because it's not lawful doesn't mean it's unethical. When the law itself (or those enforcing it) is unethical, the only ethical action may be to break the law.

I don't believe the police were acting in an unethical fashion, I simply think they have limited resources.

Re:Vigilantism

[Hatta]

As long as there's a single pot smoker in jail, "limited resources" has no pull whatsoever.

Witness unreliable

[aepervius]

The problem is that at the best of the case , the witness are unreliable. In a stressful situation like rape this is much worst. So 5'7'' or 6'1'' could be the same guy. Really. Now tehre are still problem with DNA matching, as it seems that collision over a huge population can happen (so you can't try to match against a whole database), so I would not trust that too, unless it is to ground a case when the suspect is shown to also have been at the place.

Re:Witness unreliable

[thesandtiger]

I'm 5'7" - a little on the tall side, I guess, for a woman my age.

I have had co-workers - people I have worked alongside for *years* guess my height at anywhere between 5'4" and 6'. As for age, I'm 38 but I have people who're older than me guessing I'm in my early to mid-20's, while people who are in their mid-20's guess I'm in my early to mid 40's.

I've had people tell me they were "shocked" to hear me describe myself as brunette because they thought my hair was black, or blonde, depending on the time of year. And people have also said I look either Italian (read: dusky) or Irish (read: freckles and pale) again depending on the time of year.

Given that people who work with me 20-40 hours/week have such a hard time describing me, I am actually impressed that the height and age-range of the attacker in question is so narrow.

This is a real problem.

[elucido]

As long as there's a single pot smoker in jail, "limited resources" has no pull whatsoever.

The police spend a greater portion of their money solving drug crimes and paying off drug informants than they do trying to catch rapists. If they want to catch rapists where are the informants? Somehow they have an endless supply of informants who will rat you out for smoking a joint but nobody when it's time to catch a real criminal?

Typical.