When the police and justice system collects information about clothing, sexual history with defendant, alcohol and other drugs, they do so because these are legally relevant facts to establishing a narrative that's otherwise often too lacking in material basis.

The police and justice system wish to know these facts so they know the strength of some legal narrative and what counternarratives can be supported. Wearing sexy clothing fits a narrative of consensual sex. Sexual injuries fits a narrative of sexual assault. Drug use damages the credibility of any party. Prior relationship with defendant can fit narratives about the likelihood that someone might agree to sex.

These are facts that defense will ask, and it's best for the prosecution that the police ask first on their terms to control the progression of fact discovery, as opposed to letting the defense ask first on their terms.

Why not be interested in what the man was wearing? Maybe because the prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, thinks it won't matter. The job of the police is not to act as a neutral 3rd party to the justice system, proportionally investigating claims on the strength of their merits. The secondary job of the police is to set up cases for the prosecution, even if it's unfair to the defense. The primary job of the police, and any agency, is to establish its own credibility, robustness, and scope as an agency. Note that I am speaking descriptively, not prescriptively.

> Drug use damages the credibility of any party.

I agree that victims are often doubted because of drug use. (I think that's an error by police; instead of doubting the victim they should be treating the victim as a vulnerable person who was more likely to be abused)

But can you show me any examples where a rapist who claimed he had consent was doubted because he had been using drugs?

It feels as if the doubt only goes one way.

It's not an error by police to ask about drug use, because it's the police's job to control fact discovery while setting up a case for the prosecution. The prosecution cares about drug use because they're trying to evaluate the strength of defense narratives.

Imagine a situation where the government doesn't ask first, and instead defense asks first on their terms. That's incompetent.

Isn't that mostly because of the legal process? When a guy is accused of rape, he's the one on trial. Mentioning his drug use might be excluded as prejudicial, even though the jury might find it relevant.

And this is exactly why people don't go to the police!

Of course it's not reasonable to conclude that he's telling the truth on the basis of her clothing. But my point is that it's also not reasonable to treat any mention of her clothing as off limits. It's just one piece of evidence.

If a woman is raped, and the guy claims it was consensual, do you think a woman should be able to point out that, "if I had any intention of sleeping with him I wouldn't have been wearing those underwear?" Or should that piece of evidence be excluded because clothing is never relevant?

First, what do clothing say about intention? I would like to live in a world where clothing is all about keeping a balanced body temperature and nothing else.

The second question is of course, does it even matter what intention people had? Maybe it should not be the police job to determine which person is more believable, but rather just write down the statement of the accuser and the accused, and collect any evidence that a prosecutor might find valuable in their decision to either pick up the case or not.

The third question is then, if police would have a policy to investigate anything reported, will there be enough resources? How much added taxes would be needed to have a 100% impartial police whose only duty is to investigate and deliver reports to prosecutors who then do the judgement on whom to believe.

> First, what do clothing say about intention? I would like to live in a world where clothing is all about keeping a balanced body temperature and nothing else.

If someone walks into a bank wearing gloves and a ski mask in the middle of a hot local summer where that's decidedly uncomfortable clothing, are you going to assume nothing at all about their intentions? Would you think it wildly unreasonable if someone else did?

I would like to assume nothing about intentions. In a perfect world, I would like to just assume that person has a good reason, like maybe they work in a cold storage. Same if a person walked in naked. Maybe they just dislike clothes.

In a inperfect world we instead use clothes to signal intention and to read that intention rather than just talk and make judgement based on evidence. A police that had infinitive funds, I would assume that clothes would just be an item in a otherwise long report, something that the prosecutor can use to form a informed decision.