Victim blaming vs advice

[Lace Neil Singer]

Maybe they aren't any more common than false accusations of other crimes... but I'm yet to read about a person's life being ruined by being accused of being a thief or of breaking the speed limit. It's the nature of rape as a crime that makes a false accusation so damaging, no matter how often it happens.

[Andara Bledin]

Any allegations about anything to do with children will pretty much destroy a person's reputation, too, and make their lives much more difficult than an accusation of rape.

Both types of crimes and false accusations of such are heinous.

[Anthony K. S.]

I am willing to accept that false rape accusations are generally rare. It is when people start citing specific percentages (usually 2%) that I become skeptical.

It is notoriously difficult to judge the credibility of a rape accusation. That being the case, what exactly would constitute reliable criteria for counting an accusation as false?

What if it is just one person's word against another's? What then?

You can't count it as "False" in the absence of clear evidence of such, but you can't count it as "True" either, for the same reason. Ultimately, you might just have to say "Unknown - Insufficient evidence."

I took a look at the links that BlaqueKatt cited, and this kind of jumped out at me :

Of the 100 rapes reported, 2 are false accusations.

Source: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf page 2: "when more methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%."

I am given to wonder what the justification is for simply using the lowest percentage (2%) rather than attempting to reflect the actual range of 2%-8%.

But, never mind that.

I looked at the report that the Enliven Project cited, to find out what exactly the 2%-8% statistic represented. It was a little difficult, because they were relying on several different studies, but it seems to come down to this :

... evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be either "a clear and credible admission by the complainant" or "strong evidential grounds" ...

... The determination that a report is false can then only be made when there is sufficient evidence to establish that the sexual assault did not happen (was not completed or attempted) ...

In short, the 2%-8% statistic represents rape allegations that were substantially proven to be false.

Meaning that if somebody made a false accusation, but the police were unable to prove it was false, then it would not be included in that 2%-8%.

So, in reality, the percentage of rape accusations that are false would actually be 2%-8% plus an additional X% and we have no idea what the X is because we don't have sufficient evidence to prove it either way.

This is an important distinction.

I've noticed that many people will cite that 2%-8% statistic AS IF it means that 92%-98% of rape accusations are true, which is simply not the case.

(I'm not saying that anybody on this forum is doing this, just that I've seen it many times.)

If a person is accused of a crime, but the state fails to prove it, that does not necessarily mean that the defendant is innocent.

By the same token, however, if a person accuses somebody of committing a crime, and the state is unable to prove the accusation was false, that does necessarily not mean the accuser was telling the truth.


As I looked through the other articles BlaqueKatt cited, I found some of the evidence they presented to be rather questionable. For example :

There were 5,651 prosecutions for rape for the period between January 2011 and May 2012 the study looked at, but only 35 for making false allegations of rape.

I honestly don't know what this is supposed to prove.

I've seen articles about district attorneys who have openly stated that they will not prosecute false rape accusations, on the grounds that it will discourage rape victims from coming forward.

Filing a false crime report is typically only a misdemeanor, which can make it difficult for an overworked prosecutor to justify the time and resources needed to pursue such a case.

One of the comments on this article claimed that "35 false accusations in a 17 month period is obviously not a problem." We emphasize (correctly) that just because a rape isn't prosecuted, doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. And yet, some people seem perfectly content to believe that "Only 35 false reports were prosecuted" = "Only 35 false reports were ever made."


The infographic presented by the Enliven Project depicted two people falsely accused out of 100 reported rapes, with an additional 900 unreported rapes.

First of all, I would like to point out that the Enliven Project themselves actually admitted that the reliability of the infographic is limited, because of the major obstacles to gathering data on this subject :

For example – here are a handful of challenges that we encountered while putting together the infographic and, as a result, some limitations of the infographic itself:

The federal data provides arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates on forcible rape only, NOT other forms of sexual violence.

Until 2012, the federal definition of rape was limited to penetration of a vagina by a penis. Therefore, 100% of rapists would have to be men.

The difference between a false report (how data is counted) and being falsely accused (the fear at the individual level) ...

Individuals who are falsely accused of rape outside of the justice system would not be counted in this figure.

But I have seen people on other websites present this infographic as if it was known fact.

Also, in my opinion, the infographic is a little flawed.

The 2% rate of false reports is applied only to the 100 reported rapes, not the 900 unreported ones. This makes sense, because if there were no reports at all, then obviously there were no false reports.

Here's the thing :

There are many societal barriers that discourage rape victims from coming forward. At least some of these barriers also discourage people from making false accusations of rape.

Now, obviously, we WANT to reduce or eliminate the barriers that discourage rape victims from coming forward.

Sadly, however, the largely unavoidable side effect of this will be an increase in the number of people who make false accusations of rape.

IMPORTANT : The percentage of rape accusations that are false may or may not change, but the actual number of false rape accusations will increase, just as the number of true rape accusations will.

What the Enliven Project's infographic fails to reflect is that if those 900 unreported rapes became reported, then the number of false reports would increase as well.


Ultimately, as I said, I am willing to accept that false rape accusations are generally rare - partly because my instincts say so, partly because the available data seems to suggest that they are.

But we need to bear in mind that there is an extreme lack of reliable data to support any specific conclusion on this.

[HYHYBT]

Please show me where in the above I'm saying they don't happen?

Unreasonable demand. The reason I gave the response I did was that your post *read as* “that [notice, large block of text with multiple concepts reduced to a single word, hence vague about what exactly you mean “that” to be] is not what’s happening. It’s a myth. It only happens in a very small proportion of cases.” That is a simple and fairly obvious possible reading of your post, and that’s the one I got. From there, it is perfectly natural to respond “but it’s not a myth if it happens sometimes, even if it’s rare.” Why, then, are you so insistent on accusing me of making a straw man argument rather than the simpler and far more likely (as well as true) possibility that I misunderstood your intent, that you were focused on the one word “trend” out of the whole thing, which was totally non obvious to me? Especially, why did you repeat your insistence even after I explained? Notice I’m not insisting *you* meant what I thought you did; I’m totally open to accepting your clarifications, even when they’re unjustly delivered as accusations.

In short, the 2%-8% statistic represents rape allegations that were substantially proven to be false.

Meaning that if somebody made a false accusation, but the police were unable to prove it was false, then it would not be included in that 2%-8%.

So, in reality, the percentage of rape accusations that are false would actually be 2%-8% plus an additional X% and we have no idea what the X is because we don't have sufficient evidence to prove it either way.

Now THAT’S something that needs more looking into. Along with the related, though not, perhaps, really on-topic for this thread, question of how you can possibly *accurately* calculate the number of unreported rapes. There are ways of generating numbers, but nothing I’ve seen (even when, if I remember rightly, people have tried answering exactly that) to believe they generate *correct* numbers, or even that they’re close enough to reasonably spread around as fact.

[Canarr]

THAT IS A MYTH, PLEASE STOP PERPETUATING IT!
(it's very close to being classified as rape apologetics at this point, as it's been refuted for years as being patently FALSE, yet every.single.time. a conversation on rape happens it comes up)

Thanks for your links; I'll look into them, but it'll take me some time.

I am willing to accept that false rape accusations are generally rare. It is when people start citing specific percentages (usually 2%) that I become skeptical.

It is notoriously difficult to judge the credibility of a rape accusation. That being the case, what exactly would constitute reliable criteria for counting an accusation as false?

There is a professor in Hamburg, Germany, Klaus Püschel - his institute runs an ER for victims of victims of violence seeking treatment. They treat between 1,000 and 1,500 people per year, up to 150 of them women reporting a rape.

In 2009, the medical personnel documented the results of the examinations. Out of 132 female patients reporting injuries resulting from rape, the doctors found 27% to be self-inflicted, 33% to be of foreign origin, and 40% inconclusive.

[Canarr]

That IS NOT what's happening. That's why we're having title IX lawsuits all over the place. The colleges are doing nothing. We have Fraternities using color coded hand stamps to drug pretty girls,

Your link states that the fraternity in question was suspended, the authorities are investigating, and one arrest was already made. The university seems to be cooperating with the investigation, so... looks like they're doing what they're supposed to be doing?

predators plying women with alcohol

*, and colleges saying "it's your word against his so we WON'T do ANYTHING"

Did you read the disclaimer note the rollingstone put at the top of this article? Apparently, there were some unclear parts of the woman's recounting of events. It concludes with:

We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate. Given*all of these reports, however, we have come*to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie's request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment – the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day.*We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story.*These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.*We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening.

I get that rape is a traumatic experience for anyone, but what, exactly, is a college supposed to do, when it's one word against another? When there is no evidence of any wrongdoing? Just condem and expel one student on they say-so of another student?

The "false report from a drunken hookup" is a myth used to silence victims.

No, it's not; but HYHYBT has already commented on that. While I don't know if my claim (of a trend at US colleges of accusations without evidence being taken as cause for expulsion) is correct, I am fairly certain that your claim of false reports being a myth is false.

[Canarr]

Sorry for the sting of posts; I couldn't get the format to work right.

This article has a good inforgraphic that should shed some light on rape statistics including false reports.

Okay... there's a lot wrong with that article.

First, they assume a 10% reporting rate. They quote their source as mentioning that "estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police". That was the UK; for the US, their own source quotes a report rate of 27% in 2011 and 49% in 2010.
So... from that, they take a 10% reporting rate. Why not 5%? Why not 25%? Or 40%?

Second, they assume a 2% rate of false reports. Their own source lists a range of 2-8%, but they assume the lowest number, because...? Not to mention that the studies claimed as sources by the report the Enliven Project sources from range of almost five decades, and regards as "largest and most rigorous study" the 2005 report by Kelly, Lowett and Regan, which has been rather critically discussed in European legal circles.

Third, they assume 30% of reports lead to a trial - arrest and prosecution. Their sources give rates between 14% and 40%, so 30% doesn't seem unreasonable as a medium; but then again, it doesn't seem surprisingly low, either, considering that rape is, most of the time, a highly personal crime that doesn't have witnesses, and where evidence can be difficult to collect. Still, I could probably support this conclusion, if the basis of the 10% reporting rate weren't already flawed.

False rape reports are no higher than that of any other crime, and statistically only 3% of rapists spend even a single day in jail, around 90% of assault victims never report it.

That article doesn't give any indication how they arrive at the conclusion of a 90% rate of unreported rapes.

it's actually on almost every rape myth list you can dig up(usually in the top ten)

That article does make a few good points; although they seem to hold to the viewpoint that a police force that doesn't believe accusations without evidence is not doing their job right.

Heck here's one solely about that particular damaging myth

Again with the 2% rate of false reports; but here, apparently, 40% of rapes are reported to the police. Hm.

And a full article on how perpetuating the myth damages victims

Okay, this article baffles me; it says:

The "trailblazing" research, the first of its kind, has discovered that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are "very rare", with only a very small number of cases where there was enough evidence and it was considered in the public interest to prosecute.

So basically, a low number of prosecutions for rape means that obviously, law enforcement isn't doing their job right, or a majority of victims is too scared to come forward. But a low number of prosecutions for false allegations means that there isn't a problem? Seriously?
If anyone applied the same conclusion to sexual assault, there'd be outrage. But here it's okay? Talk about double standard.

*some are doubting the article because "gang rapes don't happen at good colleges" yet this article lists seven separate accounts

I never claimed rapes don't happen at colleges; however, after going through your links, and re-reading my own post, I realize the mistake:

When I used the word "trend", I didn't mean to suggest an increase in false allegations, but I meant a "trend" (as in, several articles I read) where colleges established sexual assault inquiry panels that decided allegations of sexual assault - without training in law enforcement, and without regard for due process.

Something like this: http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1...211043510.html
Or this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-accused.html
Or this: http://www.businessinsider.com/occid...assault-2014-9

My apologies for not making my point more clear. I'm not saying rapes don't happen; but I AM saying that investigations of sexual assault should be in the hands of law enforcement, and be subject to the same legal regulations as any other crime. This isn't something amateurs should be deciding.

[Andara Bledin]

This isn't something amateurs should be deciding.

Particularly amateurs with a serious vested interest in both the crime and the results of it.

[Anthony K. S.]

One note of caution :

Out of 132 female patients reporting injuries resulting from rape, the doctors found 27% to be self-inflicted, 33% to be of foreign origin, and 40% inconclusive.

About that 27% ... There is something we should not overlook.

If a woman's injuries are found to be self-inflicted, that does NOT necessarily mean that she wasn't raped.

It is possible that she was raped, but she was afraid that the police would not believe her if she appeared to be uninjured.

(And, unfortunately, she could very well be right. Some people, including some law enforcement personnel who really should know better, will view a lack of visible injuries as reason to doubt a rape victim's story. Even though it's entirely possible for a rape to occur without physical injuries.)

She might have deliberately bruised or otherwise hurt herself, hoping that it would make it easier to convince the police she was telling the truth.

...

On the other hand ...

I have seen people cite the fact that a woman had visible injuries as proof that she was assaulted.

The argument is, essentially, "If it was consensual sex, then why did she look all beaten up afterward?"

Well, if somebody decided to make a false accusation of rape, it is possible that she would deliberately injure herself, or get an accomplice to injure her, to make her story more credible.

A medical professional might be able to tell the difference, but that 40% "inconclusive" seems to indicate that it's not always possible to do so.


In short, all of these things can be considered evidence, yes.

But they are not, in and of themselves, proof of anything.

[s_stabeler]

nevertheless, it DOES lend weight to the argument that false accusations of rape are more frequent than most people believe.

However, I think we are really getting away from the point. There are two big issues with rape- 1. it's difficult to prove that it's actually rape- because you can prove there was a sexual encounter all you like, proving lack of consent is harder. Therefore, victims are discouraged from reporting it. 2. false accusations of rape can and do destroy someone's life. Maybe there is a false accusation rate of only 2%. Maybe the rate is higher- that is still a LOT of people who, for no good reason, now have to contend with being treated like the scum of the earth.

The key is to find a balance between not discouraging victims of rape, and making it too easy to cry rape to get someone into trouble.

[Lindsay B.]

"There is a difference between 'false accusations' and 'not enough evidence,'" said Dianne [Whitfield, from Rape Crisis England & Wales]. "False accusations account for only 5% of all reported cases."

Oh, the irony. Does anybody else realize that this woman criticized people for doing something, and in her very next sentence, she actually did exactly what she was criticizing people for?

In her first sentence, Ms. Whitfield was essentially saying, "A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack." We should not assume that a rape accusation is false simply because there isn't enough evidence to prove it's true.

Fair enough. But then, she asserts that only 5% of reported rapes are false. She doesn't say "only 5% are shown by sufficient evidence to be false," nor does she mention that the other 95% includes a large number of cases where the evidence was inconclusive, and the accused persons might (or might not) have been innocent.

She simply says that only 5% of accusations are false. Period, that's a fact, end of story, that's all there is to it. In effect, she was saying that the other 95% were all guilty - because they were never proven to be innocent.

What happened to distinguishing between "not enough evidence" and "false"? Apparently, in Ms. Whitfield's world, that only applies to the accusers, not to the accused.

If a woman says she was raped, it is wrong for people to conclude that she is lying simply because it can't be proven that she's telling the truth.

But if a man is accused of rape, it is perfectly okay for Ms. Whitfield to conclude that he is guilty simply because it can't be proven that he is innocent.

Well, at least Ms. Whitfield was open-minded enough to use 5% instead of the absolute minimum of 2%. Speaking of which :

I am given to wonder what the justification is for simply using the lowest percentage (2%) rather than attempting to reflect the actual range of 2%-8%.

they assume a 2% rate of false reports. Their own source lists a range of 2-8%, but they assume the lowest number, because...?

I presume that we're looking for an answer that's more sophisticated than, "These people had an agenda to depict false rape accusations to be as rare as possible."

The irony here is that they didn't really need to. A graphic with 5 (medium) or 8 (maximum) blacked-out figures out of 1,000 probably would have been almost as visually impressive, and it wouldn't have left them wide open to such an obvious criticism.

However, that would not have solved the most significant flaw of the infographic :

I've noticed that many people will cite that 2%-8% statistic AS IF it means that 92%-98% of rape accusations are true, which is simply not the case.

The infographic itself actually does that.



The two blacked-out figures are simply marked "Falsely Accused." That's all.

Just like with Ms. Whitfield's statement, the infographic doesn't say that those are only the reports that were proven false, nor does it mention that the other 98 accusations include some unsubstantiated ones that might have been false.

The infographic misleads the reader to think that the two figures marked "Falsely Accused" were the only ones who were, and the other 98 accused persons were all guilty.

It is fundamentally, intellectually dishonest.

The "trailblazing" research, the first of its kind, has discovered that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are "very rare", with only a very small number of cases where there was enough evidence and it was considered in the public interest to prosecute.

Around two false rape allegations are made every month, the report found.

There were 5,651 prosecutions for rape for the period between January 2011 and May 2012 the study looked at, but only 35 for making false allegations of rape.

Wait. So the Crown Prosecution Service has caught and prosecuted 100% of the people who have committed this particular crime?

Well, hot damn. I don't think there's a law enforcement agency anywhere else in the entire world who could make such a claim for any criminal offense.

(I trust that you all note the sarcasm.)

Yes, I know, two other people in this thread have already made this point. I just felt the need to throw my own two cents in, because the CPS report's conclusion is so absurd.

If I lived in England, I would be feeling terrified right now that there are people being trusted with the responsibility of prosecuting crimes, who are dumb enough to believe that the fact that they only caught 35 people committing a crime means that only 35 people actually committed that crime.

[Lace Neil Singer]

In fact, there aren't generally many convictions for crying rape; cps tends not to bother prosecuting. So basically the liar gets to remain anonymous while the falsely accused person has to live with the stigma.

[blas87]

You're not kidding on that one.

My former shift lead, and close friend, made a mistake by dating the wrong girl. She left him, while pregnant, for her ex husband, now will do anything it takes to keep him from seeing his son at all. Since he's kept moving forward with a lawyer and fighting for some custody, her next step was crying rape. As in, claiming he raped her when they were dating. This was a year ago.

The judge is a fucking idiot who instantly believes anything a female says, threw out the good old "Women don't always report abuse or rape right away, you know", and granted her a restraining order on him and now he has to give up all of his firearms and is pending charges. ALL FALSE.

Unfuckingbelievable.

This is why I don't always believe what girls say. Especially single moms with unnecessary axes to grind.

[kibbles]

Unfuckingbelievable.

This is why I don't always believe what girls say. Especially single moms with unnecessary axes to grind.

ITA blas, ITA!! Now I am not saying that everyone who makes a report is lying, but I so hate this assumption the public has that oh they are definitely telling the truth when that is not always the case. Yes, there are sleazy/dangerous men in this world, but there is also conniving women in this world as well.

[blas87]

Stupid judges are even worse.

I can't imagine how some of these buffoons are still on the bench. No evidence to prove, just accusations from a female who wants her ex out of the baby's life for no good reason.