Here's a sort of Rorschach inkblot test of your objectivity about rape. It's from a news story out of New Haven where a 20-year-old woman reported being sexually assaulted Friday at a downtown club on a night that the bar promoted an appearance by a star from the hit MTV reality show “Jersey Shore.” But she ended up recanting her statement.
It's all very fuzzy, and police don't know what happened and don't plan to charge the woman. But here is what the local newspaper reported: The management of the nightspot where the incident allegedly occurred, Alchemy, reported that the "alleged victim," a 20-year-old woman, "was ejected from the bar at 10:45 p.m. [Thursday] and attempted to reenter at about 11:15, 'at which time she was denied entry and referred over to, and interviewed by, two New Haven police officers.'" The woman told a police officer at 12:15 a.m. that she had been raped. Detectives worked the case all Friday before the woman told them she wasn't going to pursue it. "A source said Friday that police were viewing the complaint with increasing skepticism as their investigation progressed." And: "John Carta, an attorney for Alchemy, pointed to 'discrepancies' in the woman’s account. 'From what I understand, she gave several different stories about the alleged assault, that it happened inside Alchemy, outside Alchemy, by this person, by that person,' he said."
The club apparently sponsored a party featuring an appearance by Vinny Guadagnino, a cast member of “Jersey Shore" at the time of the alleged attack. "On Friday, police officers in a morning briefing were told that a member of the 'Jersey Shore' entourage may have been involved in the alleged attack, but police later discounted that possibility. Assistant Chief Peter Reichard told the New Haven Independent that Guadagnino was the lone cast member at the club and wasn’t at the club long enough to have much contact with the crowd."
So, what to make of it? Extremists on one end insist that we view rape claim recantations with skepticism, and they would lump this particular incident into the category of a "not false" rape claim because, they would note, it wasn't determined to be false. It is important to mention that for this group, all rape claims that are not determined to be "false" are, by implication, actual rapes even if we don't know what really happened (so, if it can only be determined that 8 or 18 or 41 percent of all rapes are "false," then all the rest, by implication, must be rapes -- even though there is insufficient evidence for lots of those claims to say what happened one way or the other).
Extremists on the other end would conclude that this claim must be considered false since it didn't result in a conviction. She obviously lied, and that would be the end of it.
How would an objective person look at it? He or she would say that we don't really know what happened -- because we don't. A recantation means only that the woman decided not to pursue the claim. That decision might have been prompted by her refusal to pursue a false claim or by a decision not to subject herself to the judicial process. Police generally only classify recanted claims as "false" when the alleged victim's story otherwise just doesn't add up. Often the recantation occurs when the police reveal to the woman some gaping hole in her account (think Hofstra). While there are indications here that the story didn't add up, we don't have quite enough information to say that definitively. Therefore, it shouldn't be considered "false" and it shouldn't be considered by implication a "rape." When we're trying to figure out the prevalence of false rape claims, we should take this one out of the mix and not include it in either the "rape" or "false claim" column. We should invent a new column -- "insufficient information" -- a column that is sure to anger the zealots on both sides.
Persons trying to raise awareness about false rape claims don't need to rely on fuzzy claims to make our case. Our credibility suffers when we overreach. And persons trying to raise awareness about rape would do well to stop overreaching and stop including doubtful claims in the "rape" column. Such dishonesty only engenders disrepute of your movement.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"Unfounded" rape accusation.
Not necessarily false, but not enough indication to say that it's true.
I'm going to have to disagree, a bit....
We can broadly classify rape allegations into two major categories.
1/ Did not go to trial.
2/ Did go to trial.
In the second category, did go to trial, we simply stand on the Law, Innocent until proven Guilty.
If you are found guilty, you did it.
If you are found innocent, you did not do it.
Essentially we have a test for the TRUE / FALSE rape accusation question.
So
Back to the first category, did not go to trial.
There are several possibilities, ranging through alleged victim couldn't face it through to false accusation.
By definition, we don't know anything about these, except the simple fact that they did not go to trial...
Except, that is NOT the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496013.stm
A UK Home Office study in 2005 of ALL rape accusations made to Police in one year found...
20% went to trial
80% did not go to trial
of those that did not go to trial...
21% insufficient evidence
17% allegation withdrawn
13% offender not identified
12% false allegations
5% no evidence of assault
2% no prospect of conviction
1% not in public interest
12% other / unknown.
This is NOT zealotry Archivist, this is statistical FACT based on what is effectively not even a vast sample, but the entire data set for one whole year, this is BEST DATA POSSIBLE.
"insufficient information" is legally and technically correct, when speaking of a single specific case, we were not on the inside, we do not know.
But once you start adding them up, you simply have to bow down to statistical probability.
"insufficient information" is therefore misleading.
"Did not go to trial" is not.
I would further suggest, quite strongly, that in the UK if you do rape someone then it is almost certain that you will go to trial, and extremely likely that you will be convicted.
If you do rape someone in the UK and do not go to trial, or go to trial and do not get convicted, then the fault lies entirely at the feet of the police, for failing to amass sufficient evidence.
Given my own experience, this seems quite possible for anything short of "dragged into the bushes, beaten to crap and left for dead" type rapes which will have an abundance of forensics.
which brings us right back to the "technical" rapes like the boy who did not withdraw for 5 seconds.... whatever that "crime" was, it was not a rape.
I maintain that rape is still a very rare offence, the analogy is the danger of being killed in your own car or crossing the street, and being killed by a terrorist.
Right, Snark.
I'd strongly suggest not using those stats, AfOR because they are not helpful and play into rape advocate extremists' hands. They suggest ONLY 12 percent are false -- and I assure, that's how those zealots reference that particular study. The fact is, the actual percentage of factually FALSE rape claims is likely higher. For each category aside from "false," there are likely a certain percentage that are false. E.g., at least some and possibly most of "insufficient evidence" claims are also FALSE -- we don't know. Nobody knows. It's not helpful to speak in these terms.
The current law enforcement / gender feminist missinformation Alliances will simply re-define what the meaning of is, is, in order to mislead the public about the true percentages of false rape accussations.(it's not 2%).
This manufactured statistic builds a court prejudice against the innocent who are falselly accussed..AND NOW THERE ARE MANY!!
Archivist says
For each category aside from "false," there are likely a certain percentage that are false. E.g., at least some and possibly most of "insufficient evidence" claims are also FALSE -- we don't know. Nobody knows
I say..yes there are many in the law enforcement community that are fully aware of how many false rape accusations there are now. There needs to be a civil rights lawsuit that breaks the current gender feminist / law enforcement manufactured missinformation ALLIANCE, for this missinforamation Alliance may bring huge amounts of pork dollars to our police stations...but it is blood money against the innocent..and enables violent women. Making false rape accussations alot of time is an act of violence against a guy that broke it off with his ex-girlfriend. To enable these women to falselly accuse of rape is a mockery of a legal system, and a perversion of our legal community.
I'm going to disagree, and this is why.
These are UK Police numbers, what this is saying is that even the misandric specialist rape squad still cannot manipulate the figures, re-interpret, re-consider, or use any other bullshit tricks to get the false accusations number down below 12%.
Remove that misandric feminist viewpoint and you have to say "buddy, 99% of these allegations that don't make it to trial are bogus"
Because the FACT is the only place you can hide the "was actually raped, but cannot face the prospect of trial" category is the delightfully re-labelled to hide this (think I'm speculating? think again) NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST which was 1% of all cases that did not make it to trial.
Before I am accused of bias...
The BBC URL in question was given to me by a retiring next year UK police person working in the rape squad, and the actual meanings of the various definitions was explained to me by that person.... if you will, "policespeak" this is what I was told.
"insufficient evidence" = no evidence, none, nothing, that any crime was committed
"allegation withdrawn" = complainant was sober / calm enough to see nobody was buying it, not for one second
"offender not identified" - the 'invisible man', when all other persons at the scene have been eliminated, see alien abduction and anal probing in the mothership
"false allegations" = a deliberate, malicious and pre-meditated false accusation against a specific, named and known individual.
"no evidence of assault" = evidence there was no assault, eg CCTV
"no prospect of conviction" = complainant says something on tape that equates to consent.
"not in public interest" = was raped, not violently, wants to get on with life and forget it asap
"other / unknown" = legless with drink and / or drugs
That is verbatim....
Scott, you are correct, as usual. The number of false claims is unknowable for certain. It is, from everything I've read, likely far more than 12 percent.
AfOR - "Given my own experience, this seems quite possible for anything short of "dragged into the bushes, beaten to crap and left for dead" type rapes which will have an abundance of forensics."
Except that most of these were planned rapes, and part of the planning involves avoiding leaving forensic evidence. [I could relate some fairly remarkable forensic work that found the key pieces of evidence that were left despite extensive efforts by the rapist]
But, you are absolutely correct in that the crime of rape is relatively rare as compared to the array of other crimes being committed.
Good day, sun shines!
There have been times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
I have never imagined that there weren't any need in big starting capital.
Nowadays, I'm happy and lucky , I started to get real money.
It gets down to select a correct partner who utilizes your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, and shares the income with me.
You can get interested, if there are such firms? I have to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
"They suggest ONLY 12 percent are false -- and I assure, that's how those zealots reference that particular study. The fact is, the actual percentage of factually FALSE rape claims is likely higher."
As much as I agree that statistics should not be misused, and that temptation is on both sides of any issue, another temptation is to use exaggerated language. That something is likely doesn't make it fact. I also agree that "nobody knows". At best any conclusion is informed opinion.
Imho, considering that false accusations have numerous possible motives and very little punishment, and rape as almost no motive and severe punishment, then considering the possible situations where the alleged victim is honestly wrong (eg. can't remember what happened due to alcohol and/or drugs, incorrectly identifies the rapist, imagines something due to mental illness, etc.) that 90% of rape accusations are somehow untrue is not implausible.
It's not "extremist" to say that when a girl gives "several different stories about the alleged assault, that it happened inside Alchemy, outside Alchemy, by this person, by that person," and then recants entirely, she was lying.
Jay, very well put. And I think you are correct.
Post a Comment