As for the "independent" research into false rape claims: by "independent," we assume that persons who have a vested or financial interest in rape claims, including sexual assault counselors, should be excluded since their livelihood depends on the notion that rape is a frequent and serious problem. In addition, persons who previously publicly opined with certainty on the frequency of false rape claims, or the that rape is rampant, should also be excluded, since is a natural tendency to reach conclusions that don't undermine one's previous scholarship. By "independent," we assume the Review means persons who come to the issue without preconceived notions or political or ideological agendas.
As to the freqnency of false rape claims, the Review off-handedly, and for reasons that aren't clear, cites some anecdotal evidence that false claims are not at all common, but it prudently concludes that we just don't know how common false rape claims are. It is for this reason it is calling for a fresh look at the issue.
The Review commendably cites the damage a false rape claim can do, and although it takes no position on anonymity for the presumed innocent accused of rape, it seems somewhat sympathetic to the idea.
One of the points we truly need to emphasize to all those interested in the Stern Review and any follow-up is the following, which is of vital importance: it is one thing to say that we "know" 8 to 10 percent of all rape claims are false; it is quite another, and grossly incorrect, to assert that "only" 8 to 10 percent of all rape claims are false. Why are semantics so important here? Because we cannot, and never will be able to, say with any degree of certainty how many rape claims were actual rapes, so it is dishonest in the exreme to say that "only" 8 to 10 percent are false since that characterization suggests that we DO know that all of the rest of the rape claims -- 90 to 92 percent of all rape claims -- were actual rapes. That latter proposition would be a lie. Even if we only "know" that 8 to 10 percent are false, we may also only "know" that a similar relatively small percentage of the claims were actual rapes. The prudent thing to do is to talk only about those claims we actually do know about, one way or the other -- those that were either false claims or actual rapes. Bottom line: We must insist that the public discourse stop assuming that every rape claim was an actual rape unless we can prove with certainty that it was false.
The Stern Review makes innumerable other important points about rape, and we will have much more to say on it in the days ahead.
Below is one newspaper's take on it.
Harriet Harman's 'unreliable statistics on rape scare off victims'
Harriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday.
The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks.
The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction.
The claim was even made by Miss Harman last September on the day she set up the Stern review.
But Lady Stern, a prison reform campaigner and human rights activist, called in her report for 'an end to the widespread use of misleading rape conviction data - in particular the six per cent conviction rate figure'.
The six per cent figure relates to reported cases. In fact, the conviction rate for those actually charged with rape is nearly two out of three, higher than comparable figures for other violent crime.
The report's view is doubly humiliating for Miss Harman because it was she who set up the review.
Instead of condemning low conviction rates and demanding legal reforms - as ministers have repeatedly done over the past six years - Lady Stern said there should be more help for victims and greater use of police intelligence to track down men who serially attack and rape strangers.
Her report said: 'The figure for convictions of those charged with rape as the term is normally used is actually 58 per cent.
'There is concern that the six per cent figure can make victims feel it is not worth reporting.'
Lady Stern added: 'The conviction rate has taken over the debate to the detriment of other important outcomes for victims.
'Prosecuting and convicting is of course important, but my view is that support and care for victims should be as high a priority.
'The obligations the state has to those who have suffered a violent crime, and a crime that strikes at the whole concept of human dignity and bodily integrity, are much wider than working for the conviction of a perpetrator.'
It was the second high-level slap on the wrist Labour's deputy leader has received within a year over use of statistics to further her favoured political causes.
Last summer the watchdog UK Statistics Authority accused Miss Harman of 'undermining public trust' by exaggerating the pay gap between men and women.
Baroness Stern's report criticised 'sharp failures' by police in the cases of John Worboys, a taxi driver who was convicted of 12 attacks on women and may have committed more than 100, and Kirk Reid, suspected of 71 offences.
It called for sharing of police intelligence across London boroughs and for forces to consider specialist rape units.
Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.html
Posts
33 comments:
I hope their "independent" researchers/investigators take the time to read this site when the study is underway.
Anonymous said...
I hope their "independent" researchers/investigators take the time to read this site when the study is underway.
I hope they don't. I hope they have no preconceptions about any of this when they undertake the study. Having a bias of any kind is bad. the purpose of the study - indeed, any study - should be to have absolute emotional disconnection from the subject, to be able to see it in a purely objective light.
Science and reason and analysis should never be overwhelmed by a predetermined emotional prejudice. Even if it's a bias you share, the results of prejudicial 'study' is going to have a negative effect for your cause.
We know it's impossible not to be exposed to information about rape and its stigma, but that doesn't mean we should be hoping to skew an objective analysis with our own rhetoric. Let objectivity vindicate this cause.
Can't say I've got a lot of faith in Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Stern) because she has spent her entire life focused on the convicted and imprisoned, and the prison system.
The result?
In here career you still get fitted up for crimes you did not commit, but thanks to her reforms you now get a toilet in your cell whereas in the old days it was slop out (shit / piss in a bucket, which you emptied the next morning)
More comic genius from Harriet Hormone:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7436565/Gym-staff-who-issue-advice-to-women-could-be-prosecuted-under-equality-laws.html
I, personally, will not hold my breath on the "independent" thing. I think they will interpret "independent" to mean "independent" of government. You can bet that even as we speak, the politicized sexual grievance industry is gearing up to "make its point."
Personally, I'd be happy to live with the truth whatever it is. What we all need to insist on is to stop saying that there "only" whatever percentage of false claims that we know for sure -- suggesting that we know all the rest are rapes.
I do think this is a golden opportunity to raise again the issue of anonymity for the presumed innocent accused of sex offenses.
@ Archivist
Personally, I'd be happy to live with the truth whatever it is.
That's a tough one, because to get the truth you need to have every single allegation correctly categorised "at the point of sale" by the Police.
A task that (quite apart from deliberate massaging of figures, as another poster linked to 2 stories back) is frankly impossible unless you first create a set of categories that allow the truth to be recorded.
Until then, I'm going to stick with the default option, if 5.6% of all rapes reported to the Uk police result in a conviction, then 94.4% of all rapes reported to the Uk police are False Rape Accusations.
There's different information coming out on this report.
From The Guardian:
"a study into the number of false allegations, to see how it compares to other offences. An idea persists that false allegations are higher for rape, and it is hoped that a review would show this was not the case"
From The Telegraph:
"Other findings in her wide-ranging report include:
:: as many as one in ten rape allegations could be false"
These two papers are giving almost diametrically opposite versions. The former states that the Stern Report is attempting to minimise the problem of false rape accusations, while the latter implies that it is giving the problem serious attention, and trying to prove that there are more false accusations for rape than other crimes.
Snark, I linked to the actual report -- take a look when you have a chance. We should analyze it.
That goes for you, too, AfOR.
And AfOR said this: "That's a tough one, because to get the truth you need to have every single allegation correctly categorised 'at the point of sale' by the Police."
Wait, wait -- I did not say I expected the truth to yield certainty. I expect the truth to be that we just don't know for most rape claims.
"Snark, I linked to the actual report -- take a look when you have a chance. We should analyze it."
I hear you loud and clear. We can't trust the papers, they give different accounts of the same events, in accordance with their ideological slant.
The Guardian has always been about merciless and relentless male-bashing. No wonder they would spin it in this way.
The Times completely omitted the part about false claims.
I read over the report very quickly late last night and zeroed in on the part about false rape claims. It deserves a careful study. What I find interesting is that this might just be the first "mainstream" government report that doesn't conclude false rape claims are nothing to get excited about. It seems skeptical but makes no conclusions, and it truly does seem sympathetic of the ordeal of the falsely accused. I need to read it more carefully, but thus far, I look at it as a positive.
In brief; Harriet Harman has been told to stop misleading the public with her phony rape statistics by Baroness Stern.
The conviction rate for 'rape' in the UK is about 60% - not about 6%; which is what the lying Harriet Harman and her lying crony, Vera Baird, have kept saying over the years.
Baroness Stern's concern is that by telling the public that the conviction rate is only 6%, genuine victims of rape will be put off from going to the police - because they will believe that there is little chance of conviction.
And, of course, Baroness Stern is right.
And Harriet Harman is clearly well aware that her promulgation of the 6% conviction rate will discourage genuine rape victims from coming forward.
So, why has Harriet Harman been doing this? Surely, she is concerned to encourage genuine victims to come forward? Surely, she is also concerned to demonstrate that her government's courts are, in fact, doing quite well when it comes to convicting rapists who are actually brought before them?
So, why has Harriet Harman been deceiving the public for all these years?
It doesn't make sense, does it?
Oh yes it does - because, as I keep telling you, Harriet Harman has no concern for genuine rape victims. Her only concern is to garner the votes of women by stirring up hatred towards men.
And by forever proclaiming that 95% of rapists get away with their crimes, she manages to stir up this hatred in millions of women.
Finally, Baroness Stern's view that up to 10% of rape allegations might be false is nothing but baloney.
The false allegation figure is much closer to 90% than it is to 10%.
There is no valid evidence WHATSOEVER to suggest that the false allegations rate is close to 10%, but there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that it is close to 90%.
AH
"The false allegation figure is much closer to 90% than it is to 10%."
Even the persons who study the issue closely and who are the staunchest defenders of the falsely accused do not go that far.
Archivist - "Even the persons who study the issue closely and who are the staunchest defenders of the falsely accused do not go that far."
Either they DARE not go that far, or they are not looking properly at the evidence.
Without wanting to turn this into a conflict, I would count Angry Harry among those staunchest of staunch defenders of the falsely accused, who study the issue closely.
As you've said yourself - up to 90% of rape claims are 'unproven', i.e. they do not result in a guilty verdict, but are dropped, not brought to trial, or the defendant is acquitted.
It makes sense, then, that people aware of this could consider any number of rape claims false, from about 10%-90%, and this would still be consistent with the available evidence. It's a spectrum of opinion, and when you factor in all the men falsely accused who are convicted - then the figure of 90% does not seem so bizarre.
Although, personally, I would not endorse such a high claim, I do believe it is closer to 90% than official figures which put it at around 4%, or even this new figure of 10%.
My estimate would be somewhere around 60%-65%, though I can understand how some would believe it to be much higher than that, acting on the same evidence.
Besides which, I'm not factoring in the 'new' rapes, e.g. consensual sex where one of the partners was drunk. When we include the non-traditional 'rapes' then 90% seems quite sensible.
When I say up to 90%, what I mean is more than.
I forget the exact figure.
The point is, that it is possible that more than 90% of rape claims are false. Without certainty we simply can't say.
So an estimate of 90% is just as sensible as an estimate of any other percentage.
Thank you, Snark.
I should also emphasise that I am talking about the UK.
I have looked at the research in the UK, and it seems to me that UK women will make allegations of rape at the drop of a hat.
Yes, it is possible at upwards of 90 percent are false. My personal opinion is that false claims are in the same ballpark as Snark's, but I am not wedded to that number. It's perfectly fine for persons trying to make a point to posit numbers like that, but I need to be careful not to be an ideologue. Based on all the studies, and factoring in the uncertainty, no one can say for certain -- but it's significant. Read Dr. Gross's report on the matter -- very honest. He credits Kanin and the other major studies but concedes the area simply doesn't lend itself to certainty.
Anyway, we KNOW it's significant and serious. And that's enough to advocate for all the things we talk about here.
@Archivist - " but I need to be careful not to be an ideologue."
I understand completely.
But your fear (of being seen as an ideologue) is exactly what all the other researchers fear.
LOL!
They would not DARE to suggest that the FA Rate is high - even if the evidence suggests this.
With regard to Kanin, his work is well out of date.
Times have changed considerably since then.
There is much more to be gained these days by making false accusations.
I love how we need a study to determine that you shouldn't just take a woman's word for it when she falsely accuses a man of rape. That's called 'common sense.'
"I love how we need a study to determine that you shouldn't just take a woman's word for it when she falsely accuses a man of rape. That's called 'common sense.'"
Excellent point.
Somewhere along the way, society started to listen to a bunch of dishonest banshees who insisted women don't lie about rape. I doubt that many people ever really believed them, but my guess is going along with them seemed like the polite thing to do. And you see the price we paid for that.
I don't want to flog a dead horse here... but...
In the UK, 80% of all rape complaints made to the Police go no further.
In the UK, 96.4% of all rape complaints do not end up in a conviction.
Given that we know, FOR A FACT, that it is quite possible for the word of a woman, ALONE, to convict a man of rape, even if he has NEVER EVEN HAD SEX WITH HER, we simply have to go back to that 96.4% number and take a long hard look at it.
Bearing in mind that I have direct personal experience of being the victim of a False Rape Accusation in the UK, so I KNOW FOR A FACT how much of a connection there is between the actual facts, and what happens once the accusation is made and the machinery gets in motion, at this point MY PERSONAL OPINION is that at least 94.6% of all rape accusations made to the Police in the UK are false.
I do know for a fact, Baroness Stern did not include any falsely accused men in her survey of 200 people, nor did she make any contact with any men's / father's rights groups, which are chock full of men who have been falsely accused as part of a divorce / child custody case.
This is great news, And i hope the message that the "false rape society" is communicating reaches those that need to hear it.
If one 17 year old boy gets beat to death in his sleep, by a baseball bat, over a false rape accusation..That is 1 boy to many!!
The number of false convictions for rape in the US is probably proportionate to the recidivism rates: convicted rapists are more than one-third less likely to commit another crime upon release than other convicted felons.
Therefore, as many as one-third of men convicted in this country may be innocent.
AfOR, here's a stupid question about the UK's system (and please excuse my ignorance): you do, of course, know the identity of your accuser, right? But do the authorities instruct you not to reveal it under penalty of law?
@ Archivist.
Without giving away too much and identifying myself.... lol
Under UK Law...
1/ While a Police investigation into rape is ongoing, it is an offence to publish the name of your accuser, though you can notify your immediate family, if they keep their mouths shut.
2/ The reason being the accused friends could humiliate the accuser, and possibly cause her to withdraw the complaint, which is basically interfering with a witness, which is a charge of Perverting the Course of Justice.
3/ In practice, in UK Law, the Police will either remand you into custody, or give you unconditional bail, because again in practice in UK Law, most accusers simply get an ex-parte injunction the next morning after making the accusation, which as you will know can be quite limiting, and is subject to automatic arrest if you breach it, at which point you can say goodbye to your police bail for the alleged rape, and you get remanded in custody until your trial...
Do not pass go... etc
4/ Whether the accusation is made in Criminal or Civil Court, once the papers are filed, it is sub-judice, so again, you can't talk about it to anyone, except immediate family, if they keep their mouth shut.
5/ Failing to do this can lead to anything from a charge of Perverting the Course of Justice if the Court thinks you are trying to pressure a witness or the complainant, to Civil actions for Harassment or Slander.
6/ It is quite possible to have both, a police report of rape, and a civil action, for example the "nuclear" option in divorce, so you still need to keep your mouth shut until BOTH are over.
7/ Once the police / civil cases are over, you can tell who you like, subject to the usual laws on Defamation and Slander, and Harassment, just in case you take it too far.
8/ There is no specific law or statute that grants a rape accuser anonymity from the person she accuses, nor is there a specific law that binds the accused to keep his mouth shut.
That sort of shit only applied to official secrets and witness protection / new identities.
HTH etc
Thank you, AfOR. I should know that but I don't. You are, as always, very helpful.
There is always of course the "X factor, factor"
As any attorney will tell you, a court appearance is comprised of a very large part of a personality contest.
One way to lose that personality contest is to turn up to trail and have the judge hear about you badmouthing your accuser all over town and setting up a facebook page about her....
So even though many courses of action may be strictly legal, they would also be strictly stupid, while your neck is potentially still in the noose.
However...
Once all the dust has settled, publish and be damned, and your stock response can be "so sue me" if they don't like it.
AFTER you have familiarised yourself with various bits of legislation such as the local laws on defamation and the local laws on harassment.
www.jane-die-is-a-false-rape-accuser.com is acceptable.
printing 5000 flyers and nailing them to every pole in the town ain't.
NEVER forget, once someone has made one false accusation, there is no barrier to entry for them to make another... sure, the first one counts in your favour, IF you have first used the Law against them for Slander and Harassment etc etc etc.
If you haven't, then you may have problems, serious problems.
scenario 1
You file a civil action for slander and harassment
She files a second false accusation
Police and everyone else's first thought is "sour grapes"
scenario 2
You do not file any civil action
She files a second false accusation
Police and everyone else's first thought is "stalker"
YMMV / IANAL / etc
On Channel 4 TV this evening, a female police officer whose identity was kept hidden, and who proclaimed herself to be a feminist, said that she, herself, would think twice before going to the police to report a rape. I quote, ...
"I would have a lot of trouble reporting it [a rape] and I'm a serving police officer. I'm a feminist. I'm a blogger. I'm an independent-thinking woman. And I would be in two minds whether to report it [a rape] because of the grief it causes. And just the hassle of it, knowing the questions that are going to be put to you, and thinking, "Are you going to be getting anything out of it?" I've had seasoned detectives tell me that they think that the majority of allegations they've dealt with are false. And this is based on nothing more than the fact that they couldn't get enough evidence for a conviction."
So, there you have it.
1. Seasoned detectives believe that the majority of rape allegations are false.
2. This anonymous feminist policewoman thinks that these seasoned detectives are basing their conclusions solely on the basis of the fact that they cannot find enough evidence for conviction; i.e. she believes that these seasoned detectives (which will consist of both men and women detectives) are too stupid to differentiate between 'not finding enough evidence for a conviction' and a false allegation.
But the main point to be made here is this.
The 'seasoned detectives' whom she criticises clearly agree with my point of view.
The false allegation rate is closer to 90% than it is to 10%.
AH
AH, that's a great quote. Are you reporting it verbatim?
AH,
The problem with this is that she is probably lying.
It seems apparent to me, that the kind of sentiments she expressed, are grounds for imprisoning more men on even flimsier evidence.
A female police officer reports that the police force isn't taking rape seriously enough.
The outcome of this is that government sets down new rules, targets, etc., to prove that rape is now being taken more seriously.
Which means that even less evidence will be required to send men and boys to prison. Her say-so may simply be enough. Without any questioning of her story, motives, etc. Without any investigation, in other words, into the validity of her claims.
@Archivist
Yes. That quote is verbatim.
I should also add that I have come across other police officers who also believe that most rape allegations are false.
@Snark
I think that many wimmin police officers feel that not enough is being done about rape. These wimmin tend to believe rape allegations, in my view, because their notions of rape include those situations wherein a woman felt pressurised.
This particular police officer, however, described herself as a feminist - and she was clearly making a political statement in support of feminists.
@Archivist
Here are two quotes from police officers writing on her blog, ...
"A colleague of mine spent a weekend attached to a sexual offences unit, took three allegations, and was able to prove categorically in EVERY case that the victim was either lying or being seriously economical with the truth."
......
"Some of the greatest cynics I have spoken to are the SOLO officers [Sexual Offences Liason Officers] that are the initial investigaters in these matters. These are nearly always female officers with many years experience. The reason is that the majority of allegations they deal with are fabrications and that they spend alot of time and effort for nothing."
Do you happen to have the link to that blog?
That would be a great resource.
Post a Comment