Slate has a new article up about false rape allegations. The piece discusses attempts to quantify exactly now many rape allegations are in fact false, and makes occasional good points including some about the police and how their default setting is often 'this woman is a liar', however, it fails on several levels.
Firstly, its title is this: 'How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape'? I have a problem with this phrase 'cry rape'. Rape seems to be the only crime that is characterised by such language. The word 'cry' implies childish, it implies emotional, it implies lack of seriousness. Would it make sense to say that people 'cry burglary'?
Secondly, the article seems to accept this figure of '8-10%', however unreported rapes are only mentioned very briefly, at the end of the article - and these would seriously skew this '8-10%' figure.
Also, the article does not mention on what grounds the rape allegations studied are decided to be false. If those compiling the statistics are relying on the victim retracting her story as a measure of falseness (as in the recent Hofstra case), then this is rather dodgy for all kinds of reasons (victim intimidation, fear of going to trial, etc). We don't know, though, because the article doesn't elaborate.
The worst part, perhaps is this:
What is clear, however, are two problems that are the flip side of the same coin. False charges of rape are an absolute nightmare for the men caught in their net. And the specter of made-up allegations is a real problem for law enforcement--which means they are also a problem for women who are telling the truth. Let's take the men first.
This paragraph makes two assumptions:
1. It is as bad to be raped as it is to be accused of rape.
2. If a woman can't get justice when she's been genuinely raped, it's other women's fault for lying.
3. Men's stories on this subject are more important, so we'll tell those first.
The article then goes on to tell the story of one man who was accused of rape, and apparently found solace in talking to a rape victim, whereupon he found:
It turns out that her experience of being raped and mine of being falsely accused of rape were very similar. ... One important difference, though, is that when she was violated, she received a great deal of help (medical, legal, psychological). Apart from family and friends, I was on my own.
Crikey - so being accused of rape is not only the same as being raped, it's actually worse, because of all the help rape victims have! This paragraph made me feel faintly sick. Victims of rape have not only had their body violated, with all the physical and mental consequences of that, but they have to fight so hard for help (if they get any at all) and to be believed. He may have been 'on his own', but I wonder if he knew what he was saying here: on balance, would he really have preferred it if someone had forced him to have sex against his will?
The rest of the article concludes by detailing how false accusers basically spoil it for the real victims - the effects on the police (who don't believe real victims because they've heard so many made-up stories), the effects on juries (who have read page after page of media coverage of false accusations), and so on.
The message is clear: it's not the police, the justice system, the media or even rapists' fault that raped women can't get their attackers convicted: it's other women's fault for making up stories. These made-up stories also apparently deter women who have been genuinely raped from coming forward and reporting the attack. I agree that many victims don't come forward because they are scared they will not be believed. But doesn't that beg the question: what exactly then is the motivation for falsely accusing someone of rape?
Finally, I had a problem with the fact that someone had written an entire article on this subject. I have never, ever seen an article dissect false burglary, murder, or assault allegations in such a way. An obsession with false accusations of rape just makes the problem seem larger. It's part of rape culture.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Slate takes on the subject of 'crying rape', fails.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16365
It is worse to the extent that not only do the falsely accused have to deal with being disbelieved, blamed, face the physical and mental consequences of the false accusation (from threats to their lives to imprisonment to depression and suicide attempts), but they also have to face proving their innocence to an extent no other group is required to. They can be denied jobs, schooling, licenses for a host of things as a result of an accusation, especially if charges are filed. One thing people do not realize is that in some instances the charges may be dropped, but the person's record may be be expunged. So if the boy or man applies for a job, it would come up on a background check. These men also face the fact many people simply will never believe they are innocent even when evidence exonerating them, people who will blame them for putting themselves in those situations or call them names or say they deserve prison time even if nothing happened, which has occurred on this site.
No other crime carries the social stigma or the same social power as female rape. It is easy for those who have no personal experience with a particular problem to view it as harmless and inconsequential. It is particularly easy for some because the victims of this crime are overwhelmingly male and there are those cannot believe that women are capable of doing anything wrong. When someone lacks that experience, it creates a certain amount of apathy that allows the person to ignore another person's experiences.
I would suggest interacting with people who have been falsely accused before dismissing their experiences as trivial or suggesting that those people, mostly male, should just keep quiet and stop bringing attention to the problem of false accusations.
Rape victims are also disbelieved and blamed. They also face consequences such as depression and suicide attempts. They also have to either go through the stress of a trial (where their sexual history, dress sense, alcohol consumption etc will be picked apart in public) or know that their attacker walks free to rape again (sometimes, both of these things happen).
Being the victim of a sexual attack carries social stigma, and even if an attacker is convicted, many people will still believe that the victim was to blame in some way (were they out late? Were they drinking? Etc). The trauma of the rape plus social stigma affects relationships, and even career (because of the effects on self esteem, mental health, etc). If you think that rape victims don't suffer consequences for the rest of their lives then you're wrong.
What evidence do you have that people falsely accused of rape have a harder time exonerating themselves than people falsely accused of other crimes? Why does rape have, as you say, 'social power', when it is the crime with the lowest percentage of convictions in the country? No-one is saying that being falsely accused of a crime is 'harmless and inconsequential', and if you read my post properly, you would see that I never used the word 'trivial' or said that men should 'keep quiet'!
My actual point was that firstly, the Slate article implied that being accused of raping is *as bad as or worse than* being raped. I've seen no evidence from anyone that convinces me this is the case. And secondly, that women are being blamed for the fact that other women can't get justice. No other crime gets this one-sided treatment.
Being framed for murder I imagine would be pretty horrible, but where are the articles analysing how many framers there are, why people frame, and what the ramifications are for getting justice in other murder cases?
I did not say that female rape victims did not suffer consequence. Your response, however, demonstrates my point. What the falsely accused face is exactly what female rape victims face in terms of the affect and aftermath, except the falsely accused also face the added burden of being labeled a sex offender and all that the label socially implies. To consider the affects of both acts completely incomparable despite the acts resulting in the same emotional and social trauma is grossly reprehensible.
The evidence for the trouble those falsely accused face was presented in the Slate article, yet you readily dismissed the man's account. This is despite the man purposely seeking out a rape victim and comparing their aftermath and finding that it was virtually the same. If his word about his own experience cannot be accepted, then there is little else that can be presented to demonstrate that being falsely accused is a horrible experience on par with being raped.
No other crime receives this level of scrutiny because no other crime carries this high of a potential for imprisonment based solely on one person's word without any physical evidence. The potential for an innocent person to be imprisoned is much higher because all it takes is a believable accuser, and since most cases do not involve physical evidence, if the person is innocent but is convicted he has no real way to prove his innocence. That is why this crime is and should viewed with a much higher level of scrutiny differently and it should be, particularly given the historical racial component of false accusations in the United States.
"What the falsely accused face is exactly what female rape victims face in terms of the affect and aftermath."
No, sorry, it isn't. Do the falsely accused face having their sexual and medical histories picked apart in public? How about the fear that your rapist will strike again - on you, or on someone else? How about being physically ashamed of yourself and your body? Just for starters.
The bottom line though is that the falsely accused have not had their physical bodies violated.
"you readily dismissed the man's account"
Please tell me what I said to dismiss the man's account. What I wondered was, would he have preferred it if he'd been forced to have sex? My point is not that false accusations don't have an effect - they clearly do - I just don't think they have worse effects than rape itself.
If someone accused me of stealing, I would be upset and angry, of course, but I wouldn't seek out and speak to a victim of burglary, and then tell a journalist that our experiences were exactly the same. My experience might be the same as someone who had been falsely accused of stealing, but it would not be the same as someone who had been stolen from. Not the same at all.
This is despite the man purposely seeking out a rape victim and comparing their aftermath and finding that it was virtually the same.
The same TO HIM. I wonder if she saw it that way. We don't know, because the article doesn't tell her story. It tells his.
"If his word about his own experience cannot be accepted..."
Wouldn't it be nice if women's word about their own experiences were accepted? Oh no, hang on, apparently that's the whole problem...
"No other crime receives this level of scrutiny because no other crime carries this high of a potential for imprisonment based solely on one person's word without any physical evidence."
Are men routinely convicted of rape without physical evidence in the US? Because they aren't in the UK (where I live). Usually if it's just one person's word against another's, it never even *gets* to court in the first place.
Thing is, for the UK especially, it already does have a high level of 'scrutiny'. In the UK the rape conviction rate is around 6%. This means vastly more guilty people are going free than innocent people going to jail.
The 'scrutiny' that is at work at the moment involves discrediting alleged victims, using their sexual history, alcohol consumption etc... none of which is remotely relevant to whether that person was raped at that moment by that other person.
You are making a false equivalency. No one is comparing the act of making a false accusation with the act of rape. What is being compared are the affects. Yes, the article focused on the man because he was the one who was falsely accused. To argue that it was "the same TO HIM" implies that his opinion of his experience should not be considered. Or to the point, it implies that the only opinions that matter on this subject are those of female rape victims. That is hardly objective. The only objective way is for one person to state the affects of his experience and then another person state his and then compare the two.
The affects I listed above and those you listed above are more or less the same things, yes? There are small differences specific to the acts, but we are clearly describing the same set of responses, yes? Being raped is nothing like being called to kill dozens of people as a soldier in war. The two acts are completely different. However, the affects of those to experiences are the same. Both groups often develop post traumatic stress disorder as a result of their experiences. Would you reasonably argue that those affects are not the same despite the latter being worse than the former?
"To argue that it was "the same TO HIM" implies that his opinion of his experience should not be considered. Or to the point, it implies that the only opinions that matter on this subject are those of female rape victims. That is hardly objective."
Putting words in my mouth again. I never said his opinion should not be considered, but I found it telling that in the article, *only* his story was told. We have no idea what the woman in question's opinion was because she was not consulted. The article said "we'll take the men first" and then proceeded to *only* tell a man's story.
They then concluded based on this story that men's experiences of false accusation were the same as rape victim's experiences of rape. But to make this conclusion, they needed to have spoken to a rape victim and asked *them*, "Do you consider your experiences to be equivalent to those who are falsely accused?" My guess is they wouldn't find anyone to give them the answer they wanted.
I have never said that the only opinions that matter are those of female rape victims (you seem to really enjoy putting words into my mouth). I merely pointed out that the article allowed a falsely accused man to tell his story, and express his opinions, and did not include stories from rape victims or allow them to express their opinions. That is definitely *not* objective.
It is not putting words into your mouth. The conclusions I reached are implied in your statements, so much so those who agree with your statement reached the same conclusion. The difference is that I do not support your position.
In regards to the article's use of the man's story, the full statement was: "What is clear, however, are two problems that are the flip side of the same coin. False charges of rape are an absolute nightmare for the men caught in their net. And the specter of made-up allegations is a real problem for law enforcement—which means they are also a problem for women who are telling the truth. Let's take the men first."
The article (which was specifically about the falsely accused) referred to the falsely accused and then to law enforcement dealing with false accusations. The comparison was not between the man's story and female rape victims, so your complaint is a misinterpretation of what the article actually presented. Likewise, the article did not conclude the experiences were the same; the man made that conclusion.
You may disagree with his position, however, your reason for that is at issue. The man asked his ex-girlfriend (who was a rape victim) and directly compared their aftermath experiences. He found them to be the same, as was our comparison of the affects. Therefore the reason for finding the experience incomparable cannot be based on objective analysis. There must be some other reason at play.
As for speaking to rape victims about the comparability, that would appear most ineffective given that my opinion on the matter, despite my experiences, is apparently outside of consideration.
The obvious question that needs to be addressed is whether the accuser is genuine in her allegations (meaning she believed this person actually raped her) or are her allegations malicious in nature?
Being a rape survivor myself, I find it reprehensible that any Woman would "maliciously" accuse someone of falsely raping her, (because I feel the accuser is taking the act lightly.) Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that being falsely accused of rape is the same or even similar to being raped. However, I do think that it can have devastating consequences for the accused.
Furthermore, "maliciously" reporting a false rape not only hurts rape survivors, because time and money is spent on their false cases when it should be spent on genuine ones (like mine,) It also hurts rape survivors if we come forward and are not believed. I don't think that should be the case (the facts of individual cases are the only things that should matter,) but unfortunately IT IS!
More importantly, Rape is NOT a weapon to be used against someone in any manner whether you're a man or a woman. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is a vile, violent event that needs to be taking seriously by everyone! Which is why In Florida (where I live) I'm working with the state in order to get Rape education classes in Middle, and High Schools. In this I'm hoping that the more education we have about rape, the less it will occur...as well as false allegations.
Good post, earthling.
Toysoldier, in the real world, we already are more concerned about the poor wickle 'falsely accused' menz - and let's be clear, that's 2-3% of rape allegations according to the UK Home Office, hardly a bastion of radical feminism - than about the actual victims.
I doubt anyone is denying men accused of rape, but acquitted, jobs or education. They probably assume nothing happened and all women are lying hussies. No-one is saying being falsely accused is fun, it isn't, but I doubt there are serious consequences.
How about someone actually thinks about the problem of why rape victims are disbelieved? Why they have to justify themselves in ways other victims of crime don't; why did she drink, walk home alone, go back to his place, and so on? What was she wearing? Had she ever had sex with other men? No-one assumes someone who reports burglary is making it up because they gave their possessions away and regretted it.
can you show me support for this 2-3% and then explain how it applies all over the world, including the US.
i don't want to bring too much attention to the issue, since being falsely accused of rape is a minor thing that poor wickle men have to deal it. its bigoted responses like that that prevent a wider range of people taking victims and their advocates seriously. the entire affairs is clearly a zero sum game.
It can be found on the internet. I've seen the same study. All over the world, seriously? You mean like afghanistan, pakistan, iraq, ect? Where women are commonly raped and then punished for it. Dont think those are really legit sources of 'false claims.' But youre just out to condemn all us feminists for fighting back against rape and the rape culture we live in. Its this type of saturated with denial responses like yours which perpetuate the cycle.
No actually I don't think you have. 2-3% has been cited quite often but most of those citations lead to other citations which lead to still more citations sometimes culminating in a pamphlet which had no sources or just leading to more citations but no actual study. So if you have a link I would be interested for how it was determined to be so much lower than the Dept. of Justice's statistics.
The original published source of the claim
“When New York City created a special Rape Analysis Squad commanded by policewomen, the female police officers found that only 2 percent of all rape complaints were false—about the same false-report rate that is usual for other kinds of felonies.”40
and often cited by writers citing secondary sources citing each other, falsely attributing US federal government sources like DoJ or the FBI, or none at all, was found to be Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will, published in 1975.
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf
Greer continues, in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Vol. 33:947:
When one looks at her “Source Notes” for this proposition, she states it to be: “NYC Rape Analysis Squad found only 2 percent of complaints were false: ‘Remarks of Lawrence H. Cooke, Appellate Division Justice, Before the Association of the Bar of the City of New York,’ Jan. 16, 1974 (mimeo), p.6.”41
Greer's report continues:
When I contacted the then-judge’s law clerk, and he made inquiry of all those directly involved in the preparation of Judge Cooke’s speech, their best recollections are that they did not rely upon any report but cannot remember precisely how they did obtain the two percent figure.45 Of course, it remains possible that some such report was generated, but as of this date, no one is able to adduce it.46 Without the document, one cannot analyze the underlying data, the protocol used in evaluating it, or even whether it met minimum criteria of accuracy.47
[end quote]
Now then, if one gets beyond the knee jerk "Bullshit" stage if an MRA claims that 41% of rape accusations are false based on Kanin, or 27% or 60% based on AFOSI, what are the first questions you would ask? How would you dissect or critique the claim and any support behind it?
Do you apply the same standard here, for the informal comments of one legal figure based on an unsubstantiated number from one law enforcement organization, in 1974, before claiming it true of the entire US in 2009?
Or will you choose the number that you like?
You said it. Toysoldier sounds like an MRA.
No-one is saying being falsely accused is fun, it isn't, but I doubt there are serious consequences.
I agree with your and Earthling's points: False rape accusations don't seem to be more common that false reports of other kinds of crimes, and obsessing over this "problem" is misleading.
But: You "don't believe" there are serious consequences for men who have been falsely accused? Why not? I've often heard feminists argue rape victims should report the crime and pursue justice, even if it's unlikely that the rapist will be convicted, *because* it can make a difference. The arrest can stay on his record, making people look at him with more suspicion (which is a good thing if he's guilty, a bad thing in the rare instances where he's innocent).
Furthermore, no one's mentioned the possible consequence that a man could be falsely convicted. Serving a five or ten-year prison sentence for a crime you didn't commit would indeed be pretty nightmarish.
The danger of false accusation is nowhere near as ubiquitous and frightening as the danger of rape is for women. But saying that a false accusation could be traumatic and isolating for the individual men involved isn't MRA or "what about the menz," it's just realistic.
You don't understand because you're wedded to the notion that there are menz who genuinely aren't rapists and don't deserve to be treated as such. That is not a very popular view around here. To fit in, you'd be better off assuming that even if the manz didn't commit rape in that particular instance he has undoubtedly gotten away with it in the past.
Ooh. Ouch!
Not to derail, but your argument that rape victims 'have to justify themselves in ways victims of other crimes don't' isn't always true. I was attacked and mugged one night and each of my closest friends and my parents seperately pointed out that I shouldn't have been walking round that late on my own. I don't think victim blaming is as precisely gendered as your post suggests.
You DO realize that PLENTY of black men who went to prison young were relased as old black men who had been beaten and raped in prison AFTER DNA CONFIRMED THEY WERE NOT INDEED RAPISTS????!!!!!
No consequences my ass, thats a spit int eh face to every person-male or female who has EVER been falsely accused and had their lvies, their families, their jobs, their credibility, their support network and their ability to say NO ripped form them because someone thought it would be fun to say they were raped. How the hell could you EVEN feel an ounce of sympathy for such mindless people?
Not only that but when we waste our time and energy prosecuting and villifying an innocent man we let a GUILTY ONE GO FREE. Yes its either or because we don't have unlimited money, human-power or human hours to waste on false accusations.
What are the possible consequences of being falsely accused of rape?
In theory, exactly the same as a rapist being accused of rape, with the added burden of knowing one is being treated and distrusted unjustly. They would spend time in lockup or jail until they make bail, if they can make bail, with actual criminals. That some would claim depression or suicidal thoughts in addition to job loss or social isolation even if charges are dropped or found not guilty are unsurprising.
However, unlike the majority of assaults which are never reported, a false accusation (which is what the 2-10% figure refers to) IS a report made to police. Thus unreported rapes do nothing to skew rates of false reports. A rate of false reporting remains the same. According to figures cited by RAINN,
If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
That's a 50.8% chance of arrest, 40.6% chance of prosecution, 23.6% of conviction, and 16.3% chance of going to prison.
Can anyone who believes that someone falsely accused of rape would not have a difficult time proving their innocence, please explain the kind of evidence that would prove to you that an accused rapist is indeed innocent? How do you propose an actually innocent man prove that sex was consensual, when a woman says it was not?
RAINN is an MRA.
Explain how RAINN is an MRA organization, please.
And I'll wait for someone to explain how a man innocent of rape is supposed to prove it in a way acceptable to you.
Only an MRA would address the consequences for menz of being accused of rape. Ergo.
Are you serious? SO if someone accused your father, brother, son of rape and it was false they spent time in jail and was even raped themselves that should all be silenced and kept to themselves? SO now male rape victims who were falsely accused of rape are anti-feminists if they DARE tell their stories? Are you serious? R
i hope this comment doesn't offend any men, sorry if it does, but given the kind of advice given to women on how to avoid rape...
if a man is worried that he's going to have consensual sex and the woman will turn around and accuse him of raping her, and leave him little room to argue otherwise, MAYBE he should just limit himself to having sex with women he has a closer personal relationship with?
the possibility of being rape puts so many burdens and limitations on women, so this would seem pretty light a burden in comparison for a man who is worried some woman is going to falsely accuse him.
Agreed.
And maybe he shouldn't dress so nicely, either, because lord knows then he's really asking to be falsely accused of rape.
But hey, it's only a "light burden" of victim-blaming, isn't it?
Women have the right to expect not to be raped. Men have the right to expect to not be reported for rape in the case of consensual sex.
These aren't mutually exclusive. They're two sides of the same coin. That one is a bigger problem does not make the other one non-existent.
Just one question: what should men who end long-term relationships do to avoid false claims?
Some tips would be nice, since you seem to have it down in the victim-blaming department.
Your assuming that all the men who have been falsely accused have had sex with the woman. In fact, in the vast majority of cases which have been proven false that has not been what has happened. In fact they have managed to establish their innocence by establishing that no sex occurred between them and the victim (in cases of misidentification) or that none of the elements of the crime occurred (in cases of an outright falsehood.
What was this man supposed to have done? He was just a random person.
Or these men?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxwPU0W-Wg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbj-PhrTt9s
What is remarkable is not the accusations made. What is remarkable is the accusations were made despite knowledge of the videos. These men were fortunate to have videos, as were those in the Hofstra case, a 2008 UK case, and a 2004 San Francisco case (where a woman claimed six men kidnapped her at gunpoint and gang raped her).
What would motivate people to make a false accusation? One would need to ask people like those, or read their minds.
"victim retracting her story as a measure of falseness"
The allege victim didn't retract her story she was compelled to do so on account that overwhelming evidence was found to show her as "Lying about rape"
as in a form of a video showing no force used but consensual sex. That was enough to instantly stop all proceeding against the accused but no charges were laid against the girl no one on this blog is ready to acknowledge any wrong doing in the recent Hofstra case that so far false allegations is the only crime committed with compelling evidence. Because of the overwhelming leniency for false allegations will this factor make it more difficult to believe testimony given by a victim?
I hope it wont be the case but I do believe they will consider the possibility of false testimony
to be more prominent that was believed in the past.
Oh no, they want to prosecute the menzes for making the video that proved they didn't rape her. They're that furious that no rape actually occurred.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/017845.html#comments
He may have been 'on his own', but I wonder if he knew what he was saying here: on balance, would he really have preferred it if someone had forced him to have sex against his will?
What do you think might have happened had he gone to prison for a few decades?
i'll do the best i can here to answer two people.
my original statement did not cover the case in which an accusation is made but no sex occurred. i'm not a lawyer, but if an accusation was made against a man who had not in fact actually had sex with a woman, i'd imagine the lack of forensic evidence would be a major point.
women have a right to not be raped. this is totally true, but it's also likely enough to happen that this right seems pretty weakly protected. women are given all kinds of advice on how to avoid being raped. is this advice just pragmatic or is it in fact a de facto acceptance of a rape culture? i don't know.
men have a right to be free of false accusations. it would seem to me that this doesn't happen very often, but yes, it doesn't mean that it doesn't EVER happen, so it does have to be dealt with. that's the best advice i can give to men who are fearful they might be falsely accused of being raped. i think the 'advice' given to women is pretty lousy, so i'm sorry if i can't come up with anything better for men.
It's amazing that so many Feministing posters and commentators think the judicial system is corrupt, oppressive and unfair in all cases except that a wrongly accused man will never be convicted of rape.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/bal-webster030903,0,7491524.story?page=1
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/517717/convicted_rapist_charles_chatman_exonerated.html
http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/947/index.php
The Duke Lacrosse team, with all their racial, social and economic privileges, barely got away with not raping a woman. But we're supposed to accept that overburdened public defenders with no resources or media attention are consistently able to prevent wrongful convictions for poor black and latino "menz"? Apparently punishing the innocent makes up in part for the guilty who go free. Pure Scaliaism.
The majority of rape cases, whether involving female or male victims, usually have no physical evidence demonstrating a crime occurred because the cases are reported typically some time after the assault to place. Many cases go to trial with only the accuser's statement as evidence, so the absence of evidence does not actually prevent those cases from going to trial.
The clear problem with this is that if the accused is innocent but was convicted, he has no means of showing it beyond proving that the accuser lied, which would be very difficult to do.
Gah.
I think the reason people use the phrase "Crying Rape" is because of ye olde fablee of "Crying Wolfe."
And the fable still applies. A wolf back, in the day, was a serious threat to the safety of the village and its inhabitants, and to falsely invoke the fear of the wolf was to make it so people would not really believe it when a wolf was there to threaten das village.
Moving on...
There has been some discussion above about how a charge of rape progresses through the criminal justice system. My old employer, the Justice Center of the University of Alaska, Anchorage collected data for how sexual assault cases progressed through the AK system (so I don't really know how this would compare to other states or countries/counties, but I would suspect something simular)
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/25/1-2springsummer2008/b_attrition.html
Take some time to look at Figure 1. Crunch the numbers yourself so you can see that even the vast majority of cases go through from one stage to the other, only about 15% of the total reporte cases lead to conviction.
Also, I personally have done research for the Alaska department of Corrections and the Justice Center regarding sexual assault and sexual offenders. I read over 800 police reports containing 1400 sexual assault dyads for one project and for another I collected data from the probation/parole files of sexual offenders that were undergoing polygraph examinations... I can't remember how many files I went through... about 60 to 90...
Based on all that, some things I took away from all of that...
trigger warning
When you look at 'false' rape determinations, you have to keep in mind who is doing the accusation. There were many times I read a police report were the claim of sexual assault came from the victim's mother, against the father, after divorce paperwork was filed. The victim was given a forensic interview by trained and specialized interviewers and based on the alleged victim's interview the determination by the police was the mother was using the sexual assault charge as a bargaining chip in the divorce.
Fucked up, right?
The take away from that is when you want to look at 'false' allegations of rape you need be sophisticated enough to separate the claims one makes against oneself as a victim and the claim one makes on another behalf.
Also, there is a huge gab between cases that are determined to be 'unfounded' and those cases that are 'unprovable' or some other determination that will basically shut down a case, like an uncooperative victim.
Unfortunately, some data analysis blur the distinction between the two.
There were also what I would consider tragic communications. I remember reading one police report were the victim reported that she and suspect engaged in consentual sexual activities and at one point the victim decided she did not want to have sex but could not tell the suspect she wanted to stop... so she started talking dirty so he would cum sooner.
Imagine that mind fuck as a dude. You are having consentual sex with a girl, and asking permission every step of the way, who start talking dirty and then she says you sexually assaulted her. Side note... no alcohol involved.
I am wary slapping a number on the percent of sexual assaults I think are false. The research I did with the police reports placed it at about 11 per cent. On the other hand, when I was looking at the self-report data on sex offenders that had to do the poly-graph I came across a concerning circumstance.
The police report, based on the suspect and victim's statement, appeared as if no sexual assault occurred. Either the victim recanted or there was some other circumstance that suggested that no assault occurred. Put when the offender was subjected to polygraph examination to confirm his sexual assault history (protected under the 5th amendment) he admitted the sexual assault occurred.
RE 'crying rape':
I am well aware of the phrase 'to cry wolf'. This is a story told to children, first of all, to put them off lying. (When something bad really happens, because you lied before, everyone will get hurt and it will be your fault - not a nice story.)
But you miss my point. What other crime uses the word 'cry' in front of it (referencing, as you say, crying wolf) to imply a false accusation? Does it make sense to say 'cry assault'? 'Cry robbery'? Think about it.
The phrase 'cry rape' implies lying, from the outset. And the more it's used, the more people associate rape with lying.
"The phrase 'cry rape' implies lying, from the outset."
Well yes, it is used to imply lying from the outset. In the Hofstra case the woman was lying from the outset. It is a phrase used specifically not when a woman merely misidentified her attacker, but when it can be established that no assault took place.
"And the more it's used, the more people associate rape with lying."
So your proposal would be what? To ignore the fact that people lie about crimes and do what? Ignore the evidence that the crime did not happen and prosecute the accused anyways? Spread a false perception that every rape accusation should end with a conviction?
Yes false accusations unnecessarily influence a jury who view a case not solely on its own merits, but on the merits of the prior allegations of that crime. It makes police officers more suspicious because they feel that they were let down by the suspect who sent them on a wild goose chase only to make them not want it happen to them again. (Its not exactly unique, OJ Simpson got off on no small part because of the prior actions of the police departments in the area influencing the jury. Shows like CSI make juries hold a belief in forensic evidence which is many times to substantial for the situation.)
This is why feminists used to claim they were always angry at women who made false allegations. But it seems that there is a growing portion of feminists who will make any excuse for a false accuser, and seem instead quite friendly to the idea of false accusations. Which is pretty disturbing.
"So your proposal would be what? To ignore the fact that people lie about crimes and do what?"
Excuse me, when have I implied that? You are going way off the deep end here. I said that in my opinion the phrase 'cry rape' is derogatory, implies lying, and that the word 'cry' is not used in conjunction with any other crime. I asked people to think about that. I did not say that I would like to see false accusations 'ignored'.
People lie about other crimes, too - like burglary, arson, assault, and so on. But there is no such phrase as 'cry burglary' and there are no articles dissecting the negative consequences of false burglary allegations. Why is rape different? That's what I'm asking.
It implies lying because that is what the accuser did in these cases. It might sound derogatory, but why shouldn't a woman who actively attempted to send a man to jail for a crime he didn't commit be free from derogatory comments?
the word 'cry' is not used in conjunction with any other crime.
Simply because there aren't that many mono-syllabic crimes which can replace the word wolf so in those cases it sounds better to simply say "cried wolf" rather than go into depth about "the person who cried aggravated assault and armed robbery in an act of political terrorism"
It doesn't quite roll of the tongue.
People lie about other crimes, too - like burglary, arson, assault, and so on. But there is no such phrase as 'cry burglary' and there are no articles dissecting the negative consequences of false burglary allegations. Why is rape different? That's what I'm asking.
There are you simply haven't looked for them and thus concluded they didn't exist.
For example here's an article on auto-insurance fraud but not just any type but a particular subset there in. Here is another specifically on lying about car theft
Murder is fairly hard without a body, burglary is pretty much the same situation as the car insurance scams.
A friend and her son lived in my apartment for awhile because their house burned down and the insurance company thought it might be arson and fraud. I would like to see the company's managers and inspectors hanged, but this might have a tweensy bit to do with the fact that people do lie about fires.
"Simply because there aren't that many mono-syllabic crimes which can replace the word wolf so in those cases it sounds better to simply say "cried wolf" rather than go into depth about "the person who cried aggravated assault and armed robbery in an act of political terrorism"
It doesn't quite roll of the tongue."
Either you're being facetious, or you're seriously suggesting that the only reason the catchphrase 'cry rape' is in popular use is that 'rape' happens to be a one-syllable word. 'Fraud' is a one-syllable word too - how often do you hear someone say 'cry fraud'?
When is 'cried wolf' regularly used to refer to false accusations of other crimes, by the way?
And are you suggesting that the coverage of false accusations of other crimes is anything like as prevalent as the coverage of false rape accusations? And is the coverage of these false accusations (of car theft, etc) more prevalent than coverage of the actual crimes themselves?
You say that about murder, but people can and do get framed for murder.
No because usually people commit fraud, they don't cry it. Although I'm sure if we looked into some consumer reports we would hear that particular phrase.
When is 'cried wolf' regularly used to refer to false accusations of other crimes, by the way?
It was used quite commonly in the discussion of the person I linked to.
And are you suggesting that the coverage of false accusations of other crimes is anything like as prevalent as the coverage of false rape accusations? And is the coverage of these false accusations (of car theft, etc) more prevalent than coverage of the actual crimes themselves?
Actually someone getting caught for insurance fraud is likely to get more coverage than someones car being stolen. But yes a false rape allegation is a bit more captivating then someone taking their car and setting it on fire for insurance money.
Similarly stories that people make up about carjackings also get more attention, same goes for stories which were made up about particularly vicious assaults.
You say that about murder, but people can and do get framed for murder.
In the case of someone being framed for murder there still usually needs to be a dead guy. Thus its not "crying wolf" someone is dead it was made to look like someone else did it, hence why we use the word 'framed' to give the connotation that the crime was arranged to look a certain way, not that no crime occurred.
There are cases where someone cries murder and no crime has been committed. The case in the documentary "Brother's Keeper" is an example. Some would say that Klaus von Bulow was accused of a crime when no crime happened. Madeline Smith's entire defense was that it was suicide, not murder (I suppose one could argue that suicide is a crime, but you seem to be saying that the only false accusations of murder happen when there was a murder, but the wrong person is accused).
Also:
While the comments so far seem to be concentrating on the effects of false accusation on the accused, I think the issue of women being responsible for other women's justice is just as important an issue and perhaps bothers me even more.
No amount of previous false accusers should be able to prejudice justice for *anyone*. Each case should be treated on its own merits, and the police/juries should be encouraged to realise this, rather than being allowed to let their prejudices cloud their judgement. Just because Person A lied, doesn't make Person B automatically a liar too, as they are two different individuals. To say otherwise is to say all women or all rape victims are the same.
Put more simply, if a raped woman fails to get justice because the jury have all read about the Hofstra case, that is not the fault of the woman in the Hofstra case. It is the fault of the jury for not being objective and not taking the case they are trying on its individual merits.
Put more simply, if a raped woman fails to get justice because the jury have all read about the Hofstra case, that is not the fault of the woman in the Hofstra case. It is the fault of the jury for not being objective and not taking the case they are trying on its individual merits.
Yes the jury should be perfectly impartial, and in a perfect world, they are. But the world isn't perfect, and in the real world there was a significant connection to the woman in the Hofstra case making it more difficult for real victims to get justice.
By the same token, you should not have any problem with the phrase 'cry rape' used in this article because it should not influence a jury because a jury should be entirely impartial. Why should people discussing the crime be held to a higher standard then the criminal herself?
Why should she receive sympathy? She would have sent four men to jail for many many years, they would have been under significant threat for sexual assault, they would have lost their ability to have a career, a family, and their lives would be ruined. She was willing to do this because it would have provided an alibi for her boyfriend. And your sympathetic to her, and don't want to see her blamed for anything. Why?
"Why should she receive sympathy?... And your sympathetic to her, and don't want to see her blamed for anything. Why?"
First of all - this post is not about the Hofstra case. It is about a Slate article which discusses false rape allegations *in general*. I mentioned the Hofstra case as an example to make my point.
I have *never* said that the woman in the Hofstra case should receive sympathy, and I have *never* said that I personally am sympathetic to her. Please read what I actually wrote. You are putting words in my mouth.
I think she should be blamed for what she did, i.e. lie about being raped. I do not think she should be blamed for any future injustices that happen to other women who *have* been raped. That is a step too far, and takes the responsibility of ensuring justice away from the justice system itself.
Yes juries are not objective 'in the real world', but instead of concentrating on false accusers and writing articles about that, why not concentrate on teaching juries and the police how to be objective, and write an article about how important objectivity is?
The phrase 'cry rape' is a derogatory phrase used by the media frequently and perpetuates this sense that women lying about rape is very common. Yes juries *should* ignore it, as they should ignore previous false accusations they have read about - but that does not mean the media can have carte blanche to use such language, and to put out saturation coverage of false accusers. It *lessens the likelihood* that a potential juror / police officer would be objective. If we agree that juror objectivity is the ideal, then media coverage should *also* be objective.
The justice system is far from perfect. All the badly needed reforms we could make would never make it perfect. People who actively abuse and sabotage the justice system by lying are a big part of the reason for that. You don't have to like the fact that false accusations interfere with the prosecution of genuinely guilty parties. There's just no conceivable scenario in which that won't be the case.
But she perverted the course of justice. This was not strictly a crime against the people she accused, it was a crime against the legal system itself. We prosecute those who perjure themselves as having committed an offense against the state because their actions threaten the legal system. Because if we do not prosecute them, then people are not discouraged from doing the same, and then the testimony of many other witnesses is more questionable.
She is responsible just as those who perjure themselves are responsible. They do not simply harm those who are parties to the case, they harm the system as a whole.
Yes juries are not objective 'in the real world', but instead of concentrating on false accusers and writing articles about that, why not concentrate on teaching juries and the police how to be objective, and write an article about how important objectivity is?
How do you propose to do that, if you want to stifle any discussion of how one of the parties might be lying. It isn't particularly conducive to education if you attempt to shut down any discussion of the issue.
The phrase 'cry rape' is a derogatory phrase used by the media frequently and perpetuates this sense that women lying about rape is very common.
We know that at least 8% of cases are false. That is significant, and hardly uncommon. Further the phrase conveys no such thing. It conveys the idea that there is a very real threat, but that there are women who make light of it.
Yes juries *should* ignore it, as they should ignore previous false accusations they have read about - but that does not mean the media can have carte blanche to use such language, and to put out saturation coverage of false accusers. It *lessens the likelihood* that a potential juror / police officer would be objective.
In your world we would have jurors think that no woman ever lies about rape? How does that promote an objective jury? It seems to me it would only promote one which is more prone to conviction, which does not mean an objective one.
If we agree that juror objectivity is the ideal, then media coverage should *also* be objective.
Objective during the case, sure. The case is over, the woman in the Hofstra case lied. An objective assessment determines that she lied. An objective assessment of rape cases which are reported to the police finds at least 8% of them can be established to be untrue or to have no basis in law. Why should this not be common knowledge that this happens?
"But she perverted the course of justice. This was not strictly a crime against the people she accused, it was a crime against the legal system itself. We prosecute those who perjure themselves as having committed an offense against the state because their actions threaten the legal system."
And yes, she should be prosecuted, as should anyone who falsely accuses a person of a crime. The wrongdoing rests in the effects on the person accused, the fact that police time has been wasted, and so on. The reasons why perjury and perverting the course of justice are crimes, is because if people do these things, the outcome of the investigation or trial in question could be the wrong outcome - justice might not be done *in that case*. It is not about future cases.
"How do you propose to do that, if you want to stifle any discussion of how one of the parties might be lying. It isn't particularly conducive to education if you attempt to shut down any discussion of the issue."
Again, putting words in my mouth! When have I said that I want to stifle or shut down the discussion? I'm asking questions about why lying about *rape in particular* is being so widely reported and analysed, and why this Slate article attempts to argue that being falsely accused is as bad as being raped, etc.
"In your world we would have jurors think that no woman ever lies about rape? How does that promote an objective jury? It seems to me it would only promote one which is more prone to conviction, which does not mean an objective one."
YET AGAIN, putting words into my mouth and ascribing opinions to me that I don't hold. I'm getting sick of this, frankly. When have I said that no woman ever lies about rape? When have I said that this is what I think, or what I want jurors to think? If you actually read what I wrote, I said that juries should treat each case on its merits. Meaning, they should try and work out whether they think *the person they are actually trying* is lying, rather than assuming they are based on their prejudices/media reports of 'crying rape'/etc.
Everyone knows that human beings are capable of lying. But when one group is singled out as being more likely to lie, or a crime is singled out as being more associated with lying than other crimes - with no evidence to back this up - you make it more likely that juries will not be objective.
"An objective assessment of rape cases which are reported to the police finds at least 8% of them can be established to be untrue or to have no basis in law. Why should this not be common knowledge that this happens?"
Well no, even the Slate article said the 8% figure was a best guess, not an established figure. And it doesn't take into account unreported rapes. Fine, have it be common knowledge, but have the false accusation rates for other crimes be *as* widely reported and *as* common knowledge. At the moment, this is not the case.
That's going to be my last word on the subject as I'm sick of trying to engage with someone who continually puts words in my mouth, attributes opinions to me that I don't hold and attacks me for things that I have never said or implied.
It is not about future cases.
Why not, she harmed future cases, she harmed the reputation of the system, she had this effect, why should she be spared from condemnation for what she caused when it was a predictable outcome of her actions?
When have I said that no woman ever lies about rape? When have I said that this is what I think, or what I want jurors to think? If you actually read what I wrote, I said that juries should treat each case on its merits. Meaning, they should try and work out whether they think *the person they are actually trying* is lying, rather than assuming they are based on their prejudices/media reports of 'crying rape'/etc.
But you don't want the jury to know that there have been many cases where people, for various reasons, have lied even about the most of vicious assaults? You never said you don't want the juries to view it this way, you merely never want it to be discussed. That has the same result.
Everyone knows that human beings are capable of lying. But when one group is singled out as being more likely to lie, or a crime is singled out as being more associated with lying than other crimes - with no evidence to back this up - you make it more likely that juries will not be objective.
But they weren't singled out as more likely to lie, it was just pointed out that some do. It is in contrast to the past twenty years when all we have heard from feminists is that no woman would ever lie about something like this. Turns out people will.
Well no, even the Slate article said the 8% figure was a best guess, not an established figure. And it doesn't take into account unreported rapes.
Of course it doesn't take those into account, it would be ridiculous to do so when we are talking about the odds that an allegation which in front of the court is false. And the best guess is the basically the minimum, because its rigor (in a proper scientific manner) was directed to limit false positives.
"Well no, even the Slate article said the 8% figure was a best guess, not an established figure. And it doesn't take into account unreported rapes."
Again, bear with me.
A figure of 8% (or any reported figure) of rape accusations as unfounded, are unaffected by the scope of unreported rapes. 8% of reports of rape, is 8% of reports of rape, regardless of whether there are zero unreported rapes, or one million.
No one has revealed studies of how many UNreported claims of rape are unfounded. Posters come on Feministing asking was I raped? or saying they are unsure if their experience was rape. Some regulars will openly state their opinion the posters' reported experience was NOT rape or that it is a grey area. For the record, AFAIK, I have always agreed with the posters' assertions they were raped. At the very least, the reported effects are the same. Are you traumatized? Then seek help from appropriate sources like therapists, a sex assault hotline, or the law, if you choose to do so.
Time for a little Twistiness here:
"Imagine that all women are considered by the courts abide in a perpetual state of non-consent. “No” becomes the default position, and does not require re-stating at any time. In fact, “consent” would not apply to women at all; we would exist as inviolable entities, 100% human beings with full personal sovereignty, the way men do now. We could, if the idea didn’t gag us with a spoon, have as much heterosex as we want, but the instant we don’t want, the dude becomes, in the eyes of the law, a rapist. This shifts the onus onto the dude not to be a barbarian. He can reduce his risk of being sent to the gulag by ceasing to rape, dominate, prod, cajole, shame, nag, or act like a prick. He can avoid it altogether merely by keeping it in his Dockers.
It’s a wackaloon idea that challenges a status quo wherein women are considered receptacles to which men have all-access passes. Thus must a knobjectivist dude, who only moments before was solicitousness itself, now spooteth out a bunch of stupid patriarchy-loving legal crap supporting the time-tested, rape-a-riffic, women-are-whores, what-about-the-men hegemony. If he’s on his A game, he will not omit a lecture on the practical application of feminist theory, beginning with how feminists should be nicer to men if we expect to convert them to our cause. In closing, he will allude to his girlfriend’s lesbian stripper roommate, asserting that her existence invalidates the entirety of feminism. If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it 2739 times."
Read the whole thing:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/10/03/the-comfortable-feminist/
and more
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/12/she-said-i-know-what-its-like-to-be-dead/
So the Hofstra "barbarian" menzes became retroactively rapists when the woman's boyfriend came back and she decided she hadn't wanted sex after all.
RE 'crying rape': But you miss my point
Your point was not missed it is not a valid point when justice officials refer to a rape crime they don't use the word "Cry rape" just because the author of one article used it we all have to believe
the crime of rape is about a victim lying why would you assume others would be not be objective because of one word no matter what words you would use to describe rape it would not make the crime or the horrible consequences any less serious Please next time be MORE SERIOUS
Please next time USE PUNCTUATION.
I find it disgusting that a man who has never been raped would even imply that his experience of being accused of rape is even in the same ball park of a woman who has ACTUALLY BEEN RAPED.
Please pardon my lack of sympathy, when a woman's sexual history, occupation, location at the time of the rape, alcohol consumption, reputation, and clothing choices are all scrutinized so she can be blamed for something someone else did to her. I'm sorry, that's just not the same.
Did the person falsely accused of the rape forget that many people don't believe rape victims AND there was a physical assault on the rape victim?
I'm not saying that being accused of something like that isn't awful. And if someone lies and says that a person raped them when the person did not rape them, then the accuser is an awful person. I'm not discrediting that. What I am saying is that the context of the whole article seems to downplay the responsibility of men (largely) to not rape women (largely).
There's a saying, "A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." I don't think its easy to imagine the psychological, economic, and, even physical toll that comes from being falsely accused of a serious felony. Its a full on assault. And an unforgivable one.
Moreover what about those people who are actually falsely convicted of rape. Those people not only will have their liberty seized from them, but will likely be raped in prison, innumerable times.
what i have heard about the legal systeem is that you can't serve time for the same crime twice,
does that mean that those falsly accused of rape and served there sentence are "allowed" to rape the one who falsely accused them?
Just in case that's a serious question, no, the actual rape would be a different incident and thus a different crime than the phony original one.
Like aleks said it doesn't quite work that way. Although the movie Double Jeopardy didn't exactly help matters when they claimed that exact argument.
Would the OP also claim that rapists have no responsibility for other men being viewed as potential or actual rapists?
What a strange question. Rapists are responsible for their own actions, not the potential actions of other men (unless they're actively encouraging or influencing a man to commit rape). What makes a man into a rapist in general is a whole different discussion.
Try again.
"have no responsibility for other men being viewed as potential or actual rapists?"
Actually this is point that commenters here have complained about as unfairly vilifying all men.
This issue almost always comes up when the conversation is about prevention and education.
Why do people focus so much on women "crying" rape? False accusation is obviously the REAL problem here, so why are people so concerned about "crying" rape and not ALL instances of false accusation? It seems to me that in many cases, the people (who tend to be men) who are crying about false accusations are simply privileged individuals looking out for their own necks.
People don't claim to have been murdered all that often. Snow Falling on Cedars is a fantastic book, but usually it's pretty clear whether someone's been killed by someone else or not, and as for innocent people being accused of murder, I don't know where the hell you've been if you don't think people are concerned . . .
the people (who tend to be men) who are crying about false accusations are simply privileged individuals looking out for their own necks.
Expand on this please.
"so why are people so concerned about 'crying' rape and not ALL instances of false accusation?"
Then one would need to notice all that is written about how the underprivileged and POC are disproportionately the targets and victims of the US legal system in general, leading many to be distrustful of law enforcement authorities, the rise of the sentiment "stop snitching" or how individual liberties have been stripped away in recent years, making many ordinary people criminals. Those discussions are not often about rape. Stop Snitching is certainly not about rape. "Snitches are responsible for nearly 46% of wrongful capital convictions from false testimony, according to a study by Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions."
http://november.org/stayinfo/breaking07/SnitchContext.html
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/
I can also read:
According to a study by the Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions, 51 of the 111 wrongful death penalty convictions since the 1970s were based in whole or in part on the testimony of witnesses who had an incentive to lie.
Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says that, based on federal statistics, one of every four black men from 20 to 29 is behind bars, on probation or on parole, and under pressure to snitch. She estimates one in 12 of all black men in the highest-crime neighborhoods are snitching.
She says informers strain the social fabric of poor minority neighborhoods, where as many as half the young men have been arrested. "Every family gathering, every party, every backyard barbecue probably has someone who's secretly working as an informer."
[end quote]
via usatoday
I am still waiting for a feminist perspective on how the hypothetical man innocent of rape (this thread is about "false" accusation, I did not start discussions such as these on Feministing) is supposed to prove it while respecting the rights of the accuser, or how the feminist as in sitting on a jury, distinguishes a true accusation from one that is not true.
Can only post two urls.
Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles:
"informers strain the social fabric of poor minority neighborhoods, where as many as half the young men have been arrested."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-28-stop-snitching_x.htm
I'm not sure about the legal system in the US, but in the UK the victim remains anonymous whereas the alleged rapist is named from day one. I've often thought that one way to deal with the problem of people supposedly 'crying rape', or being accused of doing so, is to make both victim and accused party anonymous. Then no one would have anything to gain by making false accusations - you can't ruin someone's reputation if no one knows who they are.
I'm not saying this because I think a lot of women make false accusations - I don't. I'm saying it because I've heard countless accusations flung at victims that they are 'just doing it to ruin the man's reputation'. If the accused man had the right to anonymity, such arguments would have a lot less power, and maybe people would start believing victims more. Maybe.
Is there any legal/practical reason why they name the accused? I've never understood it myself.
Good point. I've wondered this myself.
Hi - never commented here before but thought I would on this one because I read about it on the BBC website after a couple of high profile rape cases (John Worboys and Kirk Reid). Now in their cases this didn't apply because they were never actually taken to court even AFTER being accused by multiple women and identified as well, but the reason why they name the accused in a rape case is two-fold: first, if he/she has attacked more than one person then the likelihood goes up that other people will come forward if you name them (if you don't then they can't); and second, you are more likely to get a conviction if there are a number of accusations from a variety of sources with different types of available evidence - basically if one person says "that person raped me" the jury can either believe or disbelieve on the small amount of evidence available in that case, but if the person has been accused by a lot of people then they'll have more evidence available to make a judgement.
Back in the 80s apparently they kept both names anonymous but then found many repeat offenders who they believed could have been prevented from carrying out other attacks if they'd been named publicly and the police had been able to obtain more evidence/witnesses at the time.
Hope that helps!
I think what worries me about Slate's conclusions that 8-10% of accusations are false is that the principle given to the jury, of being beyond reasonable doubt, was always that it is better that 9 guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail.
So the first thing to do is to separate the 8-10% of accusations made from the accusations that actually get to court.
The second thought from a UK perspective there are about 12,000 reports to police each year and a best estimate of 50,000 rapes. if 10% of the accusations are false that suggests that only 1/5 rapes is actually reported to police.
I agree that rape tends to be the only crime that attracts the prefix 'cry' and it is not helpful, but rape is also the only crime where the conviction rate is measured from the number of accusations not the number of cases going to court
My condolences to the OP. S/he tried to start a thread about the effects of "false rape accusation culture" on women: on women who have been raped, on women who (like many) live with an ongoing apphrehension of being raped, and on those many, sadly many, women who will be raped in the future.
What s/he got was a thread full of the very thing s/he was criticizing in the first place: a rape discussion shaped by, geared toward, and centered on men.
Posters and editorial staff are free to respond or act at any time. I ask you to judge my own posts on this tread and related, in context, before people accuse me (again) of being a rape apologist, MRA, or ignoring the problem of real rape.
It is my personal opinion that it is better that people bring up perception of possible flaws in popular but demonstrably unfounded arguments such as "2%, the same as other crimes, according to the FBI" (AS WELL AS critique of arguments used by MRAs and anti feminists), online, in a "safe" environment for feminists, rather than have those views contested in real life.
Please see how real MRAs like on the Glenn Sacks site and numerous others, use debunking of the "2%, the same as other crimes according to the FBI" argument, to dismiss OTHER, VALID feminist arguments and concerns. No, a perceived flaw in certain feminist arguments does not invalidate the feminist movement. Not all MRA concerns (some men actually would like and do deserve more time with their non custodial children) are bullshit, invalid or antifeminist, either. But unquestioned acceptance and promotion of such as the FBI: 2% argument (when OTOH calling for "critical thinking" of positions one disagrees with or dismissing them out of hand) has the appearance of bias. Again, why trust authorities ONLY when they conclude 2%, 8%, or any other figure, of accusations of crime are false, when questioning the competence and ethics of authorities or the legal system in general in almost all other posts?
But doesn't that beg the question: what exactly then is the motivation for falsely accusing someone of rape?
Just because I have not seen anyone really address the question at hand directly (so many comments to go through, as well) ... Theoretically, someone would falsely accuse someone of rape to attack someone with the legal system, to gain attention, because one is mentally unstable.
I am sure there are other reasons.
And as I mentioned above, sometimes people will make the accusation, not on their behalf, but someone else... Like parents in a divorce proceeding. It could be against the other parent, the parent's new partner, or members of the parents family.
There the accuser is not the one who was claiming they were raped.
As a side note... The statistic of 8-10% of the reported sexual assaults being false accusations... people often counter with all of the unreported rapes that would actually skew that number even smaller...
What if 8-10% of all sexual assaults disclosed to non-authorities (friends, parents) are also false?
No, the implication is more serious than that. In concluding 2%, 8%, or any other figure false or unfounded (as judged by investigative authorities), one is declaring that the authorities have done a perfect job in eliminating those false or unfounded cases in the investigative stage. No cases were "improperly unfounded," and any cases passed on to the prosecutor and then on to grand jury and trial were all factual and had a basis in law.
[Note: This is NOT unique to rape. Anyone who claims "2%, the same as with other crimes," is also declaring that 98% of reports of all crimes, or even felony crimes (Brownmiller, 1975), are thus true, and the accused are thus guilty, end of story. Arrest, prosecution, hearing, trial, and judgment are simply formality, and opportunities for 98% of ALL accused of ALL crimes to escape justice.]
http://www.oregonsatf.org/resources/docs/False_Allegations.pdf
False Allegations
There is no conclusive study on the number of false allegations of sexual assault, and the studies and surveys that do exist include a wide range of estimated numbers.4 Unfortunately, the study most often quoted is based entirely on victim recantations,5 instead of complete investigations. A false allegation is a report of sexual assault that never occurred. The challenge to investigating agencies is relatively simple—all reports determined to be false must factually prove through the course of an investigation that a crime did not occur.
[end quote]
According to RAINN, which uses federal statistics.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
So even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.
15 of 16 walk free.
[end quote]
I understand the point RAINN is making. The majority of real criminals escape justice. Most rapes are not reported for fear or other reasons. Real victims are doubted at every stage. Rape is the real problem, not false accusation. But the assertion "in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison" is completely lacking faith in US law enforcement and the legal process (except when authorities report 8% of reports are unfounded in the investigative stage only).
Again, this is not unique to rape. See "criminal case processing statistics" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website "An estimated 57,497 felony cases were filed in the state courts of the nation's 75 largest counties during May 2004":
The highest felony conviction rates were for defendants charged with motor vehicle theft (74%), a driving related offense (73%), murder (70%), burglary (69%), or drug trafficking (67%).
The lowest felony conviction rates were found among assault defendants (45%).
Ninety-seven percent of convictions occurring within 1 year of arrest were obtained through a guilty plea. About 9 in 10 guilty pleas were to a felony.
[end quote]
According to federal statistics reported by RAINN, rape has a 69% conviction rate, among the absolute highest felony conviction rates we have in the US (67% for drug trafficking, to 74% for motor vehicle theft, and 70% for murder).
With the built in safeguards of the US criminal justice system, as well as systemic weaknesses, is it realistic to expect a 100% arrest, 100% prosecution, 100% conviction rate, for ANY offense, without abuse or error?
There are, in fact, criminal justice systems in the world where they approach a perfect 100% conviction rate. Japan is just one. Russia is another. Despite apathy of police toward crimes such as rape, overall, Japan has a conviction rate exceeding 99.9% In one year In Japan's White Paper on Crime 2005 (four year lag in reporting),
"The number of defendants who were found not guilty in2004was94,the highest in the last decade.This accounted for0.01%of the total number of defendants that were finally judged."
Yes, you read that correctly. In Japan in 2004, there were only 94 "not guilty" defendants nationwide, a 99.99% conviction rate.
Every other defendant was GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY.
In ANY society, do you believe all guilty verdicts mean the accused actually committed the acts they were accused of? People of color would like to speak to you about that. Do you believe all arrests, prosecutions, guilty pleas ("ninety-seven percent of convictions occurring within 1 year of arrest were obtained through a guilty plea" NOT TRIAL, in the US), represent reported, actual crimes? People of color would like to speak to you about that as well.
Am I telling rape victims and women's advocates to accept their lot of the majority of rapists going free? No. Am I telling you what victims experience, is the best the US can do? No. (See Oregon SATF for examples of their education measures among law enforcement to improve investigation, namely "improper unfounding" of reports of rape.)
I'm asking all people to consider that a 100% report of crime rate resulting in all accused being punished, may not be the ideal system you believe it to be (see POC in the US, see human rights organizations on criminal justice systems abroad), or to understand that a conclusion of 2%, 8% (or any figure) of reports of crime to be false based on the investigative stage ONLY, ascribes unrealistic powers (omniscience and infallibility) to law enforcement. Would anyone really like to do away with attorneys, judges, and juries, and let accusers (for any crime) and police be the final word? Would you allow the same standard when a woman is accused of abusing her children, or when women are reported for DV/IPV; as for those accused of harming women? Would you allow the same standard of justice when a woman of color is thrown in jail for e.g., refusing a cesarean or accused of "causing harm to a fetus"?
Accusation = guilt and should be punished by jail, is a dangerous view. Rape is no exception.
My mistake. RAINN reports a 58% conviction rate. 69% is those convicted on felony charges sentenced to prison. Not a notably high conviction rate.
A Male, I really appreciate your contribution here in this thread about this.
I'm not being funny, but in the UK the rape conviction rate is 5.3%, that is in 95% of cases the women is presumed to have lied therefore the hysteria surrounding false rape accusations is fucking ridiculous, and underlines how disgusting men are.