5 ms·

> They aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape This is not a statement of fact, that's an assumption you've made. Actual studies of this are rare

> They aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape This is not a statement of fact, that's an assumption you've made. Actual studies of this are rare and usually bitterly disputed, but part of the reason they're rare is that they tend to reveal alarmingly high false reporting rates. I mean truly disturbingly high. If you look at cases which are proven to be false, the rate is usually suggested to be somewhere between 5% and 10% of all claims depending on the study. But this does not imply 90% of accusations have merit. The definition of "false claim" is extremely strict, such that a case that does not proceed because e.g. the alleged victim is caught lying about the events does not count as "false" on the grounds that they might just genuinely be confused. Virtually all claims of rape or sexual assault fail to proceed to actual charges. The most famous study (by Kanin) examined every single allegation of rape reported to the police department of a small midwestern city. It defined a false accusation to be "any accusation in which the victim admitted it was false". It reported a rate of around 40% of all allegations being false. > It is a crime that is notoriously hard to convict, to the point where most victims keep silent. You can't know that. Given that false reporting definitely occurs, victims that keep silent may or may not be real victims. Only investigations can resolve that question. And one reason it's a hard crime to convict is the rate at which accusers recant their accusations or stop cooperating with investigations as they proceed.

matt4077 9y ago
> The most famous study (by Kanin)[..] And that study is deeply flawed: that one small midwestern police department used polygraphs on accusers. That's a practice that has long been shunned because (a) polygraphs are (now) known to usually find the investigator's opinion reflected in statistical noise, and (b) the victims (rightfully) see the test as an accusation and prefer to recant for fear of prosecution. The study mostly used the investigator's judgement, and used the victims admission only when it that was given. Question: if you go to 100 actual false accusers ten years after that incident, and ask them "Did you falsely accuse X of rape back then?". Do you really believe that 40% would be stupid enough to tell you?
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  I'm aware of all the criticisms of the Kanin study. None of them seem valid. If the USA believes polygraphs are unreliable they should be banned from all usage, for all types of crimes and government screening. That hasn't happened. Instead, people who didn't like Kanin's conclusions - and noted that many rape accusers prefer to drop their accusations rather than take a polygraph test - decided it should be banned for that specific crime only. This is not internally consistent but is consistent with the long-term trend towards trying to increase the number of rape reports. The critics then retroactively claimed the usage of this technique made the entire study invalid, which it does not do. These people are actually trying to subtly argue something different and much more extreme - that US police statistics and records for rape accusations in that entire period are completely worthless due to the use of polygraphs and therefore no conclusions can be drawn about the accuracy of rape reports during this time at all. This also isn't the case. Attrition between rape reports and prosecution is extremely high in other western countries that don't use lie detectors, and there is attrition at every stage of the pipeline. Offering to use a polygraph and having some complainants decide to drop their cooperation entirely is just one source of attrition amongst many. The Kanin study is utterly damning on many levels and aligns with the self-reported perceptions of police (that false accusations are very common), not just in that study town but across the USA and in other countries as well, like the UK. > The study mostly used the investigator's judgement That is not correct. The study only marked a rape complaint as false if the accuser stated it was false. Cases where the investigator concluded it was false were not counted. This standard is clearly far too strict - women who made provably false claims and steadfastly refuse to ever admit it would not be counted in this statistic, thus the 40% figure for that study must be too low when using a more reasonable definition of false claim. > Question: if you go to 100 actual false accusers ten years after that incident, and ask them "Did you falsely accuse X of rape back then?". Do you really believe that 40% would be stupid enough to tell you? It might be worth reading the original study. It is here: https://ia800209.us.archive.org/4/items/FalseRapeAllegations/false-rape-allegations-archive.pdf https://ia800209.us.archive.org/4/items/FalseRapeAllegations... The answer is yes, 41% said they lied. I don't know where your 10 year requirement came from. Most cases were resolved as false far quicker than that, usually because inconsistencies in the stories surfaced very quickly. As you can see from the case files the study quotes directly, admission that the story was false is usually accompanied by an explanation of why they did it and the study shows almost all false accusations were motivated by just three reasons. I don't know why you think this requires stupidity. Prosecution for making false rape claims nearly never happens. It is extremely safe to admit you lied. But irritating the police makes it much less safe. It makes more sense to admit you lied quickly than to drag it out and risk the police deciding to prosecute for perversion of justice.

matt4077 9y ago

> The most famous study (by Kanin)[..] And that study is deeply flawed: that one small midwestern police department used polygraphs on accusers. That's a practice that has long been shunned because (a) polygraphs are (now) known to usually find the investigator's opinion reflected in statistical noise, and (b) the victims (rightfully) see the test as an accusation and prefer to recant for fear of prosecution. The study mostly used the investigator's judgement, and used the victims admission only when it that was given. Question: if you go to 100 actual false accusers ten years after that incident, and ask them "Did you falsely accuse X of rape back then?". Do you really believe that 40% would be stupid enough to tell you?

peoplewindow 9y ago
I'm aware of all the criticisms of the Kanin study. None of them seem valid. If the USA believes polygraphs are unreliable they should be banned from all usage, for all types of crimes and government screening. That hasn't happened. Instead, people who didn't like Kanin's conclusions - and noted that many rape accusers prefer to drop their accusations rather than take a polygraph test - decided it should be banned for that specific crime only. This is not internally consistent but is consistent with the long-term trend towards trying to increase the number of rape reports. The critics then retroactively claimed the usage of this technique made the entire study invalid, which it does not do. These people are actually trying to subtly argue something different and much more extreme - that US police statistics and records for rape accusations in that entire period are completely worthless due to the use of polygraphs and therefore no conclusions can be drawn about the accuracy of rape reports during this time at all. This also isn't the case. Attrition between rape reports and prosecution is extremely high in other western countries that don't use lie detectors, and there is attrition at every stage of the pipeline. Offering to use a polygraph and having some complainants decide to drop their cooperation entirely is just one source of attrition amongst many. The Kanin study is utterly damning on many levels and aligns with the self-reported perceptions of police (that false accusations are very common), not just in that study town but across the USA and in other countries as well, like the UK. > The study mostly used the investigator's judgement That is not correct. The study only marked a rape complaint as false if the accuser stated it was false. Cases where the investigator concluded it was false were not counted. This standard is clearly far too strict - women who made provably false claims and steadfastly refuse to ever admit it would not be counted in this statistic, thus the 40% figure for that study must be too low when using a more reasonable definition of false claim. > Question: if you go to 100 actual false accusers ten years after that incident, and ask them "Did you falsely accuse X of rape back then?". Do you really believe that 40% would be stupid enough to tell you? It might be worth reading the original study. It is here: https://ia800209.us.archive.org/4/items/FalseRapeAllegations/false-rape-allegations-archive.pdf https://ia800209.us.archive.org/4/items/FalseRapeAllegations... The answer is yes, 41% said they lied. I don't know where your 10 year requirement came from. Most cases were resolved as false far quicker than that, usually because inconsistencies in the stories surfaced very quickly. As you can see from the case files the study quotes directly, admission that the story was false is usually accompanied by an explanation of why they did it and the study shows almost all false accusations were motivated by just three reasons. I don't know why you think this requires stupidity. Prosecution for making false rape claims nearly never happens. It is extremely safe to admit you lied. But irritating the police makes it much less safe. It makes more sense to admit you lied quickly than to drag it out and risk the police deciding to prosecute for perversion of justice.