Kitchens responds to Jezebel’s twisted attack

JayBopara · 2013-11-05T10:08:26+00:00

An excellent response, and very encouraging to see many supportive comments for Ms Kitchens. Some interesting links in the article and comments alike.

IameAuhSomme · 2013-11-05T15:32:52+00:00

It does no service to victims to promote inflated statistics and impulsively attack any person who presents contrary information as a “rape denier.”

This. This a thousand times.

saint2e · 2013-11-05T12:51:31+00:00

Slam dunk.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-11-06T05:56:42+00:00

Well written and reasoned piece. Excellent.

SilencingNarrative · 2013-11-05T21:04:52+00:00

The author cites a slate article, that claims the best research available puts the number of false accusations at 8-10%. From that article:

Rumney's smart debunkings leave us with a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that converge around a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent for false reports of rape. Not all of these studies are flawless, but together they're better than the rest of the lot. They include a massive 1997 report on sexual assault by the U.S. Department of Justice, which includes data from 16,000 local, county, and state law enforcement agencies. The DoJ found that "in 1995, 87% of recorded forcible rapes were completed crimes and the remainder were classified as attempts. Law enforcement agencies indicated that about 8% of forcible rapes reported to them were determined to be unfounded and were excluded from the count of crimes."

Does anyone know what the DOJ study means by unfounded? If that means not enough evidence to say one way or another, then while that overlaps with the false accusation set, it doesn't contain it. If it means there is enough evidence to determine that it was false, then it is a subset of false accusations.

If either of those two statements are true, then I think saying that "the best studies available converge on the number 8-10%" is a bullshit thing to say. The actual number could be 50% and not contradict the 8-10% finding.

I wonder if the authors are aware of the FBI's review of DNA test results that noted that of all the rape kits submitted to them in which is was possible to obtain a result, 25% of those cleared the suspect. Did they dismiss it for some reason, or were they simply unaware of it?

edit: Here is a quote from that report:

Postconviction DNA exonerations provide a remarkable opportunity to reexamine, with greater insight than ever before, the strengths and weaknesses of our criminal justice system and how they bear on the all-important question of factual innocence. The dimensions of the factual innocence problem exceed the impressive number of postconviction DNA exonerations listed in this report. Indeed, there is a strong scientific basis for believing these matters represent just the tip of a very deep and disturbing iceberg of cases. Powerful proof for this proposition lies with an extraordinary set of data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since it began forensic DNA testing in 1989.

Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive (usually insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do testing), about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect.1 The fact that these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and that the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26-percent exclusion rate, strongly suggests that postarrest and postconviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions.

It must be stressed that the sexual assault referrals made to the FBI ordinarily involve cases where (1) identity is at issue (there is no consent defense), (2) the non-DNA evidence linking the suspect to the crime is eyewitness identification, (3) the suspects have been arrested or indicted based on non-DNA evidence, and (4) the biological evidence (sperm) has been recovered from a place (vaginal/rectal/oral swabs or underwear) that makes DNA results on the issue of identity virtually dispositive.

Title	Kitchens responds to Jezebel’s twisted attack
Author	slippery_people
Upvotes	60
Comments	8
Date	November 5, 2013 8:20 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1pxt7l/kitchens_responds_to_jezebels_twisted_attack/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/kitchens-responds-to-jezebels-twisted-attack.1159596 https://theredarchive.com/post/1159596

Comments