The next time someone tells you false rape clams only happen 2-6% of the time, show them this. (Last posted 3 years ago)

WhatIsTheWorldComing · 2013-09-28T12:36:01+00:00

I checked one of your footnotes, the sixth. This purported to offer support for the claim that, 'According to a 1996 Department of Justice report, “in about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI, ... the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing"'.

But when I got there, I read:

'Some already have used the cases discussed in this report to argue that hundreds more innocent defendants are in prison. They contend that the current "exclusion" rate for forensic DNA labs -- close to 25 percent -- suggests that a similar percentage of innocent defendants were wrongly convicted before the availability of forensic DNA typing. Unfortunately, too many variables are contained in the "exclusion" rate to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Furthermore, nothing about the cases reviewed here necessarily supports such a conclusion.'

I haven't checked any of the other footnotes.

pvtshoebox · 2013-09-28T13:16:07+00:00

I would be careful citing a report that includes the first case. Not only is it tdificult to generalize a set of Air Force cases into a civilian population, they were forcing accusers to use a polygraph, and the only way out was to recant. A lot of victim-advocates would call this intimidation.

I know I would never want to be strapped to a polygraph and forced to answer questions from a colonel in dress blues, who may be asking any question related to my merit, past misdeeds, lies used to get into the military, etc.

pvtshoebox · 2013-09-28T13:08:59+00:00

I wrote this comment for a /r/feminisms post were the commenters were agreeing that the percent of claims was probably far less than one percent. After making the post and getting no responses, I finally learned that I was shadow-banned there...

I think the 2-8% comes from the second page of this article [pdf]. It was used for the controversial infographic the truth about false accusations.

You will see in the article that, on pages 2 and 4...

In contrast, when more methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%. For example, in a multi-site study of eight U.S. communities involved in the “Making a Difference” (or “MAD”) Project, data were collected by law enforcement agencies for all sexual assault reports received in an 18- 24 month period.Of the 2,059 cases that were included in the study, 140 (7%) were classified as false. This is particularly noteworthy because a number of measures were taken to protect the reliability and validity of the research. First, all participating law enforcement agencies were provided training and technical assistance in an ongoing way to ensure that they were applying consistent definitions for a false report.

To date, the MAD study is the only research conducted in the U.S. to evaluate the percentage of false reports made to law enforcement.

Although many people have different ideas about what exactly constitutes a false report, the most reasonable definition is that: A false report is a report of a sexual assault that did not happen (i.e., it was not completed or attempted).

I am not a researcher in this field and cannot verify if this is still true, but it seems to be that MAD provides the most reliable source, citing 7% of reports are false based on investigator opinion after proper training.

There is much more to it, though. If we examine the Basic Data Findings of the MAD [pdf], on page 9 we see the source of the false report rate. Here is the breakdown in percentages...

48% closed as an informational report
32% suspended/inactivated
7% cleared by arrest
7% unfounded/false
3% unfounded/baseless
3% exceptionally cleared

It is worth noting that "unfounded" is used in two classifications. A natural conclusion that I draw from this, which may or may not be accurate, is that the 7% "false" reports are those that match the definition cited, and that the rest of the "unfounded" claims were "baseless." The report does not define explicitly what is meant by "baseless," and I am not a criminologist, but my unreliable google sources suggest that these are reports that the reporter genuinely believe are true, but are actually false. An example that was commonly given was the situation in which a car is reported as stolen, but a friend had borrowed it.

There is a major flaw with citing the 7% statistic, though, as 80% of that pool were suspended/inactivated (and hence no real claim of the merit of the case can accurately be determined) or "closed as an informational report." The Data Collection Guidelines on page 10 defines this:

An “Informational Report” is then used to describe a report of an incident that does not meet the elements of a crime.

If we assume that ALL of the suspended/inactivated cases are not false, and included "exceptionaly cleared" as not false as well (these are cases in which the rapist is determined but unable to be arrested), we get...

48% the report does not describe a crime
42% a "true rape" was reported with some of these cases solved
7% "false"
3% "baseless"

This is with the most generous application of assumptions.

A reasonable conclusion that I draw from this study indicates that, in most rape cases reported to the police, the investigators conclude either that they do not meet the definition of a crime, are fabricated, or are mistaken.

It is important to note that, while only 7% were labeled "false," another 51% were labeled "not a rape" or "the accuser made a mistake with the facts." It is probably higher than this, as we assumed the suspended/inactivated cases were all true, while we know that "made up" cases would be the hardest to solve.

Of course, this does nothing to resolve the potential bias that investigators bring to their conclusions. It could be that 48% of rape reports are being buried to present the impression that there is a low local crime rate, with even more mislabeled as false. Honestly, any number cited would have to be drawn from many assumptions, as in any case, only the victim and assailant truly know what happened.

However, I cannot conceive of a way of determining a false case from a true case that does not rely on investigators opinions. Those who do not investigate the facts of the case would have a hard time arguing that they are more accurate than those that do.

In conclusion, the data I have found and presented, which was all sourced from a famous project made possible by "End Violence Against Women International" indicates that most reports of rape to the police are either "false," "unfounded," or "do not meet the elements of a crime."

Kantor48 · 2013-09-28T05:10:22+00:00

I wish there was a way to archive some of stuff on reddit. I wonder if making a sub where no one can post but the mods, to link to these important sources?

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-09-28T17:43:46+00:00

Frankly even if it is just 4% of the time that's way too fucking high.

lordslag · 2013-09-28T10:48:53+00:00

RIGHT when I needed it to shove...err...INFORM a rather intense man-hater.

Pecanpig · 2013-09-28T17:17:02+00:00

TIL the number of false convictions is a minimum of 25%, that would mean the rate of false accusations is probably higher.

Babill · 2013-09-28T14:23:22+00:00

False rape accusation culture.

Comments