A question for 'Fact Checking "Fact Checking False Rape Accusations and Why We Shouldn't Fear a False Rape Epidemic."'

I commented on the actual post, but maybe other people can chime in as well, as I have an issue with what OP considers the "main error in this post" and how he/she came to this conclusion. I'll be focusing on the section "Do False Accusers Name Suspects?", which OP describes as a

misreading show[ing] a blatant misunderstanding of police categorizations. By definition, cases that are categorized as "False Allegations" by the police cannot be cases that are cleared by arrest. These are two separate and distinct categories. The BHO study was talking about how often the false accuser gets charged. [emphasis added]

Is the last sentence really the case? The definition for false allegations according to the Home Office guidelines are cases "either where the complainant makes a clear retraction or where there is strong evidence that the report was false" (p. 27). Further, the quote from OP's rebuttal (on p. 47) is not (only) "talking about how often the false accuser gets charged".

There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent; as a proportion of the 1,817 cases not proceeding beyond the police stage it is 12 per cent (see Table 4.2). In only six of these cases was there evidence of anyone being arrested, and in only two cases were charges laid, although there were at least 39 named suspects. Six advice files were submitted to CPS, with respect to possible charges being laid against the complainant for perverting the course of justice, and two were charged.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this quote shows basically the following data: 216 cases classified as false allegations. Of those, only 6 resulted in an arrest of the accused, not the accuser. According to the Case File Preparation Submission and Management (Interim) Standard Operating Procedure (Link) the standard procedure that calls for an advice file is in cases that "are so serious, complex, difficult or unusual, they will not be appropriate for a simple CPS duty prosecutor review, mainly because of the time required for the review or the offence needs a specialist lawyer to conduct the review [, in which] cases, the OIC [Officer in Charge] must prepare an advice file".

The study talks about 6 cases of all "2,643 cases reported to the police", i.e. rape cases, in which a suspect was arrested, but due to the seriousness, complexity, difficulty or unusuality, an advice file was submitted by the Officer in Charge suggesting "possible charges being laid against the complainant for perverting the course of justice", of which "two were charged".

This means that the quote in the original post,

out of the 216 cases of rape that was false in the UK, 126 of them have a formal complain filed by the accuser, 39 of them had a named suspect and only 6 of them were arrested

the 6 arrests are correct, as well as the 39 named suspects. As far as I understand, the conclusion OP draws between the "false accusers rarely being named as suspect" is plain wrong. The quote from the study refers to the rape cases, i.e. where someone accused someone else (or no one in particular) of rape, these are the "216 cases classified as false allegations". Those are 216 cases of all "2,643 cases reported to the police". OP says that "this statistic [talks] about false accusers rarely being named as suspects", but it doesn't make any sense to name a false accuser as a suspect in a rape case. The part with the advice file confirms this. The cases proceeded like this:

Someone makes a formal complaint or gives a statement to the police, accusing someone (in particular or not) of rape. The police investigates and in this case, arrests a total of 6 people accused of rape. The advice files given for each case now suggest possible chargers being laid against the complainant for perverting the course of justice. Notice that the case itself did not change, nor did the suspect. The suspects in each of the 6 cases are still the suspects the initial accusation was made against, the suspect is not magically the accuser.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genobeam 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Cases labeled as "False Accusations" mean a crime was committed by the accuser, and no crime was committed by the person accused. It doesn't matter if the case is a "rape case", the outcome is that the accuser or "complainant" was found by police to have committed the crime of "perverting the course of justice". The BHO report clearly states that the charges filed in the false accusation designated cases were charges filed against the complainant. It would make no sense for the police to file charges against the person accused of rape if they determined through investigation that the report was false and no rape occurred.

Edit

Notice that the case itself did not change, nor did the suspect. The suspects in each of the 6 cases are still the suspects the initial accusation was made against, the suspect is not magically the accuser.

The case did change. No longer is the crime "rape" the crime is now "perverting the course of justice". The suspect now is "magically" the accuser.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

You are only partly correct. The BHO report states that in two cases, charges were laid against the complainant, but it also states that in two cases where a false allegation was the basis for the original claim, charges were made against the person accused of rape.

There were 216 cases classified as false allegations. (...) In only six of these cases was there evidence of anyone being arrested, and in only two cases were charges laid, although there were at least 39 named suspects

This part talks about the original charges, the accusation of rape. You seem to think that it is impossible for someone who was falsely accused to be charged.

Six advice files were submitted to CPS, with respect to possible charges being laid against the complainant for perverting the course of justice, and two were charged.

Only this part talks about the charges laid against the accuser, i.e. the person who originally filed the complaint.

It would make no sense for the police to file charges against the person accused of rape if they determined through investigation that the report was false and no rape occurred.

Correct, it would not. But you seem to forget that cases can be classified as false allegations in a later step. See again an example from the study from your link (in the other thread):

i. Ms A had reported to the police that she had been raped on three occasions by her husband, against a background of other domestic violence. As a result of her complaint, he was arrested and charged.

ii. Some weeks later, Mrs A told the police that she no longer wished her husband to be prosecuted and that, whilst what she had said was true, they were now reconciled and she wanted to retract her allegations. Following careful consideration, the CPS Area decided that the prosecution should continue, because cases involving serious offences such as rape are not merely a private matter between the parties.

iii. Upon being told that the case would continue, Mrs A said that she had lied in her statements and that her husband had never raped or otherwise assaulted her.

The case was only classified as a false allegation, after the original accused person (the husband) was charged!

[–]genobeam 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]genobeam 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

One thing to keep in mind and to adress your previous comment, is that the False Allegation classification is not a dedicated and internally used police classification in the report. The "categories used by the police" are:

no crime
undetected
detected no proceedings
detected

while the False allegation category was devised by the report team through the "range of the research data and the prospective design" (p. 35 and again explained on p. 102). My example would not be classified as "Cleared by Arrest", nor as "False Allegation" by the police. In the datasets presented (which is after all what we are talking about), the final outcome would probably be undetected. Further, the classification detected means cases "cases that are proceeded with then appear under CPS prosecution and trial" which is the final case outcome, as is clearly indicated in Appendix 5. The tables in Appendix 5 give no insight into the case process, only into the case outcome. [Edit: This is a misquote. Not all cases classified as detected "then appear under CPS prosecution and trail"]

But anyway, let's get back to the paragraph at hand, because I think this is the most important part that you haven't answered yet. The paragraph reads that "there were 216 cases classified as false allegations" (i.e. cases that were classified by the research team, not internal police classifications). Further, "[i]n only six of these cases was there evidence of anyone being arrested, and in only two cases were charges laid, although there were at least 39 named suspects". This means (if we follow your reading) that 216 cases were classified as false allegations (by the research team) but in only 39 cases there was a named suspect that "perverted the course of justice"? How could it be possible that the complainant, who is known from the start (even if it's a third party making the accusation) is not known in 177 cases? If we really read this part as you did it would read:

There were 216 cases classified as false allegations (...). In only six of these cases was there evidence of [the complainant] being arrested, and in only two cases were charges laid, although [in 39 cases the complainant was named].

I think the key part is really simply the word "named", which is when a complainant names a suspect (e.g. "I was raped by person XY") as opposed to cases where e.g. "people regain consciousness (...) with no memory of the previous time period [where they] approach the police because they are worried that they may have been assaulted whilst asleep". Consider this: If a complaint is made against a suspect and the police suggest that it may be a false allegation, how could they not name a suspect? I really believe that you are misreading this paragraph.

[–]genobeam 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You are right, I misquoted the detected-part. I'll edit my comment to point this out!

However your last paragraph is a misreading: Yes, it reflects "police decision-making", but it is not a "police designation". It is quite clear from the part before your quote, which I quoted, that it is a categorization developed by the research team that went beyond "the official designations" (namely the four I quoted). Cases in the police are not designated and classified as false allegations internally.

But again, the main point are the named suspects, which you claim is the main error in the original post. Yes I admit that two complainants having made a false allegation were charged with perverting the course of justice. But if there were 39 named suspects (suspected of perverting the course of justice), then there would have been 39 advice files submitted to the CPS. In this case (and in the 6 cases that were submitted), the police named the suspects.

[–]genobeam 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]genobeam1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. But in the meantime, I am now certain that your reading of the section is wrong. I contacted Liz Kelly, one of the authors of the study, and asked her to confirm which reading is the correct one, to which she replied that indeed the 39 named suspects referred to the suspects accused of rape and not the complainants perverting the course of justice and that the point was to indicate that a lot of false allegation cases do not involve named suspects, thereby "challenging the 'vengeful' women trope".

This confirms that your original reading and assessment,

The BHO study was talking about how often the false accuser gets charged. Much of the post uses this misreading to draw faulty conclusions. This is the main error in this post and it is a critical one.

is wrong and the original post from u/LefthandedLunatic is correct in this regard.

Not to sound like a skeptic, but I don't see that reflected in the data. I count all 216 False Allegation cases were attritioned during the police stage, therefore none of them went on to the CPS stage. That means no one (of the accused) was charged by the police after the investigation revealed the allegation was false (which makes sense, why would they be charged if the allegation was false?) I also do not find the authors of this report to be unbiased. It's clear that the purpose of this report is to claim that the attrition of rape cases is somehow a problem, when the reasons for attrition seem very reasonable.

I would like to see your correspondence with Miss Kelly if you don't mind.

As far as the "Vengeful Women Trope", The study itself says that the majority of cases in which the complainant themselves admitted the allegation was false could be categorized as the often quoted motives of 'revenge' and 'cover up'.

Edit:

I'd also like to add that "false allegation" as a police categorization does not in any way reflect the number of actual allegations that are fabricated. This categorization is only cases that are proved through an investigation to be false.

I am not ready to admit that my reading is wrong. The study says there were two charged with perverting the course of justice and the response you got from the author says none were. That is a clear inconsistency with the report. Further, the report itself gives several examples of reasons for false allegations. According to the report, the majority of explanations fall into two categories, "revenge" and "cover up". Among the revenge category, all of the examples name a suspect. Among the "cover up" examples, several clearly name suspects, and for others it's unclear whether there is a suspect or not.. Many of these cases are women having affairs that then claim that they did not consent to the affair. In these cases the "offender" is known. How is it possible then, that in the majority of cases the offender is known, and yet only 39 suspects were known in a total of 216 cases? The numbers do not add up.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the "At least 39 suspects were known". Maybe there is a much higher number of suspects known that are just not mentioned in this section.

Title	A question for 'Fact Checking "Fact Checking False Rape Accusations and Why We Shouldn't Fear a False Rape Epidemic."'
Author	LonelyBicycle
Upvotes	13
Comments	20
Date	July 22, 2019 1:45 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cgde7c/a_question_for_fact_checking_fact_checking_false/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-question-for-fact-checking-fact-checking-false.872929 https://theredarchive.com/post/872929

Comments