Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.
It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.
I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.
Support the archive
[–]2wsy 10 points11 points12 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[+]SharkSpider [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
The quote you posted was not part of the study's direct findings, but figures that were argued based on some data analysis.
The actual data analysis found that 8% or 216 of the 2643 cases were classified as false allegations. The researchers took 144 of these cases and, based on methodology that was not presented to us, classified them as probable, possible and questionable, then threw out all but the most likely and used that portion to classify the remaining 72 cases. After this, they found that it only represented 67 of the 2643 cases, and they used that as their estimate of choice.
There are problems, here. We aren't told how harsh the classification system is, but we should step back and realize that if we're going to throw out false accusations because it can't be proven to a high evidenciary standard, shouldn't we also throw out rape reports with the same problem? That is, applying this type of methodology would mean that we are dividing by a much smaller number, because if we continue to divide by 2643, it means we are assuming that all other cases, including ones classified as false by the police, the ones where no evidence can be acquired either way, etc. are actual rapes and that none of them are false.
This is a terrible assumption, and reflects the ridiculous level of intellectual hoop-jumping required to get any justification for a figure as low as two or three percent. We can say that three percent of false allegations are quite certainly false in the same way that we can say that seven percent were almost certainly true, at least to the point of conviction. That doesn't mean we should divide three by seven, get a massive false accusation rate, and call it a day. It means we should be willing to, for the purposes of statistics, accept things on a balance of probabilities.
The method I'll use below involves imputing data on to cases where we don't have a surefire answer. The researchers did this when they found probabilities for 144 cases and used them on the 216 total. In essence, if I told you that I played 400 games of poker this year, and that I could recall, for certain, that I won 100 and lost 50, your best guess would be that in total, I won 67 percent of my games, or 267 games. If you used the same methodology the researchers of this study used for the false allegation rate, you would say that I won 100 games and lost 300, or they would say that I won 350 games and lost 50, depending on which number you wanted to be lower. I'm going to look at the numbers and attempt to correct that. I'll argue, briefly and for each point that the data should be imputed. Imputing means that we forget about it when we calculate the total (as we forgot about the 250 games I couldn't tell you about) and then assume that the ones we aren't sure about follow the same rate. Imputing is a good idea when you have no reason not to believe that a certain portion of unknown cases don't reflect the overall average.
My own best guess on what the research suggests would be to remove the false allegations that were determined false because of accuser characteristics to get about 116 cases where we are fairly certain the accuser was lying. This is a fairly generous assumption because often times accuser characteristics involve possible motives for making false accusations. The one hundred cases we removed in this step should not automatically count as rapes, so we remove them from the totals and impute a rate later.
To find a better estimate of cases where we are pretty sure we know what happened, we should remove the 386 insufficient evidence cases, but not the ones where evidence was insufficient because no one was identified. That is, some times there's evidence that someone was raped but we don't know who did it or who to look for. The cases where women actually injure themselves to fake rape are very rare, so including these as probable rapes is fine. In cases with insufficient evidence, I would suggest that there's a chance they were false accusations, meaning that we should impute these, but not impute the 239 where physical evidence existed but no one was named.
The 633 cases that were withdrawn early should be imputed. There is no reason supplied by the researchers for these cases to be assumed to be actual rapes, and I might even argue that they're more likely to be false accusations, but that would be an assumption made without data, so I'll settle for imputing these too. 205 cases did not proceed to trial for unknown reasons. The study suggests that these are all real rapes, I don't think that's fair so I'm going to impute this number as well. 139 cases were classified as not guilty during a trial. Wierd to assume that none of these were false accusations, when really it's best to assume that the regular portion applies here too. We'll assume that the convictions were most likely actual rapes.
That leaves us with 1463 cases where we just don't know, and where we have no compelling evidence to suggest a choice of false or true other than applying the portion we find later. This means that 1180 cases were more likely rape than not, while 116 were more likely false accusations than not. This suggests a false accusation rate of 9.8%. In light of this, you can go back up to where I've noted that I was imputing and read the argument as "for this group, it's likely that 10% were false allegations because we have no reason to believe otherwise."
In short, if you apply a similar thinning process to the other cases as the researchers did to the false accusations you get back about ten percent, again. And if anyone cares, this is coming from an actual mathematician who's been paid by the government to research theoretical and applied statistics.
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SharkSpider 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]keypuncher 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]curious67 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CedMon 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Revoran 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theAnalepticAlzabo 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]whereistheproof 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkSpider 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]happytobake 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]happytobake 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pcarvious 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]pcarvious 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkSpider 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheRealPariah 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NUMBERS2357 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NUMBERS2357 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheRealPariah 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]curious67 -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]curious67 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting -4 points-3 points-2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]curious67 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]curious67 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link