Archive

Republican Candidates and Rape

  • isadore
    gut;1306118 wrote:Once again, those studies are from the 90's. Pretending it's not doesn't make it so. I didn't make-up the numbers, I didn't pick and choose, those are what the numbers are from the most comprehensive studies I could find.
    Of course the Republican rape lobby has its supporters but
    A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations. Data from Rumney (2006).

    Number
    False reporting rate (%)
    Theilade and Thomsen (1986)
    1 out of 56
    4 out of 39
    1.5% (minimum)
    10% (maximum)
    New York Rape Squad (1974)
    n/a 2%
    Hursch and Selkin (1974)
    10 out of 545 2%
    Kelly et al. (2005)
    67 out of 2,643 3% ("possible" and "probable" false allegations)
    22% (recorded by police as "no-crime")
    Geis (1978)
    n/a 3–31% (estimates given by police surgeons)
    Smith (1989)
    17 out of 447 3.8%
    U.S. Department of Justice (1997)
    n/a 8%
    Clark and Lewis (1977)
    12 out of 116 10.3%
    Harris and Grace (1999)
    53 out of 483
    123 out of 483
    10.9% ("false/malicious" claims)
    25% (recorded by police as "no-crime")
    Lea et al. (2003)
    42 out of 379 11%
    HMCPSI/HMIC (2002)
    164 out of 1,379 11.8%
    McCahill et al. (1979)
    218 out of 1,198 18.2%
    Philadelphia police study (1968)
    74 out of 370 20%
    Chambers and Millar (1983)
    44 out of 196 22.4%
    Grace et al. (1992)
    80 out of 335 24%
    Jordan (2004)
    68 out of 164
    62 out of 164
    41% ("false" claims)
    38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
    Kanin (1994)
    45 out of 109 41%
    Gregory and Lees (1996)
    49 out of 109 45%
    Maclean (1979)
    16 out of 34 47%
    Stewart (1981)
    16 out of 18 90%
    . First, the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies by Kelly et al. (2005), Lea et al. (2003), HMCPSI/HMIC (2002), Harris and Grace (1999), Smith (1989), and others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgement.
    Rumney's seco
    nd conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies. He argues, for instance, that in addition to their small sample size the studies by Maclean (1979) and Stewart (1981) used questionable criteria to judge an allegation to be false. MacLean deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape\
     
  • gut
    Lots of 20,30-40%+ in there. And it's convenient to dismiss "no-crime" reports, which is usually how a bs accusation gets recorded. I think it was '93 or '96 where 25%+ of cases referred to the FBI were exonerated by DNA (well over 10k cases), and that doesn't mean the ones that weren't were guilty of rape.

    I'll leave it that the preponderance of evidence you posted does show the actual rate of false reports is closer to 25% (and as high as 50% on college campuses)...just as I said.
  • isadore
    'while the republican rape lobby might accept the 25-50% figure, "when more methodologically
    rigorous research has been conducted,
    estimates for the percentage of
    false reports begin to converge
    around 2-8%."
    http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf