False allegations and attrition

[Fiona]

I was reading KingMerv00's thread on whether men are more violent than women and I came across this. I do not wish to derail that thread but I cannot let this pass without comment.

Another factor that can't be ignored in statistics is "over reporting". New Zealand police estimate that well over half of all sexual assault/rape complaints made by women are false,

The attrition rate in rape cases is shockingly high and there is no evidence I have seen which supports the assertion that there are high numbers of false accusations, despite this being trotted out so often in this kind of debate. The figure of 50% is at odds with all the evidence even of the views of police officers around the world (who are known to be part of the problem of attrition for various reasons now being addressed in many forces)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journal...v/1997/29.html

http://www.justice.govt.nz/bill-of-r...ence-bill.html

http://wwwcj.mnstate.edu/classes/CJ4.../Proclaw1.html

http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/downloads/...s/sps07_nw.pdf

http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/downloads/...s/sps07_nw.pdf

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=225512005

http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/4.html

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1000084.aspx


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

The ‘cultural conceptions’ of rape referred to here are often described as ‘myths’, since theydo not reflect the reality of rape. We prefer to discuss powerful stereotypes that function to limit the definition of what counts as ‘real rape’, in terms of the contexts and relationships within which sex without consent takes place. As a number of researchers and legal scholars
have pointed out (see, for example, Estrich, 1987; Myhill and Allen, 2002; Du Mont. et al, 2000), despite extensive legal reform, ‘real rapes’ continue to be understood as those committed by strangers, involving weapons and documented injury. The failure of criminal justice systems to address these stereotypes means that the processes involved in responding to reported rapes – from early investigation through to court room advocacy – can serve to reinforce, rather than challenge, narrow understandings of the crime of rape, who it happens to and who perpetrates it. The attrition process itself reflects, and reproduces, these patterns.

Whilst there have been far fewer studies of the prevalence of sexual assault than of domestic violence (Hagemann-White, 2001; Kelly and Regan, 2001), access to relatively accurate official statistics for reported rapes has been more straightforward rd. Researching unreported rape and sexual assault has proved more complex than many other forms of violence against
women, since using the word ‘rape’ in questions greatly decreases the reporting of forced sex/sex without consent (Schwartz, 1997). The redesign of questions, for example, in the US National Crime Victimisation Study in 1992 resulted in findings four times higher than previous versions (Greenfield, 1997). As with all prevalence research, inconsistent findings are attributed to methodological differences with respect to: the sample; the number and content of questions asked; the format (questionnaire, telephone or face-to-face interview); and the definition of rape/sexual assault used by the researchers (see Schwartz, 1997, for a more detailed discussion). At the same time, comparative data show such significant variations (Australia, the USA and Sweden recording high prevalence rates per head of population, and
South Africa had the highest rates for both prevalence and reporting) that the possibility of Differential national levels of sexual violence within different societies needs to be explored

The prevalence estimates from both studies are considerably lower than in Painter’s study (1991): one in ten (9.7%) and one in six (16.6%) women respectively had been sexually assaulted; and one in 20 (4.9%) and one in 27 (3.7%) respectively had suffered at least one incident of rape since they were 16 (Myhill and Allen, 2002; Walby and Allen, 2004). Whilst there is considerable disparity here between the actual numbers1 7, there is convergence about the contexts in which rape takes place: women are most likely to be raped by men they know (intimates, 54%, other known individuals, 29%); and a considerable proportion involve repeat assaults by the same perpetrator (50% in the last 12 months) (Walby and Allen, 2004). The Myhill and Allen (2002) re p o rt also reflected findings from other jurisdictions (Bergen, 1995; Easteal, 1998) that rapes by current and expartners were the most likely to result in injuries. This profile also accounted for the most
common locations, which were the victim’s home (55%) followed by offender’s home (20%), public place (13%) and elsewhere (13%).

UK data and research
Figure 3.6, using official statistics from the Home Office, graphically illustrates the two patterns in reported rape cases in England and Wales over the past two decades: a continuing and unbroken increase in reporting2 0; and a relatively static number of convictions. The combination of these two trends, which began in the 1970s (Regan and Kelly, 2003), means that whilst in 1977 one in three reported rapes resulted in a conviction, by 2002 this had fallen to one in 18 (32% versus 5.6%). The only change to the overall pattern is a small increase in the percentage of prosecutions in 2001, which continues into
2002, but with no parallel increase in convictions. This may be an outcome of changes in local and/or national policy in the police and CPS. However, it is too soon to say whether this will be a sustained trend, which will also feed through into the conviction rate. In fact, the attrition rate is even greater, since official statistics exclude reports that are ‘no crimed’ very early in the process (see Gregory and Lees, 1999; Harris and Grace, 1999), not to
mention that some convictions are overturned on appeal.

The conviction rate shows a considerable range between
areas, varying from one to 14 per cent across the two years. A number of potential confounding factors were explored, including whether there were higher reporting rates per head of population, but were not linked to the variations in conviction rates in any obvious way.

Attrition internationally
In studies of attrition rates across Europe (Kelly and Regan, 2001; Regan and Kelly, 2003), Finland, Ireland and Sweden displayed the same stark trends over time as the UK, in relation to reporting and conviction rates. Whilst a number of other countries recorded variations in reporting, a decline in the proportion of prosecutions and convictions was a common trend for every country that provided data, apart from Germany where the proportion of prosecutions and convictions has risen since 1997. Much higher prosecution
rates, for example more than 50 per cent of reports in Austria and Denmark, were evident, alongside a number of countries where the majority of prosecutions resulted in convictions (Finland, Germ a n y, Hungary, Iceland). Overall these data suggest that, whilst some core problems link adversarial and investigative legal systems, a number of European countries
have higher prosecution and conviction rates than the UK. In fact, the only country with a lower conviction rate was Ireland (Regan and Kelly, 2003).

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report entitled Detours on the Road to Equal Justice in 1993 that documented attrition in rape cases across the USA. The average conviction rate in 1990 was 12 per cent. The report demonstrates disparities in how rape and other violent crimes were prosecuted. The key Attrition points identified were: arrest (62% of
reported rapes do not result in an arrest); dismissal (of the cases that moved into the system, 48% were dismissed before trial); and acquittal at trial. The committee also noted reluctance amongst prosecutors to bring cases where the parties were known to one another – the majority of rape cases. However, the review found significantly higher conviction rates in
particular areas of the US, including Washington and New York. A subsequent review notes that conviction rates across the USA range from 2.5 to 19.9 per cent (Sinclair and Bourne, 1998, p576) but offered little explanation of these wide discrepancies.

Brereton (1993) discusses four Australian studies where patterns similar to those documented for England and Wales and the USA are reported. The key players are the victim, in terms of the decision to report and continuing with the case, and the police in terms of the decision of whether to lay charges and their influence on the victim’s subsequent decision-making. Several studies also note 20 to 35 per cent of cases being dropped by prosecutors. Guilty pleas are much lower than in other criminal cases. Two factors had the most impact on outcomes at trial: evidence of physical injury; and admissions by the defendant at some point in the process.

Summary
Around one-quarter of reported cases were ‘no crimed’. Just under one-third of reported cases were detected but in a notable proportion of these no proceedings were brought. A conviction rate of eight per cent was found across the research sites collectively, although this was slightly higher for two of the individual SARC sites. This is higher than the national average of 5.6 per cent.

False allegations
False allegations have been one of the most contested areas within law enforcement responses to rape, with research suggesting rates are no higher than for other crimes sitting alongside perceptions of police officers and the media who take the opposite view. Some of the most frequently cited US studies put the rate as low as two per cent (Katz and Mazur, 1979).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. Interestingly, most cases in this category had a forensic examination (82%, n=178), whilst far fewer made a formal statement to the police (58%, n=126), suggesting that this is a
critical stage for the admission or designation of allegations as false.
Cross-tabulations using the case-tracking database comparing the group designated false allegations (n=216) with proceeding cases (n=527) revealed the following findings.
l Cases involving 16- to 25-year-olds accounted for a higher proportion of cases designated false (52%, n=112) than of cases that proceeded (42%, n=221).
l Those in full-time work formed a smaller proportion of those whose cases were designated false (11%, n=23 compared with 17%, n=91 of those proceeding), whilst the opposite was the case for those who were unemployed (37%, n=79 compared with 18%, n=95).
l Whilst small numbers, those with a disability were almost twice as likely to be in the false allegations group as the non-disabled (51%, n=24 of 47 compared with 28%, n=192 of 695), and in 19 of these cases mental health and learning
difficulties were present.
l Only 2 of the 66 women involved in prostitution who reported were in the false allegations group.
l A greater degree of acquaintance between victim and perpetrator decreased the likelihood of cases being designated false.
l Cases were more likely to be designated false where previous allegations had
been made and/or the complainant had attended the SARC or reported to police in the Comparison areas on a previous occasion.
Exploring the grounds on which cases were deemed to be false allegations is revealing and 120 pro formas contained explanations: in 53 cases the police stated that the complainant admitted the complaint was false, most commonly within days of the initial accusation; 28 cases involved retractions; three non co-operation and in 56 cases the decision was made by
the police on evidential grounds. Interestingly, the majority of cases in which the complainant themselves admitted the allegation was false could be categorised as the often quoted motives of ‘revenge’ (n=8) and ‘cover-up’ (n=25). Although, as the explanations provided on the police pro formas which are summarised in Box A, reveals, the terms ‘revenge’ and ‘cover up’ do not do justice to the complexity of the circumstances involved.

<snip>In most of these cases there was no named assailant.

Inconsistencies in the account given by the complainant feature strongly in 30 cases, and in only 5 of these did police officers note that this involved deliberate untruths (lies as opposed to not revealing the whole truth). Previous studies have highlighted the ways in which withholding, or not remembering, information is the outcome of fearing disbelief, which may
subsequently be interpreted by police officers and prosecutors as ‘lying’.
Fearing disbelief and judgement, victims of rape may try to embellish their accounts, or conceal wrong-doing, in order to make themselves appear more ‘believable’ to the police. (Jordan, 2001a, p93)

Police scepticism promoted the narration of the very inaccuracies which, in turn, consolidated the police view that women fabricate complaints and make false allegations. (Chambers and Millar, 1983, pp86-7)

Reflecting this, a number (23%, n=14) of police officers interviewed for this study raised the issue of inconsistencies, and indicated that this had implications for the perceived genuineness of complainants.

The data on the pro formas limit the extent to which one can assess the police designations, but their internal rules on false complaints specify that this category should be limited to cases where either there is a clear and credible admission by the complainants, or where there are strong evidential grounds. On this basis, and bearing in mind the data limitations, for the cases where there is information (n=144) the designation of false complaint could be
said to be probable (primarily those where the account by the complainant is referred to) in 44 cases, possible (primarily where there is some evidential basis) in a further 33 cases, and uncertain (including where victim characteristics are used to impute that they are inherently less believable) in 77 cases. If the proportion of false complaints on the basis of the probable and possible cases are recalculated, rates of three per cent are obtained, both of all reported cases (n=67 of 2,643), and of those where the outcome is known (n=67 of2,284). Even if all those designated false by the police were accepted (a figure of approximately ten per cent), this is still much lower than the rate perceived by police officers interviewed in this study. A question asked of all of them was how they assessed truth and falsity in allegations and within this, 50 per cent (n=31) further discussed the issue of false allegations.

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a
designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated. These perceptions and orientations are not lost on complainants.

l Twelve per cent of all reported cases, or 14 per cent of those where the outcome is known, reached the trial stage.
l A proportion of these did not proceed to trial due to late withdrawal or the case being discontinued at court.
l Around half of all convictions were due to guilty pleas rather than verdicts.
l In cases where a full trial took place an acquittal was more likely to be the
outcome than a conviction and the acquittal rate in trials involving adults was
twice as high as in those involving under-16s.

Key findings
l There are false allegations, and possibly slightly more than some researchers and support agencies have suggested. However, at maximum they constitute nine per cent and probably closer to three per cent of all reported cases. An overestimation of the scale by police officers and prosecutors feeds into a culture of scepticism, which in turn leads to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police.
l In areas with integrated SARCs fewer complainants declined to complete the
initial process, and two SARC areas had slightly higher conviction rates.
l When given at an early point, honest assessments by police officers of the
likelihood of conviction and the difficulties of a prosecution are interpreted by
complainants as discouragement to continue with the case.
l There was little evidence of attempts to build cases, and some evidence of poor investigation and understanding of the law, with clear emphasis in some cases entirely on what was discrediting.
l Whilst there are many reasons why victims/survivors withdraw their co-operation, fear of the trial process and discouragement by the police featured strongly.
l Police categorisation of cases is internally inconsistent, making monitoring and evaluation extremely problematic.
l Few cases involved women with learning difficulties or women with mental health problems (see also Harris and Grace, 1999).
Intellectual disability and psychiatric instability ... tend to be viewed as diminishing the victim’s credibility, rather than enhancing her vulnerability.
(Jordan, 2001b, p349)
l None of the gang rapes with more than three assailants resulted in convictions.
l Women whose cases went to trial expressed disquiet and a strong sense of
injustice that they had no contact with the prosecution barrister52, and the majority of those where the outcome was an acquittal complained of weak prosecution advocacy in the courtroom.
l All stages of the attrition process appear more marked for young women,
particularly those aged 16 to 25, who are highly represented in cases involving false allegations, early and late withdrawal of complaints and acquittals. This requires strategies to address the way this age group is responded to and supported through the CJS.
l Alcohol consumption was present in a much larger number of cases than drugs – either voluntarily consumed or administered to facilitate rape. One would not, however, know this from recent media coverage or police awareness - raising campaigns. The ways in which consumption of alcohol contributes to all points of attrition deserves more detailed study.

 

[tyr_13]

Ten percent is not a high number of false accusations? I think false accusations are a problem with all crimes, but not as big as under reporting.

I think what gets people about false rape accusations is that the gut reaction is to just believe them. If you doubt it you are seen as either a cold dick or a sexist bastard. Just being accused of rape, with no supporting evidence and even evidence to the contrary has gotten students expelled before.

The problem with rape reporting isn't that the false accusations are more numerous than other crimes, but the consequences of the accusations alone are so dire. The times I remember false accusations, the person accused was always named and the person making the false report never was. Was hardly ever charged with making false reports either. Could just be that town though.

 

[Fiona]

Ten percent is not a high number of false accusations? I think false accusations are a problem with all crimes, but not as big as under reporting.

I think what gets people about false rape accusations is that the gut reaction is to just believe them. If you doubt it you are seen as either a cold dick or a sexist bastard. Just being accused of rape, with no supporting evidence and even evidence to the contrary has gotten students expelled before.

The problem with rape reporting isn't that the false accusations are more numerous than other crimes, but the consequences of the accusations alone are so dire. The times I remember false accusations, the person accused was always named and the person making the false report never was. Was hardly ever charged with making false reports either. Could just be that town though.

You honestly believe that being falsely accused of rape has more dire consequences than being falsely accused of murder? Why?

 

[tyr_13]

You honestly believe that being falsely accused of rape has more dire consequences than being falsely accused of murder? Why?

Because when you are acquitted of murder, it makes the news. When murder charges are dropped, it makes the news.

It is easier to prove a murder actually happened in the first place if there is a body.

But, no, I don't actually believe that it is worse to be accused of rape than murder. However, I can think of very few crimes worse to be accused of than rape.

 

[fuelair]

You honestly believe that being falsely accused of rape has more dire consequences than being falsely accused of murder? Why?

Understanding that I am not arguing points other than the exact question: If someone accuses another person of murder, all sorts of opportunities open up: suit for libel or slander, the accuser cannot go undisclosed, the police are forced (normally) into full and complete investigation - because the accuser is not the victim of the crime. In rape, the accusation removes the victim from requirement to be made known to the sources that would splatter the name of the murder accuser all over the news thus assuring that people with potential information on the crime or the accused and victim that might provide useful information to the police either pro or con are more likely to respond to and, with witness testimony, some police departments will be less motivated to get strong evidence that can actually prove or disprove the charge. I seem to remember one of those in the not too distant past - where even with strong negative evidence that was easily locatable/verifiable the law enforcement in the area let charges go forward.

 

[Fiona]

Because when you are acquitted of murder, it makes the news. When murder charges are dropped, it makes the news.

Sure does. I am sure Colin Stagg is much comforted by the fact that an acquittal removes all stigma

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/06/22/do2201.xml

I am not trying to make cheap points here, Tyr, but you said earlier that

I think what gets people about false rape accusations is that the gut reaction is to just believe them.

Did you read anything of my OP? Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Fiona]

Understanding that I am not arguing points other than the exact question:

ok

If someone accuses another person of murder, all sorts of opportunities open up : suit for libel or slander,

If an individual makes a direct accusation it will be investigated certainly: but since these are criminal cases they are directly comparable to rape cases: the case is brought by the state. The accuser is a witness, not a party. There is no possibility of redress through a case for libel or slander so far as I understand it. That may happen in exceptional circumstances if malice can be proved: but I am not aware of any case where this happened. Are you?

the accuser cannot go undisclosed,

In this country witnesses in murder cases can and do go undisclosed for various reasons such as witness intimidation.

the police are forced (normally) into full and complete investigation

Is this not what should happen in every case? The evidence above shows it does not happen in the case of rape as much as it should. But it is not because there is automatic belief and easy conviction: it is precisely the opposite

- because the accuser is not the victim of the crime.

Clearly, in the case of murder. I am not quite seeing the relevance, however.

In rape, the accusation removes the victim from requirement to be made known to the sources that would splatter the name of the murder accuser all over the news

In this country there is a long tradition of reporting restrictions strongly applied where any case is under investigation before a trial is brought, because of the danger that it will taint the trial: and indeed many cases have fallen and many convictions have been overturned because juries have potentially been influenced by what they have seen in the press. That rule has been less rigorous recently I think (though that may be an impression rather than reflecting any real change - I cannot tell and I am not aware of any change in the law which would account for it, if it were true). But I think it was a very good principle that details could not be reported in advance of a trial, because it is quite clearly hard to get a fair trial where that happens, Indeed I believe I read somewhere that the Amish were in great demand as jurors where cases in the US had been widely reported before the trial, for just this reason: though I think the general principle was never so strongly upheld in the USA - again I could be wrong.

thus assuring that people with potential information on the crime or the accused and victim that might provide useful information to the police either pro or con are more likely to respond

I am not sure what you mean by this. Police often issue statements or make media appeals asking for witnesses to come forward and this is not affected by anonymity at all. If you mean that people cannot come forward with character references that is true and entirely proper. They are not evidence and have no relevance at all

to and, with witness testimony, some police departments will be less motivated to get strong evidence that can actually prove or disprove the charge.

See above

I seem to remember one of those in the not too distant past - where even with strong negative evidence that was easily locatable/verifiable the law enforcement in the area let charges go forward.

I have no doubt that there are sometimes cases brought on insufficient evidence as there are with any crime. But the likelihood of that in the case of rape is very low as the evidence above shows. I do not think it alters the debate at all

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

You honestly believe that being falsely accused of rape has more dire consequences than being falsely accused of murder? Why?

This wasn't directed at me, but personally, I'd rather be falsely accused of murder. Sex offenders are seen as the lowest rung of the ladder in our society. The heirarchy within the prison walls tells an interesting tale. "Regular" murderers (a guy that stabbed someone to get his wallet, drug dealer who killed someone that moved in on his territory) generally are at the top of the food chain (admittedly, this is based on nothing more than conversations with individuals who have been incarcerated). Sex offenders are often put in the "skin bin", or protective custody, so they aren't maimed and killed by their fellow inmates. They are reviled as the lowest of the low.


When a convicted sex offender is released on parole, there is loud public outcry, but we just don't see that same outrage when a "regular" murderer is released.


On a personal level, I admit to the bias of accepting any accusation of rape as truthful until good evidence saying otherwise emerges. I would be absolutely astonished if even ten percent of rape accusations were false. Fifty percent? That's ludicrous.

 

[gumboot]

Here's an interesting interview from 1997 with a member of an organisation called COSA - Casualties of Sexual Allegations. It offers an interesting perspective on the role of counsellors in false allegations.

Read here.

 

[Mobyseven]

You honestly believe that being falsely accused of rape has more dire consequences than being falsely accused of murder? Why?

Yep, for three reasons:

1. Being falsely accused of murder means that a crime has taken place and for some reason you have fallen under suspicion. If you are innocent, the evidence will (hopefully) bear this out and you have that to weigh against the stigma of the accusation. On the other hand, being falsely accused of rape is a very personal accusation - you haven't fallen under suspicion, you've actually been personally fingered by an alleged victim, and rather than have tangible evidence in your favour you will be found not guilty due to the lack of evidence against you. From a legal standpoint it'll be the same, but when it comes to public perception the default position will be that you only got off because they couldn't find the evidence against you.
2. People are killed everyday accidentally and unintentionally. Perhaps a mugging goes bad and the victim winds up dead. Perhaps there is a firearm accident. Perhaps someone kills someone else in self-defence. When killing is involved there is more scope for accident, misunderstanding, and unfortunate timing. That's not the case with rape - you can't 'accidentally' sexually assault someone. You can't 'unintentionally' commit a rape (certain cases of statuatory rape nonwithstanding - I refer here to clear coercion only, not age of consent laws).
3. Society, in general, is far more forgiving of its murderers than its rapists. Why is whole 'nother discussion, but one need not look further than various folk heroes such as Ned Kelly and his ilk to see that while more than a few killers are among the ranks, you won't find a (well known) rapist in there.

 

[gumboot]

This study comes of with figures of about 41% for false rape allegations, however it is worth noting the methodology used.

In this study accusations were only counted as false if the person making the allegation admitted that their accusations were false. In all other cases the accusation was assumed to be genuine even if there was no successful conviction.

Kanin also conducted studies of rape allegations at two Universities and found that 50% of allegations were false.

This article refers to some more statistics:

In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

...

A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

...

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.

...

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of "Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape", says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

...

The media has largely ignored these studies and experts and has instead promoted the notion that only 2% of rape allegations are false. This figure was made famous by feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 book "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape". Brownmiller was relaying the alleged comments of a New York judge concerning the rate of false rape accusations in a New York City police precinct in 1974.

A 1997 Columbia Journalism Review analysis of rape statistics noted that the 2% statistic is often falsely attributed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and has no clear and credible study to support it. The FBI's statistic for "unfounded" rape accusations is 9%, but this definition only includes cases where the accuser recants or the evidence contradicts her story. Instances where the case is dismissed for lack of evidence are not included in the "unfounded" category.

Interesting read.

 

[gumboot]

You honestly believe that being falsely accused of rape has more dire consequences than being falsely accused of murder? Why?

Absolutely. People falsely accused of sexual crimes (not just rape, but all sorts of things like having child pornography, etc) often have their entire lives destroyed even when they are not found guilty, or when the complainant admits to a false claim. Society has a much, much more negative attitude towards perpetrators of sexual crime than it does towards murderers.

Of course if you are actually convicted of murder you face more dire consequences, but while people are seldom convicted of murder based solely on eyewitness testimony, victim testimony is frequently the sole evidence upon sexual crime suspects are convicted. This is particularly true of "date rape" situations in which the male claims the sex was consensual. The situation is made worse by changes to how legal systems approach such cases which ultimately come down to a question of whether the victim or accused are more credible. While the previous history of the accused is often raised as evidence to undermine their credibility, increasingly the history of the victim is inadmissible - in the US many states have enacted "rape shield" laws which prohibit mention of a victim's sexual history in a case.

The reasoning behind these changes is sensible - historically genuine rape victims would be portrayed as promiscuous or "slutty" in court to undermine their credibility, however these changes have unforeseen devastating consequences: for example withholding from jurors the fact that the victim has a history of making false accusations of rape.

One of the key issues here, which marks rape trials distinct from things like murder, is that when the false allegations are made it's not just a case of someone accusing the wrong person. The crime may not have even been committed.

I've never heard of a homicide case in which it was in dispute whether the victim had actually been killed.

 

[Francesca R]

Fiona, thanks for all that info, and for your effort in busting open a complete myth.

 

[Fiona]

http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&l...jordan.pdf+rape+false+allegations+new+zealand

IV. Cases which the Complainant said were False: N = 13 (8%)The final category is the smallest. It comprises those reports of sexual assault which the complainant decided to withdraw after having stated that the allegations were false, in that sex had been consensual, or that there had been no sex and the report of a sexual attack had been fabricated for personal reasons.In over half of the cases in this category (N = 8; 62%), it was not the complainant’s decision to contact the police. Someone else decided to call the police or, in two cases, pressured the complainant to do so

I have very little time today so I just post this with no comment and I will come back to this issue

 

[tyr_13]

Gumbot, thanks for all that info, and your efforts in finding out the truth of this matter.

Fiona, ditto.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ten percent is not a high number of false accusations? I think false accusations are a problem with all crimes, but not as big as under reporting.

I think what gets people about false rape accusations is that the gut reaction is to just believe them. If you doubt it you are seen as either a cold dick or a sexist bastard. Just being accused of rape, with no supporting evidence and even evidence to the contrary has gotten students expelled before.

The problem with rape reporting isn't that the false accusations are more numerous than other crimes, but the consequences of the accusations alone are so dire. The times I remember false accusations, the person accused was always named and the person making the false report never was. Was hardly ever charged with making false reports either. Could just be that town though.

This is just speculation. Fiona posted a very long list of actual sources and you reply (not that I think you are alone in this) with speculative opinion. That's the problem with a lot of what gets said when emotional baggage is attached to a topic. If you believe the Bible, then your speculation will reflect that over fact. If you believe women lie about rape, your speculation will reflect that. If you believe the religious right are using politics to inject their religion into the law, (as I do) your speculation will reflect that position and so on.

What we need to remind ourselves of is, when is our speculation based on a lot of actual investigation and/or education into the topic and when is it merely passing on opinions we've heard that we happen to prefer to believe because they fit our world view?

 

[gumboot]

http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&l...jordan.pdf+rape+false+allegations+new+zealand

I have very little time today so I just post this with no comment and I will come back to this issue

You should really let everyone see all the statistics:

I. Genuine Cases: N = 34 (21%)
Cases categorised as genuine represent those about which the police gave clear indications on the file concerning their legitimacy. For example, prosecution action may have been commenced against the alleged offender, a warning may have been issued, or comments may have been made which indicated the complainant’s account was believed by police.

...

II. Possibly True/Possibly False Cases: N = 62 (38%)
The second category comprised cases which the police seemed unsure, from their file comments, whether or not to treat as genuine complaints. Remarks were often made suggesting that, from the evidence available, it was impossible to determine if the complainant was telling the truth, or whether the incident reported constituted a criminal offence. Frequently the phrase ‘insufficient evidence’ was used in relation to these cases. Cases were also included in this category where the police noted some irregularities or discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony but refrained from declaring the
complaint false.

...

III. Cases which the Police said were False: N = 55 (33%)
Cases were included in this third category when comments on the file clearly stated that the police considered the complaint to be false. This included cases which the police decided to halt investigating (N = 29), as well as those suspected of being false for which the complainant withdrew the charge (N = 26). Officers sometimes tried to identify motives underlying the complaint – for example, ‘cried rape to avoid a hiding’, and ‘a woman scorned’. In other cases, the police maintained it likely that sex had occurred but was consensual, and that for some reason the complainant wanted to
conceal this fact. A suspicion of falsehood was not enough for a case to be placed in this category; if the police seemed at all equivocal, the case was categorised as possibly true/possibly false.

...

IV. Cases which the Complainant said were False: N = 13 (8%)
The final category is the smallest. It comprises those reports of sexual assault which the complainant decided to withdraw after having stated that the allegations were false, in that sex had been consensual, or that there had been no sex and the report of a sexual attack had been fabricated for personal reasons.
In over half of the cases in this category (N = 8; 62%), it was not the complainant’s decision to contact the police. Someone else decided to call the police or, in two cases, pressured the complainant to do so.

So...

1. Victim and Police agree it happened - 21%
2. Victim sure it happened, Police unsure - 38%
3. Victim sure it happened, Police sure it did not - 33%
4. Victim and Police sure it did not happen - 8%

Minimum False Reporting - 8%
Maximum False Reporting - 79%

Anyone can make a complaint to police about a crime, and police have an absolute duty to determine if a crime has been committed or not before proceeding further with the investigation.

It is the specific nature of sexual attacks that often there is no forensic evidence of the crime having been committed, which makes it particularly important to establish if a crime occurred or not. In contrast most other serious crimes (the sort for which police initiate extensive active investigations to solve the specific crime) are initiated by the discovery of forensic evidence (like a body).

Police are caught in a horrible trap here. If they blindly believe ever rape complaint without question, they will end up victimising and ruining the lives of innocent suspects, not to mention wasting enormous amounts of vital resources. But when they make efforts to investigate the validity of a complaint first they are accused of traumatising victims and having an assumed posture of disbelieving a complainant.

And people wonder why no one wants to be a cop...

The sad thing is ultimately the people this hurts are the genuine victims of sexual assaults, and those falsely accused.

What is disappointing is that all of the focus is on trying to make police treat every complaint as absolutely genuine, even when it has become clear to police that it isn't. A much better solution would be to incorporate into already extensive domestic violence education that there's certain things women can do when making complaints to help make things easier for police - for example not lying about details of what happened.

ETA. It appears Dr Jan Jordan's paper was presented at this conference in 2002.

The public statements from New Zealand police about false rape complaints are a relatively recent phenomenon and have the appearance of a desperate appeal to the public to not waste their time (some of these investigations for false complaints have consumed thousands and thousands of dollars and countless hours of investigation). I am wondering if, therefore, there has been a sudden dramatic surge in false reporting as a result of the country's obsession with domestic violence in recent years - in other words the particularly high figures reported by police in the last few years are a new phenomenon. For an illustrative example, all medical practitioners have been directed by government that whenever an adult female is seen for a medical visit regardless of the circumstances of the visit the medical practitioner must ask the woman if she or her children have been subject to physical or sexual abuse.

That's the level of paranoia and assumption of domestic violence that has abruptly appeared in New Zealand in the last five or six years. Another example - Air New Zealand will not place unaccompanied children next to adult male passengers because of a perceived danger of molestation (despite, as far as I am aware, not a single incident of child molestation occurring on a commercial airliner). Of course, the media have leaped on the band wagon with gusto and every single alleged sex offense case is followed in detail with suspects usually judged guilty in the papers long before anything ever goes to court. Naturally, given human nature, the papers side overwhelmingly with victims (I can understand this, I do too!). This of course does nothing but fuel the hysteria. Add to that COSA's (Casualties of Sexual Allegations) suggestion of the correlation between counseling and a sudden spike in ACC sexual abuse claims, and it's not hard to think that the country's fixation on domestic violence is having the detrimental affect of causing an increase in false complaints.

I don't see that there should be anything particularly surprising about such a suggestion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for citing a study that supports our world view, one must also make an effort to find valid studies and other data. As we know, anyone can find studies with a Google search that support just about any view from 911 CTs to acupuncture. If you just pull up crap, the people interested in actually looking for less biased or unbiased information are going to call you on your crap. In the thread that sparked this one, there are dozens of crap studies cited. I know because I debunked the same ones in another thread.

Just like there are people on a mission for a hundred other things, there are groups of activists (mostly men on this topic) who resent something like a child custody ruling or women or whatever. It seems they like hundreds of other people on a mission (some being women, don't get me wrong) happen to be promoting this woo about rape victims being liars and women being as violent as men. If you look to the source of a lot of this crap information you find these begrudging activists groups.

That doesn't mean there aren't some people on the opposite side promoting their world view about evil men in the same distorted way. But in this case with the original assertion that sparked Fiona to start the thread, there are groups promoting this woo just as there are groups promoting homeopathy and 911 CTs.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This is just speculation. Fiona posted a very long list of actual sources <sanctimonious drivel snipped>

The initial linkspam was not very enlightening, even after adjusting expectations for a linkspamming. Below is the list of links with the result of following them.



http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journal...v/1997/29.html-404

http://www.justice.govt.nz/bill-of-r...ence-bill.html-404

http://wwwcj.mnstate.edu/classes/CJ4.../Proclaw1.html-404

http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/downloads/...s/sps07_nw.pdf-404

http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/downloads/...s/sps07_nw.pdf-404

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=225512005-non-specific error

http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/4.html-info in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, no immediate relevance

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1000084.aspx-404

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf-only touches on the point in question briefly, noting that the author wishes the police did not emphasize their role in questioning whether a crime occurred, this in a discussion of factors which inhibit the conviction of rapists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You should really let everyone see all the statistics:



So...

1. Victim and Police agree it happened - 21%
2. Victim sure it happened, Police unsure - 38%
3. Victim sure it happened, Police sure it did not - 33%
4. Victim and Police sure it did not happen - 8%

Minimum False Reporting - 8%
Maximum False Reporting - 79%
...

Well you can add to your calculation here the number of false convictions proved with DNA evidence that the police were sure they had the perp.

I for one, because of that irrefutable evidence, have a bias that the cops are not the most reliable sources for getting their conclusions right. And, as a teen who walked into a police station and reported being punched by my girlfriend's drunk boyfriend only to be told by the cops in the station they didn't care, have an additional bias that at least some cops are less likely to believe the female victim. They asked me what I had against the guy.

So with that bias, when I saw the data years ago which led to those domestic violence laws being changed (the ones I referred to in the other thread) I was inclined because of personal experience to believe that data. What was found was that many cops were letting domestic violence perps off because the cops had a bias that women were liars and exaggerators.

On that note, I'll go find some data to support my previously drawn conclusion. If the data isn't there, I'll reconsider.