Re: Frequent false reports: where's the evidence? (was: Re: Rape Education Story #60

On 24 Nov 2003 16:16:28 -0800 Kate Orman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Waldo Weaver) wrote in message
>> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>> > A very thorough, and heavily annotated investigation of the origin of
>> > the 2% figure from the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review:
>> > http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf
>> 
>> Thanks! I look forward to reading it.
> 
> Thanks again for that article - I've just glanced over it, and it's
> already saved me a lot of legwork...

It's certainly the best new cite I've seen for a long time, so thanks to
Waldo also from me.

> ...Like the anti-feminists who incorrectly generalise Kanin's 41%, it
> looks like feminists have incorrectly generalised the New York City
> police's 2%.

The comparison is unfair.  The antifems usually cite their source, and
rarely misattribute.  Nor have they elevated Kanin's percentage to the level
of an accepted dogma within the academic community.  I've frequently seen
the 2% figure cited as 'the' false reporting rate.  I've never, in any
remotely reputable document, seen Kanin represented as anything more than a
'finding', usually contrasted with others.

Furthermore, antifeminist discourse, by its nature, presents *disputed*
information.  Feminist discourse on this issue presents its claims as if
they were undisputed facts, when (in this case) they are neither.

[...]

> As I mentioned before, feminists need to set the standard in careful and
> accurate reporting of research; our enemies make up enough fibs and
> distortions without our handing them *real* blunders to attack.

Few can have a better record than I of criticising the fibs and distortions
of the antifems.  I see no reason to treat the fibs and
distor^H^H^H^H^H^Hblunders of feminists any differently.

> In fact, there's no need to overgeneralise the 2% figure; the firm,
> frequent claim that fake reports are a large proportion of reports has
> little evidence to support it because little research has actually been
> done...

Feminists 'need' to overgeneralise the 2% figure to support their equally
firm, and considerably more frequent claim that fake reports are a small and
insignificant proportion of reports, which has, AFAICS even less credible
evidence to support it.  One reason why little research has been done, is
that intentionally false rape accusations are a form of (proxy) violence
against men, and violence against men (and men's welfare in general) is not
a priority, either for government, or for feminists.

Given the lack the research, what should the *default assumption* be, for
the purpose of public policy with respect to criminal justice?  If we assume
that the rate is high, when in fact it is low, and consequently emphasise
protections for the accused, then we risk acquitting more actually guilty
rapists that we might otherwise.  On the other hand, if we assume that it is
low, when in fact it is high, and consequently give those protections a
lower priority, then we risk convicting more actually innocent men.  I know
which of these two I consider to be the least desirable.

In practice, the debate (in feminism, in government, or in society in
general) is rarely framed in these terms.  Most of the reforms of the
investigatory/judicial process in respect of rape are aimed either at making
it easier to convict, making the experience less unpleasant for the
"victim", and encouraging more of them to report.  The welfare of the
defendant, and the need to acquit the innocent gets little consideration in
comparison (The UK government's sexual offenses bill grants anonymity to the
defendant, which is a surprising departure from this trend).

> As Kanin points out, enormous inconsistencies in police records make it
> very difficult to determine how many genuinely false reports have been
> made at different times in different places - so the small amount of
> research that *has* been done has found a wildly variable rate of lies.
> Where the 2% figure is valid and useful is as one of many bits of research
> which suggest a low rate of lies.

According the Greer, "those directly involved in the preparation of Judge
Cooke's speech [...] cannot remember precisely how they did obtain the 2%
figure." To characterise this (the figure that is, not Greer's paper) as
"research" let alone "valid and useful", and to treat is as comparable to
Kanin, is a gross distortion, perilously close to being a lie.

The figure's status might change if some document perhaps relied upon by
these people at the time, were to come to light.  However, even if it were
to be become "valid and useful [...] research". the sheer harm done by the
myth that grew out of it surely outweighs any value.

Another blunder/fib/distortion (delete as applicable) is that you are
framing the discussion as though all these figures are estimates of the
number of false accusations.  This is completely incorrect.  These numbers
are all ostensible *lower limits* to the number of false accusations.  And
the firmer the criteria become for so classifying a report, the more likely
it is, that it is an *underestimate* of the real false reporting rate.  If I
were to point to Britain's 6% conviction rate (See HORS196) and say "look:
only six percent of rape accusations are true", you'd spot the error
instantly, yet you made exactly the same error in respect of Canada's 5% or
so verified false reporting rate.

> To date I have seen no good evidence that fake reports (let alone fake
> accusations, trials, or convictions) are an overwhelming problem and that
> victims should therefore be treated with automatic suspicion.

Neither is there any good evidence that fake reports, etc., are an
insignificant problem and that victims should be automatically believed. 
Yet this assumption lies at the heart of feminist and (in the UK at least)
government rhetoric and policy.  I refer you to page ix of HORS196 "Rapes
committed by a person unknown to the victim formed only 12% of the
sample..." The sample is *not* a sample of rapes.  It's a sample of *rape
reports*.  To refer to the alleged crime as a "rape" and the complainant as
a "victim" begs that very question.  This is not an isolated instance.  The
government's review was *motivated* by the perception that the rate of rape
convictions (at 6% of all rape reports) was "too low", (What evidence is
there for this?), and that any increase is desirable.  There is no more
indication in the discussion that the Government distinguishes conceptually
between an increase in the number of true convictions and an increase in the
number of false ones, than there is that it distinguishes between victims
and false complainants.

Contrast with the 'default assumption' I referred to earlier.

[...]

> * Of particular concern to me are cases where the victim hasn't lied, but
> DNA evidence has later shown the wrong man has been convicted which
> - means not only a terrible injustice has been done, but that a
> rapist has escaped to commit further crimes...

This 'particular concern', is not limited to cases of false conviction, but
applies to any case where a real rape (or other crime) took place, and the
criminal is not apprehended.  To raise it *in the context* of a false
conviction gives the impression that you are trying to detract from the
'terrible injustice'.  I assume this was not your intent, and respond
accordingly.

It's not a particular concern to me, because I've never seen anything to
suggest that prisons are not, in fact, universities and factories of rape,
that do nothing to reduce its incidence in toto, (or even to reduce its
incidence in free society) and consequently the pressure to 'convict more
rapists' is misplaced.

What is a particular concern to me, is that much of this pressure falls upon
the victims of rape themselves.  We do not expect someone shot in a robbery
to get up and chase after the robbers, nor do we blame them for their
robber's subsequent crimes.  Yet many, often quite well-meaninged people
encourage injured rape victims to report the assault in a way that puts
considerable pressure upon them to engage in a process likely to be both
highly distressing and inimical to their recovery.  I know, from speaking to
many, many survivors over several years, that this is a significant
contributor to their overall guilt burden, and quite a few have expressed
relief when I have argued that not reporting is just as valid and
appropriate response as reporting.  I think it's a shame that anti-rape and
support activists have largely failed to recognise this dynamic.

If there was anything that could be done to make the police/court process
less of an ordeal for those victims who choose to embark upon it, while at
the same time, reduce (or at least not increase) the risk that innocent
defendants are convicted, then I'd be for it 100%.  Unfortunately "believe
the victim" ain't it.

-- 
Daran

To fear a power; to fight a power, is very dangerous.  To love power and to
share it is the royal way -- Gelluk in 'The Finder' by Ursula Le Guin