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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Waldo Weaver) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> > 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. 
> 
>  Your logic goes like this: "No one has proved women lie frequently
> about rape. Therefore, they don't. "

My logic goes like this: "There is no evidence that a large proportion 
of rape reports are false. Therefore, there is no reason to believe
that a large proportion of rape reports are false." (Apologies to 
Bertrand Russell. :-)

>  How suspicious we are of alleged victims is a question to be resolved
> *after* we know better how frequently women lie about rape.

Since there's no reason to assume that women are habitual liars, 
there's no reason for doctors, police, lawyers, judges, juries, or 
the media to behave as though they are. There's no basis for the 
untoward suspicion that has helped so many rapists continue their 
careers. Nor is there a good reason for large efforts to convince 
folks that rape victims can't be trusted. (Although I must thank you 
for all the "rape education" postings, which have helpfully provided 
plenty of evidence that liars don't get off scot free!)

> Somebody needs to do a large, serious, credible study and shed some 
> light here.

No argument there. A first step would be for police to keep accurate 
and consistent records of all reports and their outcomes.

Yours,
- Kate Orman