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

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

[...]

> Given the lack the research, what should the *default assumption* be, 
> for the purpose of public policy with respect to criminal justice?

Why should there *be* an assumption, especially given it would have to 
be baseless?

For a very long time, the assumption "she's a lying bitch" has 
dominated: in the UK, police were told to "drive a truck through" 
victims' statements. It was a video of one such brutal interrogation, 
broadcast on TV, which sparked the beginning of British reform. 

That groundless assumption has meant that countless rapes have gone 
unpunished; countless genuine victims haven't reported because they'd 
be treated like criminals. This is why feminists have strongly 
emphasised the opposite: for heaven's sake, believe her for a change. 
Take her seriously. "Women don't lie about rape" - it's really 
happening, and it has been all along.

As I've made very clear, I don't believe that justifies feminists 
using dodgy or incorrect figures - which is why I was so pleased to 
grab that Greer paper; I've been working on an essay debunking the 
FBI/2% figure for some time. (Now I can incorporate that info into 
the false reports essay.)

Where we need to end up is with a system that balances the urgent 
need to punish rape with the equally urgent need not to prosecute the 
innocent. That's true for *every* crime: rape is different because 
bias against victims has dominated the system for such a long time.

Believing victims does not mean mindlessly accepting obviously false 
stories. It only means taking victims seriously, instead of painting 
them and treating them as insane, promiscious, vicious liars - a 
tactic which has kept rape a "safe" crime for a very long time. To 
characterise "believing victims" in this way is little different to 
accusing feminists of saying "women *never* lie about rape" - which, 
as you've pointed out, we don't.

[...]

> > 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.

I don't consider it comparable to Kanin. It's certainly concerning 
that Greer couldn't track down the original documents. However, I 
have no reason to assume that Brownmiller was lying at the time, nor 
that her sources were lying, nor that they were incorrect.

The 2% is not a figure from Mars, but consistent with other low rates 
in better sources. A six-month study in New York City found only "50 
liars out of a total of 2000 complaints". (There were only *five* 
false *accusations*.)

Here's the cite:

O'Reilly, Harry J. "Crisis Interventon with Victims of Forcible 
Rape: A Police Perspective". In Hopkins, June (ed). Perspectives on 
Rape and Sexual Assault. Harper and Row, London , 1984.

So while the figure lacks the solidity of Kanin's research, it can't 
simply be discounted either. My point above is that it's meaningful 
*in combination with other, supporting research*. Of which more 
later as I track more of it down.

Of course, Brownmiller's actual point has got lost: that when reforms 
were introduced, the rate of false reports plummeted to the same 
level as for other crimes.
 
> 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.  

Reports.

> 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.

While I take your point, that doesn't make evidence of lots of false 
reports magically appear.

[...]

> > * 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.

Despite your disclaimer, it's disappointing that yet again, not matter 
what I say about wrongly accused or convicted men, I don't care enough, 
or indeed at all. Frankly, I'm not going to play the game of who can 
wring their hands the most.

I share your qualms about prison to some extent. How would you punish 
rapists?

I'm also concerned that the survivors with whom you have spoken 
felt guilt at not reporting - that is, of course, entirely their choice, 
and no-one should judge them for it. Were they pressured to report?

If you haven't already, see if you can find the UK book "Policing 
Sexual Assault" by Jeanne Gregory, Jeanne and Sue Lees. I haven't 
read all of it (and now it's packed for our move), but I think 
you'd find it very interesting.

[...]

Yours,
- Kate Orman