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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>  
> > > > > Kanin, Eugene J. False Rape Allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior 
> > > > > 23(1), 1994, pp 81-92.
>  
> > > > > He states: "our intent is not to suggest that the 41% incidence found 
> > > > > here be extrapolated to other populations".
>  
> > > > And what about Kanin's study do you suggest invalidates it's 
> > > > incidence of false reporting
> > > 
> > > Why don't you ask Kanin?
> > 
> > He's not posting here, you are.
> 
> And I quoted Kanin saying his research shouldn't be extrapolated, because 
> he's the expert and I'm not. If you think it *should* be extrapolated, why 
> don't you take it up with him?

Don't need to. I've already explained to you that since he was not
studying incidence, 41% is a lower bound. But from another post it
seems you simply don't believe recantations, at all. 

Tell me why you don't see 41% as a problem Kate (theoretically, since
you don't seem to believe recantations)?

> > If his data is good, and it would seem to be, then it says something.
> > Unless there is something unique about the location, it *can* be
> > extrapolated to other areas.
> 
> Now that's an interesting question to ask. Why were only about 12 rape 
> reports made per year in that "small metropolitan community"? The FBI's 
> 1995 UCR states that, on average, 72 forcible rapes were reported for 
> every 100,000 women.

1) this is reported rapes, a number which inclused FRAs.
2) Do you consider this a crisis (you require a crisis for FRAs)?

> That figure had been *declining* over the years, 
> and metropolitan areas saw *more* rape reports than other areas.

Do you understand what statistics are Kate? Free clue, they are 
descriptive, not prescriptive. And do you have a cite for this?
My understanding is that all crimes are more prevalant in cities.

> As a 
> ballpark figure, we should expect hundreds of rapes to be reported 
> annually in that community each year.

Let's see, 72/100,000 females. If the community has 70,000 people,
(which is what I recall about Kanin's study) about half of those 
should be female, so we end up with... 

     72         X
   ------- = -------, so X = 25.2.  Hundreds? I don't think so.
   100,000    35,000

> Why were only a tiny number being reported? 

If you think stats tell you what you should see, you have them the
wrong way round. Tell me, what is the standard deviation for the UCR
data? 

> How does that affect the proportion of false reports? 

Following your logic we would have 41% of 72 = 29.52 or 26/100,000
false rape reports (average, country wide). 

> [...]
> 
> > All the evicence for the incidence of FRA's shows a very high incidence,
> 
> Cite it.

Let's start with Kanin.

> > and yet you persist in basically claiming the 2% lie
> 
> Quote me.

I did not make any claim about your words. I do claim that every single
thing you post is consistent with FRAs as basically nonexistent, you
demand a "crisis" before anything be done and you don't see any such
crisis. 

> > And FYI, the police should *never*, and I mean unconditionally never
> > simply believe a women who makes a rape claim. I know that you object
> > to this
> 
> Quote me.

Tell me the relevance of your 72/100,000 figure Kate. I got news for
ya, it's just believe the woman. All rape reports are counted, proven
false or not. The UCR numbers for that small metropolitan community
have every recanted rape report counted as a rape, perhaps they fall
into the "unfounded category", but counted they remain.

> > The police should neither believe
> > nor disbelive any women who reports a rape, they should investigate
> > and act on the results of said invesitgation.
> 
> I just said that.

Not in this post. But you do seem to have a problem with the number of 
convictions, clearly you are unhappy with the results of investigation.

Rich

> Yours,
> - Kate Orman