False Rape Accusations Revisited

[Bricker]

Tamara Anne Moonier drove to the Fullerton, California police station on June 6, 2004, and reported a chilling tale -- she had been kidnapped at gunpoint from the parking lot of a local bar, taken to a nearby home, and gang-raped by six men. She was able to provide police with detailed descriptions of the men, including their names. She was also able to describe the sex acts she was forced to complete with each one of them.

She even told police that one of the men had filmed the assault with a video camera.

Fortunately for the accused rapists, the amateur porn cameraman had kept the tape -- because it not only showed the sex acts, but it showed her consenting ahead of time to the entire gang-bang, saying at one point: "If this is on the Internet, I want a piece of the action!" It was unclear if she knew the camera was on at that point.

When the men were questioned and able to produce the tape, no charges against them were filed. After the police reviewed the tape, they questioned Ms. Moonier again, telling her they had seen the tape and asking her if she was certain she had been forced at gunpoint into the situation, as she said. She stuck by her story, demanding that charges be pressed. She had also received a bit less than $2,000 from a crime victims compensation fund.

Faced with the full tape contents, Ms. Moonier pled guilty to both the false report and the accepting of victim compensation funds under false pretenses. She'll get no more than a year in prison.

My question to the Board: what would have happened in this case without the tape?

I contend we need look no further than Durham, NC, for the answer to that question. If that tape hadn't been saved, or if (as I gather Moonier thought) it showed only the sex acts and didn't have her up-front planning of them and agreement to them) those six guys would be mortgaging their houses to pay for legal counsel and praying that a jury believed them.

It's often asked, "Why would a woman lie about such a thing?" Here, there seems to be no reason Moonier lied. But she did.

[Malthus]

What exactly is this "debate" about? :confused:

[Maastricht]

Link to story. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-false25jul25,1,6096335.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california)

Not that anyone is asking for a moral to this story, but I'd say the moral is this: Guys should realize that any girl (professionals excluded) crazy enough to engage in a gang-bang with people she doesn't know or like, is crazy enough to do anything.

[Anaamika]

I don't remotely comprehend this. Why lie? Just to get the money? What a shitty thing to do.

Although I also don't know what the debate is about. I agree, without the tape, they'd be in big trouble. I'm not sure exactly how we could rectify that, though. Start asking for two male witnesses and a confession for every rape? That way lies madness.

[Jackmannii]

To avoid confusion, I suggest that Bricker frame a distinct proposition for debate.

So far there isn't one.

[Bricker]

What exactly is this "debate" about? :confused:

Sorry - thought there was enough to be clear in the OP. Two propositions are offered for debate. The first:

My question to the Board: what would have happened in this case without the tape?

I contend we need look no further than Durham, NC, for the answer to that question. If that tape hadn't been saved, or if (as I gather Moonier thought) it showed only the sex acts and didn't have her up-front planning of them and agreement to them) those six guys would be mortgaging their houses to pay for legal counsel and praying that a jury believed them.


Rephrased: but for the lucky happenstance of saving the tape, the six men here would have been effectively punished by the judicial system regardless of how their criminal trials eventually turned out.

The second:

It's been said in threads here that touched on evaluating the veracity of rape accusations, "Why would she lie?" I offer this case an an example of a woman who has, so far as can be discerned, no real reason to lie, and yet obviously did. I thus contend that "Why would she lie?" is not a particularly valid rejoinder when discussing the veracity of rape allegations.

I hope those two topics for debate are now clear.

[Little Nemo]

As Malthus already asked, what exactly is the debate here? Is anyone claiming that some women don't make false accusations of rape? Is anyone claiming that some people don't make false accusations of other crimes? If so, they're obviously wrong but I think most people already know this.

So what's the plan? False rape accusations were made in Fullerton and Durham. They were investigated and nobody was prosecuted much less convicted. Are you suggesting we shouldn't even bother investigating rape accusations because they might be false? I doubt that's your opinion.

We have a legal system. Some people abuse the system. The system recognizes this possibility and has safeguards built into it.

[Hamlet]

My question to the Board: what would have happened in this case without the tape?

I contend we need look no further than Durham, NC, for the answer to that question. If that tape hadn't been saved, or if (as I gather Moonier thought) it showed only the sex acts and didn't have her up-front planning of them and agreement to them) those six guys would be mortgaging their houses to pay for legal counsel and praying that a jury believed them.And I contend that the police would have done their job and investigated the claim. I also contend that the investigation would have led them to the numerous witness that damaged her credibility. I also contend that they would have looked for corroboration to her story and found little to none. I contend then that they would send their reports onto the district attorney, who would have reviewed the material, possibly interviewed her again, and would have refused to bring charges.

Your conclusion is idiotic, without any facts to support it beyond your gut feeling. But that seems par for your course nowadays.

[Joey P]

Link to story. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-false25jul25,1,6096335.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california)

Not that anyone is asking for a moral to this story, but I'd say the moral is this: Guys should realize that any girl (professionals excluded) crazy enough to engage in a gang-bang with people she doesn't know or like, is crazy enough to do anything.
And perhaps, she she have to take the consequences the guys would have received had they been found guilty.

[Bricker]

So what's the plan? False rape accusations were made in Fullerton and Durham. They were investigated and nobody was prosecuted much less convicted.

Um... that will be a shock to Duke lacrosee players Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann, who are all out the costs of posting $100,000 bail and awaiting trial in Durham.

[Jackmannii]

Sorry - thought there was enough to be clear in the OP. Two propositions are offered for debate. The first:



Rephrased: but for the lucky happenstance of saving the tape, the six men here would have been effectively punished by the judicial system regardless of how their criminal trials eventually turned out.

The second:

It's been said in threads here that touched on evaluating the veracity of rape accusations, "Why would she lie?" I offer this case an an example of a woman who has, so far as can be discerned, no real reason to lie, and yet obviously did. I thus contend that "Why would she lie?" is not a particularly valid rejoinder when discussing the veracity of rape allegations.

I hope those two topics for debate are now clear.The second is now clear, the first remains murky. Are you suggesting that "One should videotape all sexual encounters and the lead-up to said encounters, to avoid accusations of rape" is a topic for debate?

As for #2: in the narrow context in which you present it, I agree. Accusations of rape should be taken seriously, and with action in proportion to the evidence that a crime has been committed.

[Bricker]

And I contend that the police would have done their job and investigated the claim. I also contend that the investigation would have led them to the numerous witness that damaged her credibility. I also contend that they would have looked for corroboration to her story and found little to none. I contend then that they would send their reports onto the district attorney, who would have reviewed the material, possibly interviewed her again, and would have refused to bring charges.

Do you contend that the process you describe above was followed in Durham?

[Hamlet]

Do you contend that the process you describe above was followed in Durham?No. Once again, what is your point?

[Bricker]

No. Once again, what is your point?

Actually, that's my point. The Durham discussions here left me with the impression that some posters (a) believed a valid data point was "why would someone lie about such a thing," and (b) the Durham investigation was handled appropriately.

I offered this story to rebut (a) and show a parallel to (b).

I don't think you and I have any disagreement here.

[John Mace]

Um... that will be a shock to Duke lacrosee players Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann, who are all out the costs of posting $100,000 bail and awaiting trial in Durham.
Does that case represent the exception or the norm?

Do you realize that you're doing again the same thing you did in the recent pit thread re: the "Why would she lie" debate? Is there anyone here who argues that women never lie about being raped?

[Bricker]

Does that case represent the exception or the norm?

Do you realize that you're doing again the same thing you did in the recent pit thread re: the "Why would she lie" debate? Is there anyone here who argues that women never lie about being raped?

Not in so many words. But Diogenes, to take one example, certainly argued as though the possibility were tremendously unlikely and not worthy of serious consideration as a possibility.

[D_Odds]

We have a legal system. Some people abuse the system. The system recognizes this possibility and has safeguards built into it.The safeguards may protect the innocent from convictions. It certainly would not have protected them from financial ruin had this went to trial. Nor would it have protected them as their names and families are dragged through the muck due to the lurid allegations. How "safe" are those safeguards, really?

[Maastricht]

And perhaps, she she have to take the consequences the guys would have received had they been found guilty.I'm not sure I get you, could you please clarify?

[spazattak]

No. Once again, what is your point?
Well you pretty well just shot down your own argument. Assuming that the police will thoroughly investigate both sides of the case, instead of just trying to get enough evidence to convict, is a bad assumption.

[Bricker]

Does that case represent the exception or the norm?

Do you realize that you're doing again the same thing you did in the recent pit thread re: the "Why would she lie" debate? Is there anyone here who argues that women never lie about being raped?

And I don't agree I'm doing QUITE the same thing -- I'm offering a thesis for debate. If, as you suggest, no one believes otherwise, then it should be a short debate.

Is it offensive for some reason to state a proposition that no one disagrees with?

[John Mace]

Not in so many words. But Diogenes, to take one example, certainly argued as though the possibility were tremendously unlikely and not worthy of serious consideration as a possibility.
In the Durham case in particular, or in rape cases in general? It might help if you could provide some quotes.

[whole bean]

. . . but for the lucky happenstance of saving the tape, the six men here would have been effectively punished by the judicial system regardless of how their criminal trials eventually turned out.

This is the other side of the coin that is the acquaintance or "date" rape scenario where a victim's accusations against a by-all-appearances decent guy fall on deaf ears in a "he said, she said" contest.

Victims' advocates have been very active in the past few decades with their “rapist down the hall” campaign. It's worked, sometimes too well, and the victim/accuser is believed, despite the absence of any reliable physical evidence incriminating the accused and despite our justice system's philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty." (see Tawana Brawley, the rise of Nancy Grace, the Duke Lacrosse team scandal).

I can remember when I was first exposed to the victims' advocates campaign (college -- probably the same for most my age and younger). I also remember noting that, in an earnest effort to refrain from "blaming the victim," folk associated with these groups would often avoid pointing to the victim's dangerous conduct as something to be avoided, "a lesson to be learned." [Let me be clear, I understand that not every date rape is a product of being drunk and getting felt up while passed out and that's not what I am suggesting. I understand there are many times where a victim has no control and no responsibility for her predicament. I am not addressing those instances.] I always thought, well they're right in a way, doing what "Jane" did (getting piss drunk at a stranger's house with no good friends around) may not be illegal, but it's certainly not wise. No excuse for the rape, but conduct to be avoided nonetheless. I dared not speak this though. I see it like this: you can look back and justify your "dangerous" conduct as well within your rights while attempting to deal with having been raped. Or you can be safe and leave it a hypothetical.

Now bringing it back to the OP: The guys would have been screwed without the tape. But, as has been noted, if she's crazy enough to take on six dudes, she's crazy enough to do anything. Avoid it because there are some things, some facts, our justice system just won't ferret out. Bad shit happens to good folk all the time (the number one reason to oppose the death penalty, IMHO).

"Why would she lie?" .
Don't you know she's loco essa'

[John Mace]

And I don't agree I'm doing QUITE the same thing -- I'm offering a thesis for debate. If, as you suggest, no one believes otherwise, then it should be a short debate.
Well, that was only one part of the debate. However, unless you either produce quotes from people that support that thesis, or retract it, then it will be a very long deabte because people will keep asking for evidence.

Is it offensive for some reason to state a proposition that no one disagrees with?
I didn't say it was offensive, so I'm unsure why you'd ask that question.

[Bricker]

In the Durham case in particular, or in rape cases in general? It might help if you could provide some quotes.

Well, I'm not trying to debate Diogenes specifically here, JOhn. I'm trying to debate the proposition that "Why would she lie"? is an effective analytical tool in evaluating rape claims.

If you, and everyone else reading this, all agree that it is not, then we shall have a very short thread.

If you contend that it IS an effective analytical tool, then I have offered this case as an example of why it's not, and it would fall to you to distinguish this case, by either suggesting that it's an anomaly, or that it's statistically insignificant, or whatever.

[Bricker]

Well, that was only one part of the debate. However, unless you either produce quotes from people that support that thesis, or retract it, then it will be a very long deabte because people will keep asking for evidence.


No. I offer a proposition for debate. My proposition is not: "Many people feel that this is an effective analytical tool." If I said that, then, yes, evidence would be required.

I say simply that it's not an effective or valid analytical tool. That's my proposition. Agree? Good. We have nothing to debate. Disagree? Great - what's your reasoning?

[John Mace]

No. I offer a proposition for debate. My proposition is not: "Many people feel that this is an effective analytical tool." If I said that, then, yes, evidence would be required.
You didn't? What does this mean, then:

It's often asked, "Why would a woman lie about such a thing?"
Who is asking that and how "often"?

[Anaamika]

Well, I'm not trying to debate Diogenes specifically here, JOhn. I'm trying to debate the proposition that "Why would she lie"? is an effective analytical tool in evaluating rape claims.

If you, and everyone else reading this, all agree that it is not, then we shall have a very short thread.


:confused: Well, count me in as one of the people who thinks it's not an effective analytical tool. Just in case you were keeping score.

[psychloan]

I found the following with a quick search:

For defense purposes, the most effective rape myths are those that give the jury permission to be indifferent toward (or even resentful of) the complaining witness. FBI crime statistics suggest that false complaints are no more frequent in sexual assault than in any other crime, and this was borne out by my experience when I ran a special victims bureau. But rape myths warn jurors that there is a lurking population of disturbed or calculating women eager to "cry rape."

http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html

I would say that this commentator is dead wrong. Not only are there plenty of disturbed/calculating women looking to "cry rape," there are prosecutors who will jump at the chance to prosecute a sketchy allegation for their own selfish purposes.

A lot of studies have been done showing that false accusations of rape are very common. And yet, there exist people simply won't accept this.

[casdave]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2266022,00.html

This one faces jail in a report in todays newspapers, however, he assymetrical protection offered to accused and accuser needs reviewing.

This woman effectively used the fact that the man she had accused had no media protection, whilst she stood by in the shadows free to continue her harrassment.

Women such as this make it all the harder for real victims to come forward and to be believed.

[psychloan]

And here's another quote I found:

Myth: Women "cry rape" to get back at a man for breaking up with her or to protect her reputation after she has consented to have sex. In other words, the myth goes, women lie about being raped.

Fact: The incidence of false reporting of rape is about 2 percent. This is about the same as that for false reporting of other felonies (Department of Social Services). Survivors of sexual assault are often traumatized again when they report the assault or rape since the process of making a police report itself can be very difficult. This re-victimization makes the likelihood of false reporting very minimal. It is far more likely that rape is very under-reported. Some experts estimate that only 1 in 10 rapes are ever reported.

[Bricker]

You didn't? What does this mean, then:


Who is asking that and how "often"?

Good grief.

OK. I withdraw that sentence.

[psychloan]

And here's some more quotes:


Legal Process
Myth: Many women “cry rape” to seek revenge on a lover or to protect their reputation.
Reality: False reporting is rare. A 2000 study by the Office of Victims of Crime found that 2-3% of all sexual assaults reported to law enforcement turn out to be false, the same rate as other types of violent crime. It is unlikely that a false report would get as far as criminal trial. Even a woman who recants may not have lied about being raped, but perhaps she is dealing with some aspect she finds particularly embarrassing or humiliating.

Here I would say that the "myth" is probably more accurate than the "reality." Many men who have were convicted of rape have been exonerated years later by DNA. And the example of Mike Nifong (Durham) shows that an overzealous prosecutor can easily take an obviously false charge to trial.

Myth: It’s easy for a girl or woman to “cry” or charge rape, and hard to defend against it.
Reality: Rape is highly unreported, for many reasons. The reporting process itself can be long and emotionally difficult for a survivor. Often times, the victim has more to lose than to gain by reporting sexual assault. The victim may experience a second victimization by the criminal justice system, and by the community. A typical defense used is that the sex was consensual, which then brings her word against his. If a jury believes rape myths, it can be difficult to find the perpetrator guilty.

It may very well be that many date-rapists get away with it. But that doesn't change the fact that a victim of a false accusation can be facing a bad situation.

Myth: “Real” sexual assault victims report the crime immediately to the police. If they do not report it, or delay in reporting it, it wasn’t really rape.
Reality: There are many reasons why a sexual assault victim may not report the assault to the police. It is not easy to talk about being sexually assaulted. Reasons for not reporting include the following: reliving the trauma, retaliation by the offender, not being believed, being blamed for the assault, media coverage, the responses of family and friends, or being revictimized as the case goes through the criminal justice system. The victim may also want to forget what happened, may not recognize what happened was sexual assault, or may be in shock. A victim is less likely to report a sexual assault by a friend or relative.

To my mind, a delay in reporting is a red flag. For example, the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case apparently had plenty of opportunities to report the alleged crime and yet did not do so until she was about to be committed involuntarily.

[John Mace]

Good grief.

OK. I withdraw that sentence.
I think we should now debate why you felt it necessary to say "good grief". :)

Seriously, though, you explicitly offered that as the 2nd topic of debate:

The second:

It's been said in threads here that touched on evaluating the veracity of rape accusations, "Why would she lie?" I offer this case an an example of a woman who has, so far as can be discerned, no real reason to lie, and yet obviously did. I thus contend that "Why would she lie?" is not a particularly valid rejoinder when discussing the veracity of rape allegations.

If you can't be bothered with supporting your own assertion, don't be surprised when you get called on it.

Good grief indeed!

[Der Trihs]

Since we're trading quotes : Link (http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm)

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations. Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape. That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false. In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations. To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation. Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known. Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions. If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic. If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed. Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel.

The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies. They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation. If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description. The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false. McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city. He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329). That's from a quick google; over the years I've heard numbers as high as 65% provably false ( with DNA tests ). Finding an unbiased site is . . . difficult.

As far as why a woman would lie, there are any number of possible reasons. Some extreme feminists look upon it as a virtue; I recall a Time article ( called something like "Are men really pigs ?" ) where some women being interviewed openly gloated about sending innocent men to prison. Then there's the old "Why not ?" argument; usually the woman doesn't pay any price at all for a false accusation, or only a small one.

[you with the face]

Actually, that's my point. The Durham discussions here left me with the impression that some posters (a) believed a valid data point was "why would someone lie about such a thing," and (b) the Durham investigation was handled appropriately.

Funny you say this, because the Durham discussions, as you call 'em, left me with a distinctly different set of impressions. The first one that comes to mind is that some people are so obsessed with false rape accusations that they are willing to believe just about any "data point" that casts an accuser in a negative light. Such as the accuser's race, of all motherfreakin' things.

Yeah, it's hard to believe, I know. Wish it had been a hallucination. It wasn't.

The second impression I walked away with is that statistics in the wrong hands is tantamount to placing a gun in the hands of a blind kid with ADD. Especially when those hands belong to a lawyer who doesn't even have the common sense to realize that "data points" like race shouldn't be factored in when assigning the credibility of a case.

[Kalhoun]

Not in so many words. But Diogenes, to take one example, certainly argued as though the possibility were tremendously unlikely and not worthy of serious consideration as a possibility.
I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks women won't lie about rape. But so what? The only law I would change is that the accused persons' names are sealed by the court until they are convicted. That goes for any crime, but particularly sex crimes, which in my opinion are more damaging to a person's reputation than any other crime (including murder in most cases).

What are you suggesting we do as a society to protect women (even drunk women) from the crime of gang rape?

[Bricker]

I think we should now debate why you felt it necessary to say "good grief". :)

Seriously, though, you explicitly offered that as the 2nd topic of debate:


If you can't be bothered with supporting your own assertion, don't be surprised when you get called on it.

Good grief indeed!

Excuse me, John, but the 2nd topic of debate I offered was: I thus contend that "Why would she lie?" is not a particularly valid rejoinder when discussing the veracity of rape allegations. That was the proposition.

[Bricker]

I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks women won't lie about rape. But so what? The only law I would change is that the accused persons' names are sealed by the court until they are convicted. That goes for any crime, but particularly sex crimes, which in my opinion are more damaging to a person's reputation than any other crime (including murder in most cases).


That's not a bad idea. Even if not "sealed byt the court" -- perhaps, in the same way that newspapers voluntarily do not report the names of victims of sexual assault, we should expect newspapers to voluntarily withhold the names of the accused in such cases until conviction.


What are you suggesting we do as a society to protect women (even drunk women) from the crime of gang rape?

I think the existing safeguards are sufficient, as a general rule.

[Pazu]

[...]some people are so obsessed with false rape accusations that they are willing to believe just about any "data point" that casts an accuser in a negative light. Such as the accuser's race, of all motherfreakin' things.


I forget--was she red or maroon?

[John Mace]

My question to the Board: what would have happened in this case without the tape?

I contend we need look no further than Durham, NC, for the answer to that question. If that tape hadn't been saved, or if (as I gather Moonier thought) it showed only the sex acts and didn't have her up-front planning of them and agreement to them) those six guys would be mortgaging their houses to pay for legal counsel and praying that a jury believed them.
To flesh out what I asked rather cryptically, above: Can we really take the Durham case as an example of what typically happens in rape cases? I say no. This case was a national media circus, was highly racially charged, and involved a White DA up for election in an area with a large Black poopulation. I contend that we have to look much further than this case to find out what would have happened had the tape not existed.

[Kalhoun]

As far as the cost these guys are hit with for legal representation, shit...that's only ANYONE who's accused of a major crime. Like it or not, the rich have better "justice for all" than the rest of us. The fact that they're attending Duke puts them in a better position than most people in this country. If they were attending Bumfuck Community College (my old alma mater), the key would have been thrown away a long time ago.

[Joey P]

I'm not sure I get you, could you please clarify?
Something I overheard in a conversation once.
Someone basically said that if a women accuses a man of rape and it turns out that it was a false accusation, whatever punishment the man would have been dealt, she will receive instead.

So lets say in this case if proved guilty, each male would go to jail for 3 years and fined $50,000. Since it turned out to be a false accusation, she would go to jail for three years and be fined $50,000. I'm not really here to debate this statement it's just something I overheard years and years ago and I always think about it when a case like this pops up.

[you with the face]

I forget--was she red or maroon?

I can't remember her precise color, but I think she was a ninja with a fondness for jumping out of helicopters and robbing liquor stores.

[Pazu]

I can't remember her precise color, but I think she was a ninja with a fondness for jumping out of helicopters and robbing liquor stores.

Well, geez, how statistically likely is that?

[Hamlet]

Excuse me, John, but the 2nd topic of debate I offered was: I thus contend that "Why would she lie?" is not a particularly valid rejoinder when discussing the veracity of rape allegations. That was the proposition.Why would she lie is not a valid question to ask? Seriously, as a P.D., how often did you try to establish a witnesses motive to lie? 90%? 100%? Saying that asking why a person would lie is not important to determining their credibility is staggering in its stupidity.

The only modicum of a point that you have is that sometimes people lie without an obvious motive. But saying that somehow the lack of a motive to lie doesn't matter in determining credibility is downright silly. It is certainly an indicator of credibility, but, like all evidence, it doesn't stand on its own. Simply because someone doesn't have an apparent reason to lie, doesn't mean they aren't, just as simply because someone has a reason to lie doesn't mean they are.

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't understand this thread - the possibility of a witness lying or embellishing or just being mistaken should always be considered, regardless of the alleged crime.

Rape happens to be a crime which, barring the occasional videotape, often lacks convincing physical evidence proving or disproving.

[Guinastasia]

A lot of studies have been done showing that false accusations of rape are very common. And yet, there exist people simply won't accept this.


Cite for these studies? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to judge this information directly.

[Marley23]

Here I would say that the "myth" is probably more accurate than the "reality."
Your own cites (the 2% figure) flatly contradict you. Are there some "/calculating women looking to "cry rape" out there? Sure. You don't stipulate what "some" means and the number is obviously greater than zero, so that's inarguable.
Many men who have were convicted of rape have been exonerated years later by DNA.
How many? I know it happens, but again, does this somehow override your 2% figure? Or do you think that's a really big number?
To my mind, a delay in reporting is a red flag.
I'd like to know why. By definition, rape is a crime in which the victim feels threatened, and I would think that makes a delay in reporting very easy to understand.

[John Mace]

Why would she lie is not a valid question to ask? Seriously, as a P.D., how often did you try to establish a witnesses motive to lie? 90%? 100%? Saying that asking why a person would lie is not important to determining their credibility is staggering in its stupidity.

The only modicum of a point that you have is that sometimes people lie without an obvious motive. But saying that somehow the lack of a motive to lie doesn't matter in determining credibility is downright silly. It is certainly an indicator of credibility, but, like all evidence, it doesn't stand on its own. Simply because someone doesn't have an apparent reason to lie, doesn't mean they aren't, just as simply because someone has a reason to lie doesn't mean they are.
You're misinterpreting what Bricker is saying. Substitute: "She has no reason to lie" for "Why would she lie?" He means to say that when people ask "Why would she lie", they are implying that she wouldn't.

[Hamlet]

You're misinterpreting what Bricker is saying. Substitute: "She has no reason to lie" for "Why would she lie?" He means to say that when people ask "Why would she lie", they are implying that she wouldn't.I honestly don't understand what you're saying. If Bricker's only point is that saying "she has no reason to lie" doesn't settle the issue of whether or not someone is lying, you have to admit it's an insanely stupid point.

I, for one, read this statement: "I'm trying to debate the proposition that "Why would she lie"? is an effective analytical tool in evaluating rape claims" for what it says. Am I missing some subtle nuance to this point so that it doesn't mean what it says?

[tomndebb]

Hamlet, the sequence is:

A woman reports a rape.
Some aspect of her charges are questioned.
One group of persons who believe her story use the rhetorical question "Why would she lie?" as a refutation against those who doubt her story, implying that no (or only some miniscule number of women) would ever lie to falsely claim rape.

This was, in fact, one of the "arguments" advanced in the recent acrimonius thread regarding the Duke matter.

So, Bricker, who has discovered another case in which a woman has (with no immediately discernible reason to lie about her experience) falsely charged a group of men with rape,
puts forth as a discussion (since it was, indeed, a point of discussion in a previous thread), is there ever a legitimate reason to offer that rhetorical question as a defense of the claims made by a woman?

[John Mace]

Hamlet, the sequence is:

A woman reports a rape.
Some aspect of her charges are questioned.
One group of persons who believe her story use the rhetorical question "Why would she lie?" as a refutation against those who doubt her story, implying that no (or only some miniscule number of women) would ever lie to falsely claim rape.

This was, in fact, one of the "arguments" advanced in the recent acrimonius thread regarding the Duke matter.
I asked Bricker for some quotes to no avail. Can you link to the posts where this argument was advanced? I don't know which specific thread you're talking about.

[Hamlet]

Hamlet, the sequence is:

A woman reports a rape.
Some aspect of her charges are questioned.
One group of persons who believe her story use the rhetorical question "Why would she lie?" as a refutation against those who doubt her story, implying that no (or only some miniscule number of women) would ever lie to falsely claim rape.

This was, in fact, one of the "arguments" advanced in the recent acrimonius thread regarding the Duke matter.

So, Bricker, who has discovered another case in which a woman has (with no immediately discernible reason to lie about her experience) falsely charged a group of men with rape,
puts forth as a discussion (since it was, indeed, a point of discussion in a previous thread), is there ever a legitimate reason to offer that rhetorical question as a defense of the claims made by a woman?So, if I understand correctly (which is not a given by any stretch), the phrase "why would she lie"? does not, in fact, raise the issue of the woman's motive to lie, but rather is a simplistic rephrasing of "she isn't lying because nobody lies about rape"?

I missed the other threads (well, I wouldn't say I missed them), so I just assumed the phrase "why would she lie" meant "what is her motive for lying"? But it doesn't. It's actually code for some other thing.

Now do I got it?

[psychloan]

Your own cites (the 2% figure) flatly contradict you. [/b]

That's correct. However the 2% figure is wrong. Citations to come.

[psychloan]

Some references regarding false rape accusations:

3)- McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. "False Allegations." Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.


4)- Kanin, Eugene J., Ph.D. "False Rape Allegations." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1994), pp 81-92.


5)- Kanin, Eugene J., Ph.D. "False Rape Allegations." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No.1 (1994), pp 81-92.


6)- Krajick, Kevin. "Genetics in the Courtroom: Controversial DNA testing can clear a suspect." Newsweek, Jan. 11, 1993, p. 64

[psychloan]

Of 556 accusations of rape examined in an Air Force study, 27 percent of the accusers admitted, either just before taking a polygraph test or after failing one, that they had lied.(3)


In a nine-year study of all resolved rape cases in a Midwestern U.S. city of 70,000, the accusers recanted their charges 41 percent of the time. The 41 percent figure does not include the other accusations that the police department recorded as unfounded, for which there was insufficient evidence to establish the assault.(4)


A survey of all the forcible rape complaints during a three-year period at two large Midwestern state universities found that 50 percent of the accusations were false. At each university, the complaints and investigations were the responsibility of a ranking female officer, and no complaint was declared false unless there was a recantation by the accuser. Fifty-three percent of the accusations were motivated by a need for an alibi; revenge was the motive for 44 percent.(5)


A third of DNA scans now routinely done in new rape investigations are nonmatches, according to a newsmagazine.

http://www.ncfm.org/FACT1.HTM

[you with the face]

This thread is another case of someone arguing against a position that no one in evidence has seriously advanced. There was another thread like this that was recently in the Pit and was about American's attitudes towards poverty. Just like this one, it was concieved out of an impression that was either imagined or based on stuff that was blown way out of proportion.

Sure, someone somewhere probably thinks no one files false rape charges because of the whole "why would she lie?" angle.

Someone somewhere also probably thinks its a good idea to encourage suicidal people to jump from building ledges. And? We call these type of people mean names for a reason. Because their ideas are universally recognized as wrong and ridiculous.

[Rysto]

So, if I understand correctly (which is not a given by any stretch), the phrase "why would she lie"? does not, in fact, raise the issue of the woman's motive to lie, but rather is a simplistic rephrasing of "she isn't lying because nobody lies about rape"?

I missed the other threads (well, I wouldn't say I missed them), so I just assumed the phrase "why would she lie" meant "what is her motive for lying"? But it doesn't. It's actually code for some other thing.

Now do I got it?
Well, if you consider a rhetorical queston to be code, then yeah, that would seem to be what they're saying.

[Marley23]

Some references regarding false rape accusations:
Now the question remains of whether your new cites are more believable than your first.

[psychloan]

Now the question remains of whether your new cites are more believable than your first.

Well, the first 2% figure simply cites to the "Department of Social Services." I don't see any way to verify that. The second 2% figure doesn't cite a specific survey. You are free to do searches to try to track that information down.

[psychloan]

I'd like to know why. By definition, rape is a crime in which the victim feels threatened, and I would think that makes a delay in reporting very easy to understand.

Take a look at the Duke rape accusation for example. Perhaps the accuser felt "threatened," but she didn't report any rape until well after she reached a place of safety.

In general, if somebody waits to report an alleged crime, it raises the possibility that some event besides the alleged crime triggered the report. In the case of the Duke rape accuser, it appears that what triggered her decision to make a rape accusation was the imminent threat of being involuntarily committed. i.e. she had a strong motive to lie.

It's also possible, of course, that there is a legitimate explanation for a delay in reporting.

[Marley23]

Well, the first 2% figure simply cites to the "Department of Social Services." I don't see any way to verify that. The second 2% figure doesn't cite a specific survey. You are free to do searches to try to track that information down.
The Columbia Journalism Review (http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp) says it comes from an old source. In the end, they suggest that the numbers on false rape reports vary wildly. They also deal with some of the higher numbers you've mentioned.
Marcia L. Roth, the author of the 1996 op-ed article in the Louisville Courier-Journal, attributed the 2 percent rate to the 1993 book Rape, the Misunderstood Crime, by Julie Allison and Lawrence Wrightsman. But Allison and Wrightsman weren't so unequivocal. Noting that the frequency of false rape reports is difficult to assess, they didn't do their own study; instead they looked at a synthesis of research findings from a 1979 book, Understanding the Rape Victim, by Sedelle Katz and Mary Ann Mazur. Katz and Mazur, it turns out, had reviewed studies dating back to 1956 that showed the frequency of unfounded and false rape reports ranging from a low of 1 percent to a high of 25 percent. Allison and Wrightsman simply chose the study that showed 2 percent.
Take a look at the Duke rape accusation for example. Perhaps the accuser felt "threatened," but she didn't report any rape until well after she reached a place of safety.
This is a really ridiculous objection. Why wouldn't she wait until she'd reached a place where she was no longer in danger? Isn't that what anybody would do when threatened?
In general, if somebody waits to report an alleged crime, it raises the possibility that some event besides the alleged crime triggered the report. In the case of the Duke rape accuser, it appears that what triggered her decision to make a rape accusation was the imminent threat of being involuntarily committed. i.e. she had a strong motive to lie.
In point of fact, I think the woman in the Duke case is lying, and yes, that possibility exists with any delay. But you also have to keep in mind that there can be good reasons to delay reporting a crime, and I don't think it should be a prejudicial factor one way or another.

[Marley23]

D'oh. It's probably obvious, but the last two quotes in my post are from psychloan.

[tomndebb]

Now do I got it?I believe so.

The thread, one of our more notable trainwrecks extending to just over 28 pages, can be found in the BBQ Pit under Lying whore. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366822&highlight=reason)

I asked Bricker for some quotes to no avail. Can you link to the posts where this argument was advanced? I don't know which specific thread you're talking about.Beyond the thread, no. (I presume I have the correct thread, but I have no idea who may have been advancing the argument under consideration and no clue where to look in the thread.)

[John Mace]

I believe so.

The thread, one of our more notable trainwrecks extending to just over 28 pages, can be found in the BBQ Pit under Lying whore. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366822&highlight=reason)

Beyond the thread, no. (I presume I have the correct thread, but I have no idea who may have been advancing the argument under consideration and no clue where to look in the thread.)
I don't remember anyone in that thread saying: Why would she lie. In fact, it was the quite the opposite. It was Huerta claiming that she must be lying, and that the DA should have assumed that she was.

So, I still have seen absolute ZERO evidence that anyone on this board has ever advanced the notion that women don't lie about rape. There has been disagreement about just how common it is for women to do so, but that's an entirely different thing.

[Apos]

Purely in regards to the discussion about bail and lawyers and such: fascinating! So what are you proposing? Should criminal defendants not be required to pay bail or be allowed to hire expensive lawyers? Should taxpayers pay for their private counsel if the state loses its case? Should the standards for grand jury indictments be raised? And should all this innovative new pro-defendant policy only be the case for rape, since bitches crazy?

I suggest you suggest this to your Republican pals in Virginia. I'm sure this strong law and order stance will go over like hotcakes in a state that eliminated parole. Maybe Kilgore can run again on this: finally, he's found an issue with traction!

[psychloan]

The Columbia Journalism Review (http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp) says it comes from an old source. In the end, they suggest that the numbers on false rape reports vary wildly. They also deal with some of the higher numbers you've mentioned.[/b]

:confused:

If one number comes from a study that can be looked up and verified, and another number comes from an "old source," obviously the first number is more credible.

In any event, my original point was, in substance, that there are a lot of false rape reports made. The studies I cited support this claim adequately.

This is a really ridiculous objection. Why wouldn't she wait until she'd reached a place where she was no longer in danger? Isn't that what anybody would do when threatened?

I don't think you read what I wrote. Here it is again, with emphasis added:

Take a look at the Duke rape accusation for example. Perhaps the accuser felt "threatened," but she didn't report any rape until well after she reached a place of safety.

In point of fact, I think the woman in the Duke case is lying, and yes, that possibility exists with any delay. But you also have to keep in mind that there can be good reasons to delay reporting a crime, and I don't think it should be a prejudicial factor one way or another.

In my earlier post, I specifically said the following:

It's also possible, of course, that there is a legitimate explanation for a delay in reporting.

Did you miss that? Anyway, I disagree that delay in reporting should not "be a prejudicial factor."

An extreme example: A man and woman get divorced. 4 years later, the man discovers that the woman has become a drug abuser and sues to get custody of the children. The next day, the woman files charges alleging that 5 years previous, while they were still living together, he raped her. Wouldn't a reasonable person ask why the woman waited 5 years to file charges? Wouldn't a reasonable person wonder if the charges were simply made as a tactical ploy in a custody battle? And doesn't the delay make the charges less credible?

[Nava]

There was a story in today's local newspaper (in Spanish, so even if they have put it in their webpage the link wouldn't be good for much here) about two women being charged with "false testimony".

They accused the local priest of abusing the elder one when she'd gone to ask for help buying medication for her mother, the younger when she'd gone to arrange for her baby's baptism.

Cops found that the elder's mom has been dead for years; that the priest had given her over 700€ to help pay to medication for this dead woman; that the youngest one doesn't have a baby of that age!

How can you be so dumb? Hell, I don't know, but some people seem to work hard at it.

[catsix]

Hamlet said:
And I contend that the police would have done their job and investigated the claim. I also contend that the investigation would have led them to the numerous witness that damaged her credibility. I also contend that they would have looked for corroboration to her story and found little to none. I contend then that they would send their reports onto the district attorney, who would have reviewed the material, possibly interviewed her again, and would have refused to bring charges.

And what of the six men accused? Their names and faces splashed across the television and the newspaper, appearing alongside the word 'rapist', their careers potentially ended by the accusation, home lives and reputation in the neighborhood wrecked, bankrupted by being unable to work sitting in jail cells or fronting bond money, struggling to hire a lawyer capable of giving them an adequate defense, the mental anguish of repeated interrogations, and the pressure to just plead guilty to make it all stop.

That's what happens with rape accusations. Look at the Duke case. Without corroboration or in fact any evidence at all, the entire country knows who Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans are, and not because they're good lacrosse players. The fallout, of course, doesn't end with destroying their lives. The coach of the lacrosse team is out of a job, the entire lacrosse team was disbanded for a season, and those players who weren't accused of the rape couldn't even get accepted as transfer students to other schools.

So you say the media will report it if the charges are dropped? Whoop-dee-fuckin-doo. It'll be a two inch blurb inside the fold that almost nobody sees, and I doubt it'll say that she lied. More like it'll just say the charges were dropped. And until these guys die, their names are going to be linked to the word 'rapist'. Do you honestly think a 'We're sorry, the accuser lied and we were wrong.' makes up for any of that?

[Hamlet]

And what of the six men accused? Their names and faces splashed across the television and the newspaper, appearing alongside the word 'rapist', their careers potentially ended by the accusation, home lives and reputation in the neighborhood wrecked, bankrupted by being unable to work sitting in jail cells or fronting bond money, struggling to hire a lawyer capable of giving them an adequate defense, the mental anguish of repeated interrogations, and the pressure to just plead guilty to make it all stop.I think you have a problem with the media and not anything I described in my posts. Feel free to rant and rave about the unfairness of the publication of accusations, but, unless you have an objection to the police investigating reported crimes, I don't understand your problem.

That's what happens with rape accusations. Look at the Duke case. Without corroboration or in fact any evidence at all, the entire country knows who Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans are, and not because they're good lacrosse players. The fallout, of course, doesn't end with destroying their lives. The coach of the lacrosse team is out of a job, the entire lacrosse team was disbanded for a season, and those players who weren't accused of the rape couldn't even get accepted as transfer students to other schools.Yes, the Duke case is a travesty.

So you say the media will report it if the charges are dropped? Whoop-dee-fuckin-doo. It'll be a two inch blurb inside the fold that almost nobody sees, and I doubt it'll say that she lied. More like it'll just say the charges were dropped. And until these guys die, their names are going to be linked to the word 'rapist'. Do you honestly think a 'We're sorry, the accuser lied and we were wrong.' makes up for any of that?And your proposal is? The police refuse to investigate rape cases? They don't interview witnesses? They assume that anyone reporting a rape are lying? If you simply needed a post to quote before your wild-eyed rant, that's fine I guess, but I have no clue why you picked my post for that.

[Kalhoun]

In point of fact, I think the woman in the Duke case is lying, and yes, that possibility exists with any delay. But you also have to keep in mind that there can be good reasons to delay reporting a crime, and I don't think it should be a prejudicial factor one way or another.
I agree. The mere prospect of putting one's self under the scrutinizing eye of the court or the media would (and does) cause women to delay reporting the crime. Maturity and weighing the pros and cons can kick in years after the fact. Who looks forward to being called a whore, a slut, a crazy person, or a liar in front of the whole world? Husbands and boyfriends bail. Jobs are lost. Your relationship with mutual friends can be destroyed. The downside of reporting it at all can outweigh the benefits. I can certainly understand a person waiting for a very long time to say anything.

[catsix]

Hamlet said:
If you simply needed a post to quote before your wild-eyed rant, that's fine I guess, but I have no clue why you picked my post for that.

The point is, what do we do about the people who are falsely accused? Do we keep the accused's name and photograph out of the media until we know the accusation has merit, and if that's not possible (which it seems it isn't), how do you go about fixing the problem? An apology and a handshake just doesn't seem to cut it.

The accused have rights, and lately it seems that's been ignored entirely, by police and prosecutors (how many press conferences did Nifong attend?) It gets worse when you have this information, made public by the DA's office or the police, and then talking heads on TV (Nancy Grace) screeching 'Why would she lie?'

The only way I see to reduce false allegations is to punish those who make them very, very harshly, in balance to the damage they have caused in the lives of those they lie about.

[you with the face]

The only way I see to reduce false allegations is to punish those who make them very, very harshly, in balance to the damage they have caused in the lives of those they lie about.

Those who are falsely accused have the ability to sue the accuser for damages.

[Bricker]

Those who are falsely accused have the ability to sue the accuser for damages.

And if the accuser is judgement-proof?

[Hamlet]

The point is, what do we do about the people who are falsely accused? Do we keep the accused's name and photograph out of the media until we know the accusation has merit, and if that's not possible (which it seems it isn't), how do you go about fixing the problem? An apology and a handshake just doesn't seem to cut it.Once again, what do you want the police and DA to do about it? In the OP case, they didn't arrest or charge the men, instead they charged the woman with false reports and fraud and she's facing up to a year in jail. I understand you're upset, but, seriously, what do you want from the police and DA's and why are you blaming them?

The accused have rights, and lately it seems that's been ignored entirely, by police and prosecutors (how many press conferences did Nifong attend?)Oh, please. I've granted you that the Duke case is a travesty, and I'll grant you that Nifong shouldn't be a prosecutor. But you've taken one example and pretended it's rampant in the system. That's silly.

It gets worse when you have this information, made public by the DA's office or the police, and then talking heads on TV (Nancy Grace) screeching 'Why would she lie?'Might I suggest you do another Duke thread, because you apparently haven't gotten everything out of your system.

The only way I see to reduce false allegations is to punish those who make them very, very harshly, in balance to the damage they have caused in the lives of those they lie about.Which is why the police and DA never arrested or charged the men, and are now prosecuting the woman. What more do you want from them? A pound of flesh?

[you with the face]

And if the accuser is judgement-proof?

Then the accusers are shit out of luck.

Your solution to this would be...? Seems to me this is a fact of life.

[Marley23]

If one number comes from a study that can be looked up and verified, and another number comes from an "old source," obviously the first number is more credible.
Any reason you didn't comment on the fact that that article also called "your" statistics into question?
I don't think you read what I wrote.
I did, and both of your self-quotes are unnecessary. I felt you were paying lipservice to both issues and not actually dealing with them. The problem is that you are using well as a weasel word. In the Duke case, the woman reported the rape a few hours after it is alleged to have happened. How troubling is that, really? You're not suggesting that a delay of a few hours is as questionable as a delay of five years, are you? Perhaps a delay of five years ought to be questionable, but that's not the norm as far as I know, and it definitely doesn't apply to the Duke case.

[psychloan]

The only way I see to reduce false allegations is to punish those who make them very, very harshly, in balance to the damage they have caused in the lives of those they lie about.

I'm not sure that this is the best idea. Because it will discourage people who make false accusations from recanting.

[psychloan]

Any reason you didn't comment on the fact that that article also called "your" statistics into question?

:confused:

What article? Which statistics?


I did, and both of your self-quotes are unnecessary. I felt you were paying lipservice to both issues and not actually dealing with them. The problem is that you are using well as a weasel word. In the Duke case, the woman reported the rape a few hours after it is alleged to have happened. How troubling is that, really?

It's extremely troubling. See below.

You're not suggesting that a delay of a few hours is as questionable as a delay of five years, are you?

It depends on the circumstances. In the right circumstances, a 5-year delay would not trouble me at all.

What's problematic about the delay in the Duke case is that the accuser apparently did not report any alleged rape until after she learned she was to be involuntarily committed.

If she had simply gone home and gone to bed and then filed a report the next morning, the delay would bother me much less. But in the Duke case, it appears that what triggered the rape accusation was the prospect of being involuntarily committed. It looks like she didn't say she was raped until the moment she perceived it was in her interests to do so.

Honest people tell the truth whether or not it's in their interests to do so. Liars say whatever is in their interests at the moment. So if somebody's statements conveniently change with their interests, it's an indication that they are lying.

And that's why the delay in the Duke case is so troubling.

Look at it this way: If it came out that the accuser called 911 and reported a rape 5 minutes before her encounter with the police, do you think that would help the prosecution's case?

[Mtgman]

And if the accuser is judgement-proof?
Since the damages were largely to the reputation of the falesly accused I would guess a counter-suit for false accusations, if covered in the media at anywhere near the coverage level of the original accusations, would make the accused whole regardless of cash recovery or not. Of course the legal fees of said counter-suit would be like salt in the wound, and media coverage is hardly guaranteed, but cash is not the only remedy available to the wrongfully accused.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Marley23]

What article? Which statistics?
And YOU accused ME of not reading?
THIS article: The Columbia Journalism Review (http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp)
In one of your posts, you used this quote:
A survey of all the forcible rape complaints during a three-year period at two large Midwestern state universities found that 50 percent of the accusations were false. At each university, the complaints and investigations were the responsibility of a ranking female officer, and no complaint was declared false unless there was a recantation by the accuser. Fifty-three percent of the accusations were motivated by a need for an alibi; revenge was the motive for 44 percent.(5)
My cite, which goes into a little more detail about the same numbers, includes the following comment from the author of the study:
And some of the studies are obviously limited. Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city: "Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41 percent incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables."
Are we clear now?
What's problematic about the delay in the Duke case is that the accuser apparently did not report any alleged rape until after she learned she was to be involuntarily committed.
As I said earlier, I think the Duke case is a crock of shit. Since we're agreed on that, perhaps we can quit relying on it for everything in this thread? There are situations in which reporting delays are problematic, but I don't think they're a problem in and of themselves.

[psychloan]

And YOU accused ME of not reading?[/b]

I don't see why I should have to guess about what you are referring to. I've referred to statistics in more than one post in this thread. How hard would it be to refer to the "Columbia Article" or the "Kamin Study"?

But to answer your question, no, there's no particular reason. IIRC, my original point was, in substance, that there are a large number of false rape accusations. I was asked for references, which I provided.

If you want to debate my original point, fine. But first tell me your position.

As I said earlier, I think the Duke case is a crock of shit. Since we're agreed on that, perhaps we can quit relying on it for everything in this thread?

In a thread about false rape accusations, the Duke case is extremely apropos.

[Marley23]

I don't see why I should have to guess about what you are referring to. I've referred to statistics in more than one post in this thread. How hard would it be to refer to the "Columbia Article" or the "Kamin Study"?
I've linked to one (1) article, and I thought it was very clear which study (posted by you) that it dealt with.. Unless you're just posting statistics without reading them, I don't know why any guesswork was involved.
IIRC, my original point was, in substance, that there are a large number of false rape accusations. I was asked for references, which I provided.
But my cite demonstrated that some of your cites aren't that reliable, and also addressed the point that it's hard to come by unbiased stats on false rape reports in the first place.
In a thread about false rape accusations, the Duke case is extremely apropos.
That doesn't mean it's a good example for every point you want to illustrate. She made the rape report under suspicious circumstances, but it's not the delay that makes them suspicious.

[psychloan]

I've linked to one (1) article,[/b]

But you didn't even refer to "the article I linked earlier" You simply said "that article."

But my cite demonstrated that some of your cites aren't that reliable, and also addressed the point that it's hard to come by unbiased stats on false rape reports in the first place.

So do you dispute that there are large numbers of false rape allegations made?

That doesn't mean it's a good example for every point you want to illustrate. She made the rape report under suspicious circumstances, but it's not the delay that makes them suspicious.

So why not answer my question from before then?: I'll repeat it:

If it came out that the accuser called 911 and reported a rape 5 minutes before her encounter with the police, do you think that would help the prosecution's case?

[Kythereia]

Rape happens to be a crime which, barring the occasional videotape, often lacks convincing physical evidence proving or disproving.

Sorry for the slight hijack: aren't there forensic doctors / specialists who examine the victim for traces of rape afterwards? Do they conclusively offer proof that someone has or hasn't been raped?

[John Mace]

Sorry for the slight hijack: aren't there forensic doctors / specialists who examine the victim for traces of rape afterwards? Do they conclusively offer proof that someone has or hasn't been raped?
Conclusive proof in all cases? I doubt it. But if you think they can, let's see a cite.

[Salt Seller]

For a group of such intelligent, ignorance-fighting people, I really am quite astounded at the level of casual misogyny and rape-culture apologetics on display here. In any thread that even remotely touches on this issue, the assumption seems to be that all women are liars, and if they did get raped, well, it was their fault. And yet you wonder why women might be reluctant to report.

[Pazu]

Sorry for the slight hijack: aren't there forensic doctors / specialists who examine the victim for traces of rape afterwards? Do they conclusively offer proof that someone has or hasn't been raped?

There are, but the sorts of physical findings they could report would most likely be, at best, "consistent with" sexual assault, in most cases. I doubt anyone could turn those findings into conclusive proof.

[Bricker]

Sorry for the slight hijack: aren't there forensic doctors / specialists who examine the victim for traces of rape afterwards? Do they conclusively offer proof that someone has or hasn't been raped?

They can offer opinions, but seldom conclusive.

There are three basic defenses to rape:

1. It never happened.
2. It happened, because she consented.
3. It happened, but some other dude did it.

Forensic evidence and a rape exam can conclusively rebut the first defense, and now with DNA on the scene, are probative with respect to the third. But if the claim is that there was consensual sex, then the factor becomes what sort of bruising, tearing, or bleeding is observable. The worse the injuries are, the harder it is to claim consent. Even ordinary sexual intercourse can cause some minor chafing and bruising. Some couples like rougher sex, and that's often the claim of an accused rapist using the consent defense to explain minor injuries. Obviously, the more serious the injuries, the weaker the "rough sex" explanation sounds.

[John Mace]

For a group of such intelligent, ignorance-fighting people, I really am quite astounded at the level of casual misogyny and rape-culture apologetics on display here. In any thread that even remotely touches on this issue, the assumption seems to be that all women are liars, and if they did get raped, well, it was their fault. And yet you wonder why women might be reluctant to report.
What thread are your reading? Certainly not this one. One poster is goig on about a high incidence of false rape reports, but even that poster isn't saying "all women are liars" and he certainly isn't saying "it was their fault". Can you quote some of these posts that are leading you to your conclusions? I don't see them.

[Hamlet]

Since you apparently are revisiting this thread, Bricker, could you confirm that the conclusion I eventually reached is correct? The point of your OP is that saying women never lie about rape is wrong? That's it?

[John Mace]

And can you respond to my post #40, while you're at it. I think I'm the only one, other than Hamlet, to address your assertion that any alleged rape that wasn't filmed would end up being prosecuted just like the Duke case.

[Blanche]

For every false rape accusation that gets reported to the authorities, there are probably dozens of cases where a woman tells people she was raped but never takes the step of making a false report to the police (probably because she knows investigation will prove her lie). I've seen so many people have their lives ruined because some spiteful or jealous bitch will start telling people she was raped just because she's mad at somebody.

[Bricker]

Since you apparently are revisiting this thread, Bricker, could you confirm that the conclusion I eventually reached is correct? The point of your OP is that saying women never lie about rape is wrong? That's it?

One of my two points.

But other than that, kinda sorta... yes. The problem is that no one really says, "Women never lie about rape." But in a discussion, they are likely to say, "Why would she lie?" as though that's a useful question to judge the truth of her complaint.

So one of my two points was to say: "Why would she lie?" is not a useful question to ask to prove that she's not lying.

[Bricker]

To flesh out what I asked rather cryptically, above: Can we really take the Durham case as an example of what typically happens in rape cases? I say no. This case was a national media circus, was highly racially charged, and involved a White DA up for election in an area with a large Black poopulation. I contend that we have to look much further than this case to find out what would have happened had the tape not existed.

Fair enough. There's no one-size fits-all answer. The Durham case merely shows what could have happened, not what inevitably would have happened.

[Hamlet]

One of my two points.

But other than that, kinda sorta... yes. The problem is that no one really says, "Women never lie about rape." But in a discussion, they are likely to say, "Why would she lie?" as though that's a useful question to judge the truth of her complaint.

So one of my two points was to say: "Why would she lie?" is not a useful question to ask to prove that she's not lying.If you take "why would she lie" as "she wouldn't lie", you have a point, it is not a useful question. Heck, it's not even a question. But if you're saying that questioning a person's motive to lie is not useful, well, I'll just point you back to my post here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7643335&postcount=45), and ask for a response.

Fair enough. There's no one-size fits-all answer. The Durham case merely shows what could have happened, not what inevitably would have happened.

My question to the Board: what would have happened in this case without the tape?

I contend we need look no further than Durham, NC, for the answer to that question. If that tape hadn't been saved, or if (as I gather Moonier thought) it showed only the sex acts and didn't have her up-front planning of them and agreement to them) those six guys would be mortgaging their houses to pay for legal counsel and praying that a jury believed them.

Do you see a difference in your inflammatory OP and what you're saying now? Why post an OP with that kind of unsubstantiated conclusion?

[Marley23]

So do you dispute that there are large numbers of false rape allegations made?
Not being an idiot, I have never disputed that they are made. What I have said is "what's a large number?" You came into this thread disputing some points in the rape myth article, but I think those points were basically true.
So why not answer my question from before then?: I'll repeat it:
Could you restate it? I don't know what timeline you're proposing.

[psychloan]

Not being an idiot, I have never disputed that they are made. What I have said is "what's a large number?" You came into this thread disputing some points in the rape myth article, but I think those points were basically true.[/b]

I cited more than one "rape myth article." Which one are you referring to?

Could you restate it? I don't know what timeline you're proposing.

For the third time:

In the Duke rape case, if it came out that the accuser had called 911 and reported a rape 5 minutes before her encounter with the police, do you think that would help the prosecution's case?

[Marley23]

I cited more than one "rape myth article."
The first article you posted, which was called "The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth." You know, the one that repeatedly used the phrase "rape-myth" about a dozen times, which none of your other cites did. (Why was this confusing at all?) http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html
In the Duke rape case, if it came out that the accuser had called 911 and reported a rape 5 minutes before her encounter with the police, do you think that would help the prosecution's case?
I didn't ask you to write it again. :p I asked you what you were actually saying. Are you proposing an example like the Duke accuser, who was already in the hospital for hours? Are you talking about a woman who never mentioned it to friends and only started talking about it before seeing the police? I don't know where you're going with it.

[psychloan]

The first article you posted, which was called "The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth." You know, the one that repeatedly used the phrase "rape-myth" about a dozen times, which none of your other cites did. [/b]

That's simply false. I quoted more than one article that used the words"myth" and "rape" a lot. Again, why not simply say the "Vachss Article" rather than lazily waive your hands and expect people to understand?

I didn't ask you to write it again. :p I asked you what you were actually saying. Are you proposing an example like the Duke accuser,

Yes. I am asking you the following:

If it turned out that the Duke rape accuser had first reported an alleged rape shortly before her encounter with the police (rather than after), would that fact help the prosecution's case?

I don't see how I can make the question any clearer. If you don't understand it, there's no need to discuss things any further.

[Marley23]

I quoted more than one article that used the words"myth" and "rape" a lot.
You linked to two articles. One used the word "myth" a dozen times, the other didn't. This wasn't lazy; I don't know how it became unclear.
If it turned out that the Duke rape accuser had first reported an alleged rape shortly before her encounter with the police (rather than after), would that fact help the prosecution's case?
It probably would, yes.

[tomndebb]

Y'know, psychloan and Marley23, if either one of you had simply taken a breath and laid out the exact point to which you were referring some time back, you could have resolved your issues, (or, at least, figured out what you were arguing over), some time yesterday.

Stop the one-liners and express your points in complete paragraphs so we can move on.

[psychloan]

You linked to two articles. One used the word "myth" a dozen times, the other didn't. This wasn't lazy; I don't know how it became unclear.

I'm not going to go back an count the number of times the words "myth" and "rape" appeared in each article I quoted. Suffice it to say that the words appear frequently enough that that the phrase "rape myth article" is not sufficiently clear.

It probably would, yes.

Why do you think so?

[Maastricht]

...Someone basically said that if a women accuses a man of rape and it turns out that it was a false accusation, whatever punishment the man would have been dealt, she will receive instead.
In a way, such eye for an eye-justice already exists, and we need not adjust the balance of power in any direction.
Girls can date bad guys and get abused; raped, hurt, killed. Guys can date psycho girls and get abused as well, with the weapon of choice for girls being an accusation of rape.
A girl can use emotional or verbal violence to drive an otherwise decent guy over the edge and into violence, violence against her, or displaced violence onto innocent bystanders. Mutatis mutandis, a guy's behavior can drive an otherwise decent girl into an accusation of rape against him, or against innocent bystanders.

I know it sounds terribly corny, but the best way to prevent both rape and false accusations of rape is for men and women to treat each other, well, just decently.

Secondly, both men and women should avoid psycho's of either sex, no matter how tempting it is to screw/date them. So guys, there's no such thing as a free gangbang; and girls, there is no such thing as an asshole who will stop being an asshole just because he's dealing with you.

[Marley23]

Alright then. To sum this up.
In his first post to this thread, psychloan found the article The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html) by Alice Vachss. He posted the following rebuttals, with which I have continued to disagree.
I would say that this commentator is dead wrong. Not only are there plenty of disturbed/calculating women looking to "cry rape," there are prosecutors who will jump at the chance to prosecute a sketchy allegation for their own selfish purposes.
psychloan said that what the author termed "rape-myths" are actually somewhat accurate, although the quote above doesn't really address any of her points. Everybody knows that some rape accusations
A lot of studies have been done showing that false accusations of rape are very common. And yet, there exist people simply won't accept this.
I said a few times that "very common" is a meaningless term, and posted the Columbia Journalism review article (in which the author of a study that psychloan cited remarked that his own results should not be extrapolated into a general rate). The general point of that article is that "official" rape statistics vary so wildly that at this point, none can be accepted as absolutely true. So I feel that the comments that "rape-myths" are somewhat accurate and that there are "plenty" or "a large number" of false rape accusations are not supported by the facts. False accusations exist, but they aren't necessarily present in alarmingly high numbers and the existence of those false accusations doesn't mean that there aren't myths about rape.

Ta da.

[Der Trihs]

In a way, such eye for an eye-justice already exists, and we need not adjust the balance of power in any direction.
Girls can date bad guys and get abused; raped, hurt, killed. Guys can date psycho girls and get abused as well, with the weapon of choice for girls being an accusation of rape. The problem is, there's not much connection between abuse and retaliation, which is one reason why do-it-yourself justice is frowned upon. If anything ( while I've never heard of a study on the subject ), I'd expect that it's the perfectly innocent, non-abusive types who would get targeted the most. After all, it's much safer to, say, falsely accuse a nice, non-violent guy than Bob the Psycho who might beat you to death in retaliation.

Another flaw in your argument, is that it assumes that nobody is simply nasty for the fun of it, or because of some political/religious conviction. A woman can by perfect honestly and never falsely accuse a man of anything, and it won't save her from the abuse of some guy who thinks the Bible/Allah/Nature demands she be beaten into submission, or who is simply a bully. A man who never abuses a woman can still be falsely accused for fun, or politics.

I know it sounds terribly corny, but the best way to prevent both rape and false accusations of rape is for men and women to treat each other, well, just decently. You have a kinder view of human nature than I do.

[psychloan]

I know it sounds terribly corny, but the best way to prevent both rape and false accusations of rape is for men and women to treat each other, well, just decently.

Secondly, both men and women should avoid psycho's of either sex, no matter how tempting it is to screw/date them. So guys, there's no such thing as a free gangbang; and girls, there is no such thing as an asshole who will stop being an asshole just because he's dealing with you.

It's hard to imagine what Reade Seligmann should have done differently.

[Marley23]

That's true. As I understand it, Seligmann actually left the lacrosse party during the time the rape is supposed to have happened.

[Blalron]

And if the accuser is judgement-proof?

If you have any ideas to make the system more fair, I'd be glad to hear them.

[Bricker]

If you have any ideas to make the system more fair, I'd be glad to hear them.

Voluntary effort by media not to publish the name of the accused until conviction.

[Bam Boo Gut]

Having experienced both rape and early childhood sexual abuse I always feel very sad to read these "cry rape" stories.

Why would she lie?
Did she get involved with something she later regretted?
Was she trying to frame these guys?

Two reasons to lie - but I think it is a confused individual who agrees to have sex with six men on video tape and there is most likely some experiences in her past which caused her to reach the point of both getting gangbanged and then lying. I'd guess she's been abused in the past and is extremely confused.

[Marley23]

Voluntary effort by media not to publish the name of the accused until conviction.
I sure wouldn't go for that. Is there some reason that people accused of rape should be treated differently than everyone else in the justice system?

[Apos]

Yes, there is, apparently. Bitches crazy!

[Paul in Qatar]

Thank goodness I have been video taping all my sexual activities. For legal protection of course.

[Monty]

I sure wouldn't go for that. Is there some reason that people accused of rape should be treated differently than everyone else in the justice system?
This is just a guess on my part but perhaps it's so they're not subject to vigilante "justice" if their name's published.

[Marley23]

This is just a guess on my part but perhaps it's so they're not subject to vigilante "justice" if their name's published.
I can understand why they might need protection, but I don't see why accused rapists need a form of protection that people accused of murder don't need.

[Der Trihs]

I can understand why they might need protection, but I don't see why accused rapists need a form of protection that people accused of murder don't need.Because people found not guilty of murder are less likely to be assumed guilty by society at large, perhaps. With sex crimes, simply being accused can ruin your life. A lot of men won't so much as hug a child or help him/her up after they've fallen, for fear of being accused of being a child molester, because they know it won't do them much good to be found innocent. I suspect if men had a lower sex drive the majority in this country would live celibate and alone out of fear of being called a rapist.

[you with the face]

I suspect if men had a lower sex drive the majority in this country would live celibate and alone out of fear of being called a rapist.

Rather melodramatic, are we?

If you're worried about being accused of rape so much that celibacy looks like a good option, you might want to talk to a psychologist. Because right now you're sounding like someone who refuses to ride in a car at night because they are freakishly afraid of getting hit by drunk driver. It's called paranoia.

[Bam Boo Gut]

Thank goodness I have been video taping all my sexual activities. For legal protection of course.


Cite?

And this prompts me to start another thread - IMHO - Fellas - have you ever feared that a charge of rape could be brought against you?

[Marley23]

Because people found not guilty of murder are less likely to be assumed guilty by society at large, perhaps.
I don't suppose I could get a cite for that.
With sex crimes, simply being accused can ruin your life.
And murder is different how? When someone is charged with murder, it's usually indisputable that someone is dead - whereas there may not be evidence that a rape even happened. It would seem to me that people charged with murder need this protection more than those charged with rape - but I don't think either one should get it.
A lot of men won't so much as hug a child or help him/her up after they've fallen, for fear of being accused of being a child molester, because they know it won't do them much good to be found innocent. I suspect if men had a lower sex drive the majority in this country would live celibate and alone out of fear of being called a rapist.
This is paranoid, impossible to substantiate, and frankly, I think it's goofy.

[Ellis Dee]

Not in so many words. But Diogenes, to take one example, certainly argued as though the possibility were tremendously unlikely and not worthy of serious consideration as a possibility.The only post in the thread from him was this one:The victim has injuries to the genital area consistent with forcible rape which still need to be explained. I know there is video showing bruises and scratches on her arms and legs when she entered the building. Those are not the injuries I'm talking about. I think a lot of people have decided this girl is a liar based on a couple of red herrings like the meaningless photos of pre-existing scratches on her arms and the meaningless lack of DNA. Neither one of those things remotely proves innocence and the pertinent injuries still require an explanation.

I also think that (even though they probably won't admit it) that the fact that she's a stripper makes people assume that she must be a lying slut.I don't think his post qualifies as the weaponized rhetorical you argue against in the OP. Evil One came closer, but still not quite there, with this:If the accusation is false, attempted extortion would be the only reason I can think of as to why she would do this.The only really on-point (for this thread) argument from that thread was from hawksgirl, who provided a cite with which to present the idea, and then expressed satisfaction with its credibility here:First off, an estimated 58% of rapes go unreported (http://www.rainn.org/statistics/) .
Myth: Women often lie about being raped to get revenge, for their own benefit or because they changed their minds afterwards.
Reality: Only 2% of reported rapes are false accusations. Most women will not lie about being raped for any reason.
Cite (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/myths.php) I would bet that their cites are good.

I found more of the same, but from Canada, so I'm sure you would say how our women are more spiteful, etc.

And for the record, my earlier statements assumed that there was evidence of rape to start with. I didn't see the police collecting DNA for a clean rape kit and lack of trauma.

And if you insist on assuming that half of rapes are false, then you must concede that half (or more) are real. Of course, no one would believe them with all those lying whores crying rape all the time.But even still, it was not presented as a rhetorical. It was a definitive assertion, and it wasn't even hers; it was a quote from her cite: "Most women will not lie about being raped for any reason."

I agree with the idea of your OP, but I haven't seen it used much in practice on the boards. Anytime someone tries, it seems a blizzard of counter-cites are provided showing that rape has the highest incidence of false reporting of all tracked crimes.

[psychloan]

Because people found not guilty of murder are less likely to be assumed guilty by society at large, perhaps. With sex crimes, simply being accused can ruin your life. A lot of men won't so much as hug a child or help him/her up after they've fallen, for fear of being accused of being a child molester, because they know it won't do them much good to be found innocent. I suspect if men had a lower sex drive the majority in this country would live celibate and alone out of fear of being called a rapist.

People get wound up over sex crimes in a way that just doesn't happen for other crimes. For example, some states require that sex offenders be "registered" Not so for burglars, arsonists, and murderers.

Accusations of sexual misconduct are uniquely damaging and uniquely difficult to disprove. Many male doctors and dentists take steps to make sure they are never alone with a female patient for this reason.

[Ellis Dee]

People get wound up over sex crimes in a way that just doesn't happen for other crimes. For example, some states require that sex offenders be "registered" Not so for burglars, arsonists, and murderers.

Accusations of sexual misconduct are uniquely damaging and uniquely difficult to disprove. Many male doctors and dentists take steps to make sure they are never alone with a female patient for this reason.I think instead of visiting the potential sentence upon a false accuser, a false accusation of a sex crime should be considered a sex crime in and of itself. Let the false accuser have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life, informing neighbors upon moving in, the whole deal.

[psychloan]

I think instead of visiting the potential sentence upon a false accuser, a false accusation of a sex crime should be considered a sex crime in and of itself. Let the false accuser have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life, informing neighbors upon moving in, the whole deal.

While that would certainly be emotionally satisfying, I'm not sure it's the best policy. Because it would ensure that very few people would ever recant a false charge.

[Marley23]

While that would certainly be emotionally satisfying, I'm not sure it's the best policy. Because it would ensure that very few people would ever recant a false charge.
There's also the fact that it's really warped, and definitely not justice.