I don’t think the dice were loaded against me. They certainly weren’t in that situation: the guy did the same thing there every night, it was pretty easy to prove. I’m just saying: reporting rape sucks. It sucks more than reporting other things, for various reasons. Making it a little easier on women who are reporting rape doesn’t mean that you are supporting false accusations.
You misunderstand what I’m saying: not that police departments the world over are blue meanies to women reporting rape (though sometimes they are). It just sucks to report it. Even if they’re nice, it still sucks. More than reporting theft or something, which I’ve also done.
Anyway, considering that 95% of rape goes unreported, even if 65% of convicted rapists were falsely accused it would still be low. It just means that the problem lies with how horrible it is to have to report being raped, knowing that the chances of conviction are low.
I understand your problem with the statistics. But it’s really all we have. All statistics on the subject are problematic, simply because different things are counted differently in different places. I already mentioned that in some places they count the victim dropping the case as a “false accusation”. So yes, statistics are problematic either way. That’s no reason to see a huge problem in false rape accusations when the real problem we are facing is that rape remains underreported.
But the analogy isn’t all sex to taking without consent, it’s all sex to all taking. If I give you a present in an isolated location, and then claim you stole it, that’s a false accusation and it turns on the mental element.
Lots of crimes are underreported. It’s not just rape. If anything, rape has a better chance of resulting in a conviction than almost every crime except murder or other homicide for the simple reason that more resources are allocated to it.
No it does not. You are mixing up the legal aspect with a factual aspect, which is what it turns on. You give me a present in an isolated circumstance, it would not be theft. It would be difficult to prove, but lots of crimes are thus so difficult in appropriate circumstances. Most people do not take property of others. Plus it’s perfectly possible to take property with consent and for it to be theft, it’s also possible to be convicted of stealing your own property. It will be rape if and only if (0presuming that all the other elements are there) the accused knew or had reason to believe that consent was absent.
Lots of crimes are underreported, but probably not to the same extent. 95% of rapes not being reported is a huge amount. Quick googling says it’s about 50% for burglary.
The point is, it’s entirely understandable. I always report my bike stolen, every bloody time it happens. It’s annoying and you never get your bike back anyway. But I dutifully do it. I’m not sure I’d report assault again. I’d only do it if I was very sure it would lead to something, as I was that time.
When we were 16 a good friend told me she had been raped by her boyfriend, also 16. I offered to go the police with her. She said no, because what would be the point? They were alone at his house. She couldn’t even prove they had sex, let alone that she didn’t consent. She was right, of course. It would only have been a horrendous ordeal for her, with very little chance of him being convicted.
I didn’t report my rape for similar reasons: there was no point trying.
As I already said: I know many women who have been raped, and most don’t report it. For very good reasons. Not reporting rape sadly makes a whole lot of sense.
It’s a ridiculously high amount, it looks like something that someone came up with the goal of “what’s the highest percentage we can claim short of 100% without people laughing at us”.
It also doesn’t fit very well with the claim that false accusations are rare; if the number of reported rapes is so tiny then I’d expect the false accusations to outnumber the true ones heavily.
You read the figure in several sources and estimates, but I can’t really claim it as truth one way or the other. It fits exactly with my own experience though, I’m trying to think if I know anyone who actually has reported being raped. I’m not sure I do, but I’m still thinking. It’s also why I explained above that not reporting makes a lot of sense in the case of rape.
“That can’t be right!” is not a convincing rebuttal. Have you issues with the methodology used? Do you perhaps know of some better data that you’d like to share with us? I do so enjoy new data.
I am not at all certain I understand your reasoning here.
I do not know about Der Trihs but I do have an issue with the methodology. It is non existent. They pulled a number out of their ass. Its a bare assertion backed up precisely nothing. The UK Governments own commission called it bollocks. (PDF)
As Lady Stern says at page 43 of the above report
[QUOTE=Stern Review]
The way the conviction rate figure for rape is calculated is unusual.
Conviction rates are not published or even measured in this way for
any other crime so it is very difficult to make a comparison. The use of
the term ‘conviction rate’ is in itself unusual.** ‘Conviction rate’ usually
describes the percentage of all the cases brought to court that end with
the defendant being convicted. When dealing with rape the term has
come to be used in a different way and describes the percentage of all
the cases recorded by the police as a rape that end up with someone
being convicted of rape. The figure arrived at is usually around six per
cent. Some studies show that a further six per cent are convicted of
another offence, usually a less serious sexual offence, but still convicted,
so the conviction rate by this method of analysis is 12 per cent.
37
… It is clear to us that the figure of convictions for
people of all ages charged with* rape is 58 per cent, as the term is
normally used in relation to crime**.
38
That figure, which covers all rape
cases and includes those whose cases come before a jury and those
who plead guilty, is properly arrived at. It is also clear that in jury trials
when juries deliberate and reach a verdict the conviction rate for rape
of a female 16 or older is 47 per cent (that is excluding all those who
plead guilty),[I] a higher percentage than for some other serious and
violent crimes
The Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics collects data on reported and unreported crime by use of the National Crime Victimization Survey. I’ve heard past figures as high as 90%, but the most recent figures on unreported rapes is around 65%, which makes it second only to household theft in being the crime least often reported to the police. The most often reported crime is motor vehicle theft, only 17% going unreported.
But that lowest figure there excludes people who plead guilty in jury trials, which surely changes the number significantly.
95% of rapes may well be unreported if it includes multiple acts of rape against one individual by another individual. That would change the results significantly too. I’m on my phone, so thread searching is hard - where’s the link to the 95% statistic?
^
The point is that i) the statistics used to put forward the 95% figure are based upon a technique not used for other crimes and ii) and more importantky statistics are meaningless in something like the Criminal Justice System.
Wait, aren’t we confusing the conviction rate with the underreporting of rape now?
I get that the conviction rate quoted isn’t calculated in the same way as conviction rates for other crimes. We can still discuss what it means that only 6% of reported rapes end in conviction (note that is always the way it is mentioned, it is also the way I described it). That is the important consideration when you are considering reporting rape. Not the conviction rate as it should be calculated in order to compare it to other crimes.
The 95% figure is related to the underreporting of rape. I alway assume that figure is derived through surveys.
But the technique pravnik linked to is the same. And looking at that 65% of crimes committed against you by someone you know we’ll go unreported. It isn’t at all surprising then that a high number of rapes, which are far more likely to be acquaintance rapes than a stranger rape, are under reported.
Few women accuse their abusive husbands of rape, for instance.
I can’t find any original sources for a 95% figure, although it keeps popping up uncited in UK government reports. I did find a 2007 CDC survey that got 1.3 million reports of rape incidents in a year where only 83,000 rapes were reported to police. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_FactSheet-a.pdf
There was a joint study by the Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice in 2000 that showed that around 95% of those responding that they were victims of completed or attempted rape did not report it to the police, but that study dealt specifically with college women.
They’re not hypothetical. A lot of men have been wrongly convicted of rape. Frequently it’s because of sincere but mistaken eyewitness identification by the victim.
The book False Justice covers it well, and goes deep into a few cases where men were picked out of a lineup, and as more time went on, the more certain the rape victim became that the man she picked out was the perpetrator, because of how human memory works.
So, to address the OP, when we’re already making mistakes and convicting innocent people, changing laws to make it easier to convict is a bad idea. Rather, raising the level of evidence, and training police better, is the way to get more (and accurate) convictions.
