False Rape Accusations Revisited

[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]

@Maastricht

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]

@Pazu

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]

@you with the face

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]

@Bricker

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]

@psychloan

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]

@psychloan

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]

@Hamlet

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]

@John Mace

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]

@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.

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]

@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?

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]

@Marley23

Your own cites (the 2% figure) flatly contradict you. **

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]

@Hamlet

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]

@psychloan

Some references regarding false rape accusations:

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

[psychloan]

@Marley23

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.