Well for one, i believe that african-americans are about 11-12% US population and I believe that whites commit rapes in about the same breakdown. But yes it’s not a great link, but all I could find that relates in anyway to education and sex offense.
I love you guys. I don’t have access to the FBI’s breakdown on the educational level of the majority of rapists. You demand cites and I provide the best i can…sometimes they’re right on and sometimes they’re not, but I try.
Where’s yours? Oh I know, the burden of proof is on me. Very convenient.
Why don’t you try to keep this is context? The context being and I’ve said this several times: It has been said in this thread that because the number of women who report false accusations of rape is about 2%, that it is unlikely that most women will lie about being raped. Since 98% are being truthful.
Now while my ignorance of statisical methods may be apparent, and your re-interpetation of my inquiry not-withstanding… I don’t see the difference in number of the accused, if of all rapists only 2% are black honour students. Therefor 98% of black honour students are being truthful.
Why is this different?
No but the** majority of men are rapists**. Using my faulty knowledge of statistical methods, one could reasonable say since the majority of men are rapists, its likely that most rapes are committed by men.
no?
And when did I say that all allegations of rape are to be dismissed? Oh, must not quite get it.
I’d like to note something about my own previous statistic cite regarding false rape charges. That statistic varies wildly, depending on the source. Most victim advocacy groups use the 2.5% figure I cited. The FBI quotes 8%. After that it skews upwards, with some university studies quoting rates that approach 50%. I have no idea what the actual figures are, but I suggest again that none of these studies can be used as a determinant to a specific charges’s likelihood of being either true or false. Be Careful with Numbers
First you give a hypothetical figure saying that 2% of rapists are “black honour students.” Then you say that this means that “98% of black honour students are being truthful.”
No, i doesn’t. Your first figure gave the 2% as a percentage of all rapists, and your second figure gave the 98% as a percentage of all black honour students. These are not congruent groups. If 2% of rapists are black honour students, this does not mean that 2% of black honour students are rapists. Are you getting it yet?
Jeeeeeeeeeeeesus. Will you look at what you’re writing?
The “majority of men are rapists.” Really? More than 50% of all men have committed rape? You are making exactly the same mistake as you did above, confusing groups and subsets with one another. While the majority of rapists might be men, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of men are rapists.
Let’s take a wholly unrelated example, just to make it easier.
All Sioux are Native Americans. Yes?
All Native Americans are Sioux? No!
All four-door sedans are cars. Yes?
All cars are four-door sedans? No!
You got me. I need to proof better…but of course you knew that…unfortunately there’s no edit on this board…I must learn patience.
Apologies and allow me to clarify, this way there’s no misunderstanding.
What I meant to say of course was they were being truthful about not being rapists. And I explained where the hypothetical is based upon.
Once again, a mistake on my part. What I should have said is “majority of rapists are men”. You got me again… I wrote lousy sentences, that confused my point.
I’ll shall endeavor to be more accurate in my meanings. Of course there are some who might say you knew what i meant. But they were poorly written sentences, who can blame you from misunderstanding me.
Hey, we all sometimes make mistakes in our sentence structure and usage. It’s no big deal, and i’m not out to hang anyone. But…
Well, the fact that 2% of any given group are rapists says nothing more than exactly that. It does not say that the rest are “truthful,” because that has no meaning in this context. If you’ve never even been accused of being a rapist, it’s a bit silly to say that you’re “truthful” about the issue.
And anyway, your comparison with the issue of women making rape accusations is, in my opinion, inappropriate. After all, the 2% figure given for that group was that only 2-2.5% of women who made rape allegations were lying. This says nothing about the larger group–women in general. If only 2-2.5% of women making rape allegation are lying, then that figure becomes even smaller when taken as a percentage of the women’s population as a whole. Yet you extrapolate your figures to include all black honour students, rather than just the ones accused of rape. It’s not a reasonable comparison to make.
If you restricted your hypothetical to black honour students accused of rape, rather than to the group as a whole, you might be able to make a better case.
And they would be correct but, as you realise, it’s not my responsibility to make your argument for you.
mhendo and holmes: sorry to interrupt your personal discussion -
Loyola Law School - a fairly objective paper on why the “2% false” figure is wrong - and the implications on strict liability and racial discrimination. If we’re fighting ignorance, we probably shouldn’t use the lowest figure that is widely used by those with a political agenda for these debates.
What if the number is 8% or higher? Would the defense use these types of statistics to get a jury member (just one, really) to think the woman is making all of this up?
It has nothing to do with being a man, but no, you’re wrong about this. Things are not always so uncomplicated (remember that most rapes are of the acquaintance variety, which muddies things) and there seems to be a tendency for the victim to blame herself at least in part. Among other factors.
Firstly, i never accepted or rejected the 2% figure as true or false. I only picked it up because others were using it. And i only used it for illustrative purposes, not to make any outright claims about women’s honesty. I certainly agree that it is desirable to use the best figures available.
However, while Greer’s paper certainly casts some doubt on the methodology and the legal/political motives behind the 2% figure, he really provides little evidence of his own to show that the real figure is higher. Sure, he gives a lot of “it’s reasonable to assume” type arguments, but these do not constitute empirical proof any more than the feminist legal scholars’ “evidence pyramid” does.
And even if we accept Greer’s thesis completely, and assign a higher percentage figure to false rape allegations, i don’t believe that this figure should be relevant to any particular trial. Each trial should be judged on the preponderance of the evidence at hand, not based on what may have happened in other trials.
And this works both ways. If only 2% of woman lie about rape, that does not mean that this woman is telling the truth. Conversely, if only 2% of women tell the truth about rape, that does not mean this woman is lying.
As to your final question, i’m sure that if the defense thought that statistics llike this could help sway the jury, they would use them if at all possible. The fact that it happens doesn’t make it good, in my opinion.
I don’t know and this may be my ignorance as a man, but wouldn’t a person know that they were Raped? If she said, “no” and he forced her, wouldn’t that mean rape? Would they need to be told that they were raped?
This might actually be irrelevant to the case.
From Colorado Statute:
Proof of defendant’s awareness of nonconsent is not necessary under this section, except under the circumstances described in subsection (1)(e). In all other circumstances, the prohibited conduct by its very nature negates the existence of the victim’s consent. Dunton v. People, 898 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1995).
In this case, prohibited conduct refers to:
Where the jury is properly instructed as to the elements of the offense and the term “knowingly,” the jury should properly focus on whether the defendant knowingly caused submission of the victim through the application of physical force or violence. The defendant’s awareness of the victim’s non-consent is neither an element of the offense nor a topic for argument to the jury. People v. Dunton, 881 P.2d 390 (Colo. App. 1994).
holmes, at this point you are just making me laugh. (Yes, I know you corrected your typo, but the “majority” of your argument is still whacked.) You are also making me recall this exchange from the movie Life is Sweet:
Natalie (Claire Skinner): I don’t fancy bringing a kid up on me own.
Nicola (Jane Horrocks): It’s better to be on your own than to be with a bastard.
Na: Well, presumably, you wouldn’t choose a bastard in the first place if you had any sense!
Ni: All men are bastards!
Na: What?!
Ni: They’re all potential rapists!
Na: That’s a bit sweeping!
Ni: All men have got the ability to rape!
Na: Well they don’t all do it, do they?!
Ni: Well, they’ve got the ability; they’ve got the desire.
Na: That’s paranoid rubbish!
Ni: What d’you know about paranoia?
Na: Well, not as much as you do; I’ll give you that.
This humourous interlude brought to you by Rilchiam. Now, back to your normally scheduled thread.
