The more philanthropic a person is, the more likely it is that they gave away money to a some other tenously-connected person, but I don’t think that’s terribly relevant if the philanthropist claims to be the victim of a mugging.
Then make your case without asking about whether things are mathematically possible, and without hypothetical studies. If you ask me a question about whether something is mathematically possible in a hypothetical situation, my response will be about whether that thing is mathematically possible in that hypothetical situation.
I don’t think anything I wrote prior to that post implies anything about the characters of either group.
By starting with your 1% assumption, you’re assuming your conclusion.
You can’t falsely report a consensual sexual encounter as rape if you haven’t had a consensual sexual encounter to begin with.
If you assume that CSFs and RV have the exact same veracity, there will be far more instances of CSFs falsely reporting consensual encounters as rapes, by mere virtue of the fact that they have far more opportunities.
This is besides for motive, i.e. the fact that many false reports arise out of regrets over consensual encounters.
But even if - in theory - you insisted that false rape reports are solely about character and nothing else - that a fixed percentage of women of all types just wake up one day and decide to accuse some random guy of rape, what I’ve said would still hold true. Because there would still be more situations where the sex itself was admitted and/or proved and the only question was whether it was consensual in the case of the CSFs. The false-rape-accusing RVs would have to rely on accusing guys who have not had consensual encounters with them and would have a higher percentage of that type of accusation. So if you narrowed it down to situations where the sex was not in question and the sole issue was consent, you would still have a higher percentage of false claims in the case of CSFs.
Depends on the case.
If the philanthropist is claiming he was mugged and the accused says he gave it to him as he passed by in the street, then proving that the philanthropist has a habit of doing just that is absolutely relevant.
“He wasn’t mugged, he gave me his money out of the kindness of his heart; he has a long-standing history of giving away his money.”
Sure, ok.
Except that his long-standing history is of giving away sums in the millions to organized charities. No longer particularly relevant to the argument, right?
Or his history is of giving money only to members of his own race. Or only on Thursdays. Or only to people he feels really need it. Also no longer supportive of the argument, yes?
Or only when he chooses to.
Since he argues he *did not *choose to in this case, his history of giving away money when he chooses to do so seems–logically–irrelevant.
You are looking at the wrong question and then calculating the wrong probability. Yes, if all we know is that the money from the philanthropist went to another person, it is more likely that the philanthropist gave the money away rather than being mugged. It’s even more likely that that he philanthropist gave the money away than a non philanthropist. But that’s not the right question, because that’s not all we know. We know that the philanthropist claims he was mugged (other wise there would be no defendant or accuser) , so the proper question is given that claim, how likely is it that the philanthropist is lying when he claims he was mugged.His history of giving away money wouldn’t be relevant, but a history of *lying *would be.
It’s like tossing a coin twice. If you calculate the probability before the first toss, what are the chances of getting two heads? 25% , right? What are the chances of getting two heads given that the first toss came up heads? It’s not 25%, is it?
It absolutely does. To achieve your numbers, far more CSFs have to be dishonest.
Well, yes. The null hypothesis is that there’s no difference in character between the two groups. Prove that difference exists, and we’ll have something to talk about. Your numbers assumed the difference existed.
Sure–but the two aren’t independent. It’s reasonable to assume that false reporters are people who have a sexual encounter. Those who don’t have a sexual encounter don’t figure in the stats anyway. Throwing them in doesn’t help.
And again, there’s no indication that there’s a quantity of sexual encounters that makes a woman willing to lie. Why do you think that a potential liar is likelier to lie if she has 100 sexual encounters than if she has 1?
There’s a reasonable theory that the opposite is true: the CSF might put less stake in each encounter and therefore care less about it than the RV who has sex and regrets it for whatever reason. I have no evidence to back this up, but in theory it makes every bit as much sense.
And this is a key point: if we focus on character, not on incident, there’s no data whatever, in the real world, to support your deviation from the null hypothesis. Surely if you were right there would be.
Would you be kind enough to point to the post where you have already answered my question? … thx.
If I’ve understood you correctly, this is beyond ridiculous.
By this “logic”, almost no history would ever be a predictor of anything.
“*True, the guy has a history of being a serial killer, and left a trail of bodies across 27 states. But he only kills when he chooses to. And since he argues he *did not choose to in this case, his history of killing people when he chooses to do so seems–logically–irrelevant.”
History of lying is relevant but history of giving things away is also relevant. You can’t just ignore the underlying likelihood of something happening in assessing whether it actually happened.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove from this. But now that you bring it up, it’s a good illustration of why you’re wrong.
In your case, you’re hypothesizing that we already know that the first spin came up heads. That would be analogous to a case where we already know that the rape happened or didn’t happen, and are only considering the likelihood that someone will subsequently lie about it. But in the actual case at hand, whether the rape happened or didn’t happen is the big unknown. What you’re saying amounts to “if there are two events that may have both happened, we can ignore the likelihood of the first happening and focus only on the likelihood of the second”. (The two events in this case being “consensual sex” and “falsely claiming it was rape”.)
I’ve already explained why this is not so.
What you’re assuming is that the absolute number of false rape reports (per capita) will not differ between the two groups. This has no basis, unless you assume that the only relevant factor in the absolute number per capita is character. I’ve already explained why this is not so, and at any rate it’s not anything more than your assumption which has no basis.
Of course they figure in the stats. Because they have the same number of true reports. So if you’re looking at false reports as a percentage of total reports, the group with fewer encounters will have a lower percentage.
I’ve explained this. You’ve ignored it. No purpose in repeating.
I’m not sure what you’re calling the “null hypothesis” here, but as I’ve said the whole notion of “focus[ing] on character” is logically flawed.
That said, it would be interesting to see you try to come up with something to back up your claim that “there’s no data”. Do you know this for a fact, or did you just make it up? (If you do, how?)
The main point of my many posts in this thread has been that past practice has predictive value for the future. Pick one at random.
IANAL.
I think things that fall into a category of reasonable and ‘normal’ human behavior shouldn’t be used in court for things like rape.
For example, let’s say that there’s a trial for theft of food from a grocery store – I don’t think it’s reasonable for the prosecution to use as evidence the fact that the defendant is overweight and enjoys eating. Everyone likes to eat, and people have varying habits for eating. A history of past food thefts might be relevant.
Or let’s say that there’s a pickpocketing trial. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the defense to use as evidence the fact that the accuser is charitable and sometimes gives away money on the street to homeless people. A history of false theft accusations might be relevant.
Similarly, consensual sexual behavior for adults is entirely reasonable and normal. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the defense in a rape case to use as evidence any history of consensual sexual behavior by the accuser. A history of false rape accusations might be relevant.
Your suggestion that opportunities lead to more reports fundamentally misunderstands how false rape reports occur. They’re not random risks; it’s not like the risk of pregnancy, which rises with incidents of unprotected sex. They’re calculated, deliberate acts. What, besides character, can explain them? Opportunities don’t.
Admittedly my claim here is weak, but I assume that if there were evidence to support your position, you would have offered it.
Not exactly. What we know are that two events have occurred:
- An act of sex
- An accusation of rape.
If you’re trying to calculate odds of a third event:
3) That accusation is false
You should exclude all cases in which one of the first two events has not happened. Thus, you shouldn’t be including people who haven’t had sex; you shouldn’t be including people who haven’t made an accusation of rape. Incidents in which these two things haven’t happened should not be part of a calculation of odds.
From this sentence it sounds like you do think it should be used for things that are not rape, but you then go on to give some non-rape examples that you apply the same standard to. Perhaps those things are somehow “like rape” but it’s not clear why.
That minor issue aside, my inclination is to agree with you as to the general principle (though probably not its application) for reasons outlined in post #96 (first response).
It the defendant is truly alleging normal behavior then he’s alleging something that the jury would probably assume about the accuser anyway, so there’s no need to bring it in. The situations where this is an issue is where the defendant’s version of events is a story that the jury will be skeptical of, since it contradicts their notions of how people behave. In this situation it’s relevant for the defense to be able to show that at least in this case, their story is consistent with how this accuser behaves.
Of course, under that principle, the guiding rule for what’s “normal” wouldn’t be “what iiandyiiii thinks is perfectly fine and acceptable behavior” but “what the jury would likely accept as plausible without further evidence”.
I’ve already explained why both opportunities and motive do, in post #102. (The reason there’s more opportunity is because it’s easier to report a rape if there’s some evidence that you’ve had sex.)
This is in addition to my other point in that same post about the different types of rape reports.
I suppose if I believed that I should be flattered. 
Does that apply to you? Any time you’re in a debate and have not offered up certain evidence for your position that amounts to a declaration that no such evidence exists?
This is just not so. The separate likelihood of each event happening has a bearing on the likelihood of both events happening.
This is very basic, and I’m not inclined to keep arguing it.
I agree.
But the relevance of admitting promiscuity as evidence seems to be largely of benefit if you want to say, “I told you so!”, and thus shift blame on the victim. Else, why bring it up?
Weakly :).
But in the cases we’re looking at, the probability of one event–the sex act–is 100%. If there’s not a sex act, there’s not an accusation of rape, whether the person has a lot of sex acts or just the one. You shouldn’t be treating events whose probability we already know as having variable probability.
Yeah, why?
The one event is not “the sex act”. The one event is “a consensual sex act”. We’re trying to determine the likelihood that there was a consensual sex act, which is what the defendant is alleging, versus a non-consensual sex act, which is what the accuser is alleging. Again: the more plausible the first possibility is, the less reason there is to assume the second (& convict the defendant).
You’re confusing the issue by bringing up the issue of “then lying about it” as a second event, but it doesn’t get you there. The likelihood of the two events - 1) having a consensual sex act and 2) then lying about it - is not independent of the likelihood of the consensual sex act itself having taken place.
Because you said it’s “not irrelevant”, then refuse to illustrate relevance. Unless you mean to say, “Well, she’s a slut - draw your own conclusions!”, then I suppose that’ll have to do.
It was a brain fart – I meant things like sex, by which I’d include behaviors like eating (and all the variety of human eating behaviors) and socializing and similar things that (almost) everyone does to some varying degree.
No, it means that I’ve described the relevance dozens of times here, agree or disagree. If all that went over your head, then there’s no hope and we’re done.
At common law, the accused’s character was not relevant except when the Accused claimed good character or made a misleading impression. The witnesses bad character was admissible, although it was limited to attacks on credibility and truthfulness, it could not be
The above two generally underpin the law in most common law jurisdictions, with statutorily enacted changes. Rape shield laws are the most obvious exception.
As for the (very) lengthy discussion on the wisdom of permitting promiscuity into evidence; I don’t think you can make a hard and fast rule. Courts should be generally wary of permitting such evidence as its direct relevance is limited and will ultimately be a waste of time.
However, in proper circumstances, it can be relevant. If a complainant has asserted that she is a chaste near nun, then evidence of promiscuity will be relevant to rebut that and to show a propensity to lie. It would very properly be adduced to further call into qiestion credibility.
This.
It doesn’t matter how much of a “slut” a woman is. If she has consensual sex with 999 partners, but the 1,000th instance of sex is non-consensual, that’s rape.