Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Epidemic" is a big fancy word and whether something is an epidemic almost entirely comes down to personal opinion.
Here's the actual facts:
Rape is a no good, very bad, dark and evil thing. Everyone does actually agree on this fact, though many insist that the "other team" doesn't really believe it.
About 10-15% of rape cases lead to convictions.
Between 5-10% of rape cases are eventually proven to be false accusations and things like the Innocent Project is proving men falsely imprisoned for rape to be innocent all the time. This means that a sizable chunk of the 10-15% that are convicted were innocent.
That leaves at least 70-80% of all alleged rapes that we really have no idea on. We have absolutely no idea how much of that is real and how much is fake.
Undoubtedly much of that 70-80% is actual rape with insufficient evidence to prove in court and another big chunk is false accusation with insufficient evidence to prove in court.
We simply do not know what the breakdown of that 70-80% looks like, but a whole lot of people like to pretend they know.
Both sides grab the percentage from just one side while ignoring the opposite end to make a lot of partisan propaganda. "Only a tiny percentage of rape accusations are false accusations" or "Only a tiny percentage of rape accusations are real" and both statements are probably completely false. Both statements are claiming the unknowable 70-80% and pretending it fits their agenda/opinion. It's unknown and unknowable and neither side has any business claiming it.
Based on the numbers, if you're willing to call rape and epidemic, then you have to also call out false accusations of rape as a epidemic. If either one is not an epidemic than neither one is.
The results of analysis of ten years of false accusation in the US, UK and New Zealand in The Cambridge Law Journal found that many studies of false allegations have inflated the numbers by declaring accusations false if there was simply not enough evidence, a single biased cop made the decision, and even 3rd party allegations where friends or family made a report about someone they were worried about.
Most rapes are never reported, it defies logic and reasoning to conclude that huge numbers of reports are false. Most allegations tha are found to be false are discovered quickly with no charges ever being filed. Most of those who make false allegations have a history of mental issues, and other false allegations. This includes the Duke lacrosse care.
Sandra Newman, a professor at Colorado State University who has extensively researched false accusations studied false convicitions going back 25 years and discovered that a person was 15 times likelier to be wrongfully accused and convicted of murder than of rape.
Newman calls statements about the supposed prevelence of false accusations and worry for sons everywhere, the “typical histrionic statement that we get about false accusations of rape, which is surprisingly absent from discussions of false accusations of other crimes.” There is, she says, simply no evidence to support the idea that false rape accusation are common or routinely result in serious consequences.
Excerpts from the Cambridge Law study:
1. deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will"
2. officers seem to "have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimization". He adds that "qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as 'proof' of a false allegation"
Here is the actual conclusions of Philip N.S. Rumney in the Cambridge Law Journal:
[b]Review of studies of false reporting in the US, New Zealand and the UK.[5] Rumney draws two conclusions from his review of literature. First, the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies by Kelly et al. (2005), Lea et al. (2003), HMCPSI/HMIC (2002), Harris and Grace (1999), Smith (1989), and others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgment. Rumney notes that some officers seem to "have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimization". He adds that "qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as 'proof' of a false allegation".
Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" because many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies. He argues, for instance, that in addition to their small sample size, the studies by Maclean (1979) and Stewart (1981) used questionable criteria to judge an allegation to be false. MacLean deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will"
All those words and paragraphs, and yet you're still wrong. The 2% is a big, fat lie.
A disproportionate number of people convicted of rape are black men.
This is where liberals have to tread a fine line and hope that there politics don’t backfire on them.
The Dems have stepped in --it, again. Anyone surprised? An extremely highly disproportionate percentage of those falsely accused and convicted of rape are Black.
13% of the population, but 59% of the innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of rape and later exonerated since 1989.
Epidemic or not is irrelevant. Accusing someone of a crime if you know they didn't do it should be punished at the same same intensity as the accused would have gotten.
There are some on here who feel that it is acceptable to punish the innocent even if the crime can't be proven.
There are stages here. First, the decision made by a "victim" to remain silent, report the crime, or come forward in some fashion later on. That many remain silent in sexual crimes is undeniable.
I rather agree with this approach, which focuses on the moral aspects:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
No.
I'm quite clear on this:
If you are the victim of someone who has broken the non-aggression principle (redundant because that is the only way to be a victim) you have three options:
1. Remain silent for whatever your reason might be. You aren't morally required to report your own victimization.
2. Tell the full story to clearly define who you believe broke the NAP while at the same time explicitly ruling out innocent people who may be associated with the circumstances of the case.
3. Say #metoo and just leave it at that. No half stories. No hints. No loose ends.
I prefer number 2 as it does the most to prevent future victimization but I fully respect 1 & 3.
I don't want a woman to publically announce she was raped by a man in 1999 while working at company Z and just stop there. What if I was working at company Z in 1999? What if it was a small company of only 8 male employees?
1. I gotta go thru life (professional and personal) worried about someone making that connection and possibly thinking I'm the rapist?
2. Since I know I'm not the rapist what if I still know the other 7 male employees and actually socialize with them? I'm going to ball games with potential rapists??? What if one of the employees married my own sister in like 2005? Jesus Christ, that's upsetting as hell to think about. I don't need that in my life.
And most importantly for me we have number #3...
3. Did I miss something in 1999 that could have prevented this victimization? Did she say or do anything as time went on that could be construed as reaching out post-incident and I missed the clues? The thought of possibly being able to prevent it or not helping in the case of a legit crime is also very upsetting.
Epidemic or not is irrelevant. Accusing someone of a crime if you know they didn't do it should be punished at the same same intensity as the accused would have gotten.
There are some on here who feel that it is acceptable to punish the innocent even if the crime can't be proven.
The difficult part of this is proving intent.
Rape victims should come forward and report the crimes. The crimes need to be investigated. Not all investigations result in enough evidence to prosecute. Those failures should not result in charges against the victim nor should there be the threat of prosecution for reporting the crime.
The establishment of intent and determination of damages should be handled by the civil courts. To minimize the damage, rape investigations should not be publicized until proven. The problem of false allegations lies in it's effect on the public character of the accused. If we cease publicizing accusations until proven, then we remove the impetus for filing falsely.
The second stage focuses on the formal accusation process (at the state level) with a final weighing of the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
Epidemic or not is irrelevant. Accusing someone of a crime if you know they didn't do it should be punished at the same same intensity as the accused would have gotten. There are some on here who feel that it is acceptable to punish the innocent even if the crime can't be proven.
Actually, I believe the legal standard is sort of the other way around. The tenet (for a trial) is: better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be punished.
In a trial, a defendant is not found "innocent" but is determined to be "not guilty." Subtle distinction but an important one.
Quote:
The presumption of innocence is not articulated in the Constitution of the United States. However, it is a basic component of a fair trial, and the right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. ... In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
It is potentially difficult to prove a negative (that an event did not happen or that it was not committed by the defendant). The burden the government assumes is to prove the charges to some legal standard. Even if a juror might "believe" the accused to be guilty, judicial instructions will include the standard that must be met to prove the charges. The juror's task is then to weigh the evidence against those standards.
This is somewhat separate from the second stage of arrests (police-determined) followed by prosecutorial decisions or, in some cases, judicial to either charge, send the case to a grand jury, or decide not to pursue the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An extremely highly disproportionate percentage of those falsely accused and convicted of rape are Black. 
