@: "Of course, she says, if he is found guilty, his name would be made public, just as the woman's would be if he is found not guilty."
________

They may want to think twice about the last part. Of course, when convicted his name should be made public. I would hesitate to make her name public in the case of "not guilty" because "not guilty" does not mean the same as innocent. It basically means "not proven."

Now, if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied, she should be prosecuted and her name should be made public.

I am forced to be consistent here. As in any country that values liberty, some guilty people will be found not guilty due to the burden of proof not being met. I would really hate to see a woman endure the horrors of rape, only to be publicly ruined as a false accuser when she truly was a victim.

There is a gulf of difference between someone who makes a false accusation and someone who fails to sufficiently prove a true one.

"After all, equality is what the feminist movement has fought so hard for, and the rape lobby is one of the daughters of feminism. And surely they would agree that the presumption of innocence until proved guilty is a central principle of English law."

Feminists, by and large, don't give a damn about the rights of falsely accused men because in their view, men are not fully human and thus not deserving of human rights. Only women are really fully human, and thus deserving of human rights and sympathy for their suffering.

Feminism is also essentially a collectivist, totalitarian ideology that sees men as being collectively guilty and complicit in women's suffering. So even if an individual man was not guilty of the specific allegation, he is still guilty of being complicit in women's victimization and thus deserves whatever he gets.

There is a gulf of difference between someone who makes a false accusation and someone who fails to sufficiently prove a true one.

That gulf is filled by the prosecutor.

The woman doesn't go about trying to amass evidence and present it to a jury; the woman says "Help! I was raped!" and it's the prosecutor who tries to convince the jury.

As we saw with the Duke/Nifong deal, rape is often swallowed whole by prosecutors seeking gimme cases on emotional subjects - even when there is scant, contradictory or nonexistent evidence to support it.

Why? "Because women don't lie about that!!!"

The prosecutor is guilty of attempting to shoehorn an evidence-less case into a conviction built around sympathy; the woman still made the claim.

The prosecutor is guilty of attempting to shoehorn an evidence-less case into a conviction built around sympathy; the woman still made the claim.

I would argue that cuts both ways. Remember The Accused. Granted it may be a fictional story, but I can see that happening. (Not often and blatantly.) The local prosecutor says she's local trash so obliviously she was consenting.

Truth,

In a court of law, "not guilty" does indeed mean "innocent".

If a person is not guilty and innocent of the "crime", no crime has been committed, so it should be allowable to report the names of the two people involved in the case. Whats the harm if there is no crime?

You should not be able to still claim victimhood if your alleged attacker has been found innocent of the crime.

I think rape should be treated exactly the same as other crimes. I don't know what the UK's laws are, but if accused murderers are named, so should accused rapists. If accused murderers AREN'T named, rapists shouldn't be either.

By the same token, if murder victims, theft victims, and other victims are named, so should rape victims.

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added).

It's almost certainly higher. These figures derived from claims referred to the FBI. But many claims will have been dismissed or retracted prior to this referral. For instance, ones that are made to police that are recanted under examination, or proven false. So the true figure is probably in the neighborhood of 50%.

Another reason for not giving out the woman's name is that just because they found a particular man not guilty, doesn't mean that the woman wasn't raped. Cops often have a favorite suspect and pretty much ignore the rest. Except in cases of date rape, aren't most rapes committed by a man the woman doesn't know? An emotionally traumatized person is generally a bad witness, and witnesses in general are notoriously unreliable.

@mike: "You should not be able to still claim victimhood if your alleged attacker has been found innocent of the crime."
___________

I agree with that, but I also don't believe that the failure to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt is proof the alleged victim was lying. If it is proven she was lying, then she should be prosecuted. If not, I don't see any reason to publish the names of either. You can destroy someone's life on suspicion, not proof.

@truth,

Unfortunately, there is the "what should be" and the "what actually is". Until the laws are changed the alleged suspect will always have his/her name printed, while the alleged "victim" will not.

Interesting how female rapists, like all of those whacko teachers who like to have sex with little boys, also have their names published...so it seems fair in that single respect.

This sounds fair to me, though I agree with Trust on the last part. There's no reason to embarrass the woman just because the rape wasn't proven. Unless you know she's lying, I see nothing to gain by naming her. Why do we need to know that some lady may or may not have been raped? If there's a conviction, then name the rapist.

The only reason I can think for naming a rape suspect is if he is still free to rape until trial. That poses a risk for the public, but I'd tend to lean towards taking that chance over ruining an innocent man's reputation.

There is a gulf of difference between someone who makes a false accusation and someone who fails to sufficiently prove a true one.

Posted by: Trust at May 23, 2010 12:47 AM

I could not disagree more. When there is a false charge of rape, a man is put through hell for it. Even if his name is kept out of the press, friends and family do learn about it. He still has to go through a trial. He is humiliated and imprisoned. (unless he can pay the bail money- if it is set.) Even a "not guilty" conviction carries a strong suspicion of guilt- as you have demonstrated.

I hate to say it, but at a 25% rate of false rape claims, women really need to understand the consequences of their actions. In the Duke false-rape case the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, had made false accusations like this one before. And yet the prosocuter did not take this into account when he charged the three college students with rape based solely on her claims.

I have a strong suspicion that should a false-rape charge be leveled and the woman who made the claim be forced to own that lie, that 25% rate would drop.

@Jewels: "I could not disagree more. When there is a false charge of rape, a man is put through hell for it."
____________

You don't seem to have read my post well. Those who make false charges should be prosecuted as the criminals they are.

One important idea to embrace is the difference between a rape that didn't occur, and one where the wrong person is being charged.

That is where the false statistic is taken out of context. I am assuming [perhaps incorrect] that the FBI database contains the DNA tests of women who actually WERE raped by someone, as well as those who are changing their minds about it being consensual. I wouldn't think that any where the actual situation never happened were in there. As mentioned those would generally be caught in the lower level investigation, though not all.

SO the complication becomes figuring out who the actual perp was, versus if they have the right guy, and then if there were any cases of retracted consent. It may be straightforward that the DNA doesn't match, but what does it mean? Does it mean that there is still a perp out there? Or that something else entirely happened?

Those are good points, Swiss. It would seem to skew the data quite a bit. For one, it doesn't even mean that the woman has even named a suspect or knows who raped her. He may have been wearing a mask or covered her face. All it means is that the COPS have a suspect, and a certain percentage of those suspects turn out not to match. This is quite different from proving that 25% of women make false allegations.

The existence of rape has been known for thousands of years.

The existence of false rape charges has been known for thousands of years.

Ancient Hebrew law had provisions for both, because they were aware of both. If a woman claimed she was raped outside the town, her word was to be accepted with no further fuss. It was presumed she was unable to receive help. And the accused was to be severely punished.

If she claimed she was raped in town, she was expected to produce witnesses to her cries for help. If she couldn't she was to be punished.

It is easy to make up scenarios where either law could lead to injustices, but at least they provided for both rape and false charges.

Our current laws provide only accidental protection for falsely accused men. And, as we see here, most women do not care how much innocent men suffer (thus the motive for my Get The Hell Out program) nor the percentages of charges which are false. They only care that ONE woman might unjustly suffer.

We have in our legal system, which feminists do not respect, the presumption of innocent until proved guilty. That is the correct presumption for both men accused of rape and women whose charges did not result in a conviction.

This concept is simple, until feminists get involved. If the accused is acquitted, and it is not proved to the same standard that she lied, her name is not disclosed. One need not be a rocket scientist to understand this.

UK, especially, has had a steady stream of women in the last couple years who are found beyond any reasonable doubt to have filed false charges. A few of them have gone to prison, though it seems the reason is the cost to the cops, not the suffering of the falsely accused man.

My best friend here in Mexico was for 22 years a county medical examiner. (Not the name here, but it is the same.)

I once told him of the Air Force study in the 80's which showed around 60% of rape charges were false. He said that was his own experience.

He said his goal was to send all actual rapists to prison, and send all falsely accused men home.

He saw it all. Violent rape. Women who were caught by their parents or husband and tried to cover their slutty behavior by claiming rape. Women who were angry when they discovered a man had taken what she gave with no intention of marrying her and wanted to punish him.

He did not take the American approach that women never lie, and it is so important that all rapists go to jail, and that no raped woman should undergo hard questioning. As I said, he had also to protect the innocent accused.

>>Surely the most misandrist of feminists would accept that the principles of equality before the law and equality between men and women are not lightly to be dismissed.

You believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, yes?

No, they do not. Glenn Sacks some time ago, told the Lovely Amanda that most men believed rape was a horrid crime and should be severely punished. But, also false charges should be eliminated. She immediately called him a "Rape Denier."

Does no one remember, "All men are rapists!"?

Does no one remember the female member of academe who said any man falsely imprisoned should while in prison contemplate the possibility that he MIGHT have under different circumstances committed rape?

>>UK, especially, has had a steady stream of women in the last couple years who are found beyond any reasonable doubt to have filed false charges. A few of them have gone to prison, though it seems the reason is the cost to the cops, not the suffering of the falsely accused man.

This may have something to do with the fact they are thinking about withholding men's names. They have been embarrassed by the women who brazenly accuse men, even men they have never seen. UK has the law which says a woman who alleged rape is never to be named. Even when she admits it was a lie, which has been happening. A legislator named one woman in the legislative halls, and there is some law which protected him.

Anyone who denies the existence of false rape charges has no credibility at all.

Its a lesson to men, always have a video.

In my 11 years of military service, I know of no of no fewer than 10...yes that is right, TEN incidents of a false accusation against male soldiers by female soldiers.

The first occured when I was still in training, I was learning my particular specialty at the time, and we did get downtime on weekends. Well I was (and still am) something of a geek, and my fondness at that time was for Japanese animation dramas. It wasn't a common preference, so I would wake up EARLY in the morning, grab a tape, and go to the day room where our only television was, to watch for an hour or two before more people got up.

I was in there when a female soldier came in sobbing. The Drill Sergeant on duty had stepped out for a bathroom break.

Well I'm not good with crying women, excessive emotions are not my strong suit. So I go rush the drill out of the rest room where she makes her claim of rape.

Time passes and I hear no more of the matter for awhile, the investigation is handled by those responsible for doing so...

...and a few months later it all comes out.

As it turns out, she named another male soldier in the unit as having raped her in a place called barton field (a place on post that is isolated) and for awhile it looked like he might face his 20 year sentence for the crime.

But...the accuser screwed up. She asked another female to make the same claim as herself to prop up the accusation when cracks in the story started to appear.

That female had been a good friend of his, and reported the request that she lie, to the investigators.

It was later revealed that the accuser had been worried she would be in trouble for violating the restriction on her off time hours, and returning late to the barracks, she knew she would get in trouble. (Her most likely punishment would have been 2 minutes of pushups, or maybe 15 minutes of exercise)

So...to avoid that...she made her false accusation, and almost sent an innocent young man to jail for 20 years.

And when her deception was uncovered? When the lie came out?

She recieved an article 15. Which is a nonjudicial punishment that costs a soldier some extra duty time, some money for 2-4 months, and for lower ranks, one rank may be taken away. (And may be restored in 3 months to 1 year depending on how low and how well the person behaves in that time)

This is quite different from proving that 25% of women make false allegations.

I think that you mean, 25% of allegations are false.

All it means is that the COPS have a suspect, and a certain percentage of those suspects turn out not to match.

But those suspects have been identified by the victim. That's how they know who's DNA to test.

Jeremy, it doesn't say that. It says "convicted by juries" or "in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing."

That doesn't mean the victim named the primary suspect. There are rapes where the victim really doesn't see or know the attacker. In those cases, she might try to make a sketch and give a description, but the police would be the ones to pursue a suspect. I would think they would probably start with any known sex offenders in the area, and send that DNA for testing against the evidence they have. It wouldn't be unusual for that not to match, so this data doesn't really prove what's being suggested.

I'm afraid I must disagree lovelysoul.

You can't just force somebody to take a DNA test.

It takes a court order.

And you can't get a court order without some justification.

A specific identification by an alleged victim against an alleged perpetrator might fit that bill.

But just being on a registry and living in the area, probably not so much.

The second false accusation with which I am familiar took place at my first unit.

A female soldier in the medical unit had been engaging in ribald talk with the males of her squad. As the conversation went, she'd accepted a bet that she couldn't have sex with her entire squad at once.

Well she accepted that bet.

And she won that bet.

But, then of course word spread, and to protect her reputation, she made an accuation that her squad had gang raped her.

What she did not know, was that the encounter had been recorded.

Once she'd been shown on camera shouting for more cocks...well that charge didn't stick.

But she didn't go to jail, and she did stay in the military.

Identify the justice in either circumstance?

Yes, but if a suspect had been implicated in other rapes, wouldn't they have his DNA on file? I would just think that if there are no clear suspects, the police would look at any parolled rapists nearby.

A rape case here was solved years later when a man who had long been a suspect was arrested on other charges. He had always refused a DNA test, but while in prison on this charge, he cut himself and they took the DNA from a bloody towel.

LS if what you're assuming were correct, then the exonerations by testing would be about 99.99999%. Think about it.

That would be dependent on a number of factors lovelysoul.

If he's someone new to the area, probably not. Despite being in the 21st century, there still, excepting the FBI database, isn't a federal log of D.N.A. records that crosses state lines.

Certain jobs put DNA on file. "MINE" is on file since I came into the military, but these are different database records. Frankly I don't think it would be a bad thing to record D.N.A. at birth at the hospital and register it along with a social security number and keep it all on record.

That would make identifying suspects very easy, as well as make it easy to indentify unidentified bodies.

But for all the realm of possiblity, we have to deal with the system as it is. Identifying a sexual partner via dna evidence might be easy.

But proving a rape from it is not.

And there are a great many reasons why women will lie about rape. And a great many more of them do, than anyone would like to admit.

I wish it weren't so. But there it is.

Of course, I'm not saying they're all that way, Leona. But unless it's broken down between the primary suspect being accused by the victim or merely suspected by the police, I don't think this data can be that useful as far as false allegations. At first, it sounds much more compelling.

I don't even doubt the 25% number, which seems reasonable, it's just frustrating that there aren't any truly reliable stats.

It is indeed frustrating lovelysoul. Its probably going to be an eternal frustration, because gathering statistics on something like this is difficult at best.

Sex is one of those subjects that, no matter how stripped down we try to make it, is always going to be ladden with innuendo, perception, and tainted by doubt.

How many sexual assaults go unreported?
Who is more likely to be sexually assaulted?
Who is more likely TO report it?
Who is going to false report it?
Why do people false report?

Its almost impossible to measure these things.

The best measure of unreported assaults would likely come from hospitals. How many people come in wanting to be simply treated, and not file any report with the authorities? Even that may be tainted, since it is hard to say how many might simply prefer it thought that they were assaulted, than that a willing session of rough sex had some consequences.

And yes that does happen. People who dabble or live within a BDSM lifestyle are always subject to certain risks of injury, but also to prosecution or accusation.

Its all a crap shoot. All we can do is just assess the character of the accused, the character of the accuser, look at the physical evidence, look at the history between the two, if any...and ask ourselves, "Is THIS one telling the truth about what happened to her? Or is she just worried people will think she's a slut for sleeping with him on a first date?"

False rape allegations are how all women keep all men in a state of fear.

Right?

I've known a few women who were raped and didn't report it. My college roomate, for one - raped by her boss at work. She was distraught for weeks, but it was embarrassing enough, so she didn't report it.

Another acquaintance, in NY, an aspiring actress, was told to show up for an audition and was gang raped by several men who had posed as producers. She later found out that this was an organized rape ring. But she didn't report it, out of shame at her naviete and also concern for her career.

I tend to believe the more legitimate cases like that probably aren't reported as often as the ones involving supposed date rape. When two people know each other, there's a greater chance of an ulterior motive, or morning after regret.

I don't consider most of those scenarios rape. I do kind of believe in that phrase someone quoted about if you go to a man's house or apt, you're agreeing to sex. I know a lot of women feel differently, but, as far as proving a rape occurred, you are (or should be) at a decided disadvantage in that situation.

The real figure is probably around 50% of rape allegations are false. Nearly all serious studies done on this have found the figure to be between 40% and 60%, including studies done by sociologist Eugene Kanin. Kanin was a feminist hero until he started blowing the whistle on false rape allegations.

Wendy McElroy is still a feminist and apparently a rape victim also. So I'm not really surprised that she prefers a lower figure.

The reason false allegations are such a problem when it comes to rape, in comparison with other crimes, is due to the extent that men can be convicted based largely on a woman's word. If someone falsely accuses me of, say, committing a robbery, it probably wouldn't matter so much because unless some evidence is found linking me to the crime (like stolen goods on my property), I probably won't be convicted.

In earlier times a man could not be convicted of rape based solely on a woman's allegation. In most jurisdictions the law required corroborative evidence, such as forensics, signs of force, torn clothing etc., or a witness. But during the 1970s and onwards most of these requirements for corroborative evidence were eliminated or watered down as part of feminist-inspired 'reforms' to make life easier for rape victims.

The net result of all this is that men can increasingly be charged and convicted based solely on a woman's allegation. Unless the accuser slips up or there are major inconsistencies in her story, it is very difficult for the accused.

When it comes to issues like domestic violence, sexual harassment, and various other offences, society has given women vastly increased power to ruin men's lives simply based on an allegation. It would be naive to think that women don't abuse that power. As the old saying goes, 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. There are few greater powers at the disposal of any citizen than the power to ruin the reputation of, and mobilize the criminal justice system, against a fellow citizen based on an unsubstantiated allegation or a grudge. In what other situation do we allow one class of citizens to deprive another class of citizens of their liberty in that way?

Kanin's methodology was flawed, as the victims were all threatened with being polygraphed, which may have caused many of them to back down rather than have such an aggressive interogation, and Kanin never revealed what small town police records he used, so his results have never been verified by other researchers.

Most other studies haven't come close to his figures, so it's generally presumed that those are too high.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/

I'll agree with that statement lovelysoul, a great deal of legitimate incidents are going to go unreported for a variety of reasons, which is regretable, since those are the ones where a repetition is likely to occur by the perpetrator, against someone else. As the old religious saw goes about the slide into sin, "Done once, done a dozen times."

(Incidentally, if she never reported it, how did she find out it was an organized ring?)
--------------

I can understand why women might not like that saying about consenting to sex when entering a man's home. But the fact is that every action we undertake, male and female alike, has certain implicit indications.

A woman who is drinking at a bar is stating that she will not need her best judgement.

A woman who enters a man's home alone is stating that her physical vulnerability is not at issue.
----------------

The women's movement through off a great many of the old restrictions that society had placed on the fairer sex. Suddenly there were no chaperones. There were no curfews. The rules that were in place for the protection of women, no longer existed. But unfortunately what the movement neglected, was to tell women what those rules had been protecting them from.

Being allowed to do something, does not necessarily make that thing a good idea. Yes a woman could go out drinking all night, but the "right" to do so, is not protection from its consequences.
-------------

Not to long ago Oprah had a guest on her show that had escaped from a serial killer, this woman talked about having met him in a grocery store parking lot while she was out shopping with her infant son. She talked about getting into the car with him of her own accord, she escaped death only because before the killer could go about his intent, her screaming infant distracted him, and she was able to grab her boy and escape.

In the 1940s such a thing would have been almost unheard of. First off she wouldn't have been a single mother. And second off she wouldn't have been getting into a car with a male not known to her.
------------

Not all men are good. Most of us are. I myself am only violent under very specific necesssary circumstances. Most men are like that. But a fair number, however small relative to the population, is predatory and dangerous. And women today tend to forget just how vulnerable they really are to those men.

That is why I tell every woman in my life, either go with a man, or go with a gun, or better yet, go with a man and a gun for both of you.

I'm not familiar with kanin, but I'm suspicious of a study that is released without identifying where its methodology and sources can be examined.

Any study should be transparent, its sources identified, its methodology meticulously documented, and its funding source revealed. Its to easy to screw up a study with bad methods.

How many environmental reports are paid for by people with a specific social or environmental agenda? How many researchers slant their methods because they know their next round of funding will be dependent upon determining a specific set of results?

Always be suspicious of any supposed study showing anything serious. A study shows a rash of sexual assaults? Oh, who conducted the study, how far back did they go, what did they classify as a sexual assault, did they bother to verify what they heard or just take it on faith that the source was honest?

Lovelysoul, if it boils down to a choice between believing Eugene Kanin or Barry Douche (aka Ampersand), Kanin is no doubt a more credible source.

Firstly, Kanin's study is not the only one to come up with those kinds of figures. Secondly, Kanin spent much of his career doing research on the extent of male sexual aggression. When deciding on whether or not a piece of research is accurate or not, I usually look for two things. Have the findings been replicated elsewhere? And does the researcher have a clear bias or axe to grind that might taint the methodology or results? Kanin passes on both counts.

"Most other studies haven't come close to his figures, so it's generally presumed that those are too high."

Most studies done on just about every gender issue are primarily undertaken by feminist gynocracies that have an institutionalized agenda of maintaining female victimhood. Where else do such absurd claims as the 2% figure come from? Or claims about the phony "wage gap" being due to pay discrimination, which you apparently still believe in.

I never said anything about the wage gap. You must confuse me with someone else.

The 2% figure is obviously too low, but Kanin's is too high. He relied solely on the claims of an unknown police dept that cannot be verified and may have had a strong bias against victims.

"If over 40% of women reporting rape recant — even though multiple, more rigorous studies have found false rape reports are usually 2%-8% of all reports — that could indicate a police culture which gives rape victims an extremely strong reason to want to “disengage the criminal justice system,” even if they’re threatened with a fine or a short jail stay. And, as we will see, routinely pressuring all reported rape victims to take a lie detector test is a sign of a police department with a strong bias against taking rape reports seriously."

"And indeed, the Kanin study has been criticized for the department’s use of polygraph testing in every case, a process that has been rejected by many police departments because of its intimidating impact on victims. The International Association of Chiefs of Police disapproves of requiring polygraph tests during rape investigations because “victims often feel confused and ashamed, and experience a great deal of self-blame because of something they did or did not do in relation to the sexual assault. These feelings may compromise the reliability of the results of such interrogation techniques."

This intimidation probably resulted in a higher number of recantations than would've otherwise occurred.

I think the 25% figure is probably more accurate. It's difficult to tell because, as Robert notes, there's so many factors to weigh. It's hard to get a completely accurate number, but I think it's safe to assume the actual number would be somewhere in between the 2-8% normally reported, and Kanin's 40%.

The methodology on the Air Force study was disclosed. So, gosh, we aren't going to talk about that one, are we?

C'mon, LS. So a study which might expose a woman who might be lying about rape, to lie detector contaminates the study? Only if you presume no woman lies about rape.

Listen up, men. LS represents millions of women in the US. It is a total waste of time to talk to her/them. She does not believe women make false charges, though it was known several thousand years ago some did, just as it was known some men raped.

No matter how many innocent men have their lives destroyed, there will be no changes in the laws which make it impossible for men to defend themselves against those false charges.

Over the last 40 years, there have been a handful of cases where I could tell a woman realized something I was saying about feminism and their evils was correct. The next words out of their mouths were, "Yes, but..." Which means, you are right but I want my own way.

Either quietly and submissively accept whatever these nuts dish out, OR GET THE HELL OUT!

Just because I don't accept Kanin's numbers, which most experts don't, doesn't mean I don't believe in false allegations. That's really unfair and shows how biased you are, not me. You are so anti-female, you want to believe that 60% are lying. You're choosing to believe the higher figures and dismiss the many other studies that don't support that belief. It's irrational. I try to have reasonable discussions, and I can hardly be accused of feminist bias when I support the 25% false allegation figure and just said that women basically agree to have sex when they go to man's apt. Show me a feminist that would say either of those two things, Irlandes.

I'm a rational woman. I'm not going to believe propaganda from either side. You shouldn't either.

lovelysoul the 2% in the 2% to 8% makes me think that the study is severely biased. As far as i know the 2% number has no basis in reality and is just propaganda. Also most studies that ive seen say that the rate of false reporting is somewhere between 20 and 40 percent.

That's why I said the 25% number makes more sense. The 2-8% number is reported by numerous law enforcement sources though, not just one or two studies, so that makes me want to weigh it somewhat. Therefore, I'd weight the mid number down a bit. 25% sounds reasonable to me.

And, like I said, my experience leads me to believe that real rapes are underreported. Not only has this been my observations of friends who were raped, but my own sense of how I might also respond after a rape. There's very little to be gained from reporting it, being put through the shame and embarrassment of reliving it. Not everyone would feel this way, but I personally would probably just want to go home, shower, and grieve privately.

I saw that this was a typical reaction with my friends, so the theory that a victim would just recant and go home if she felt she'd be put through a lot of pressure at the police station, that she wouldn't be believed, doesn't make me necessarily doubt the rape occurred.

False accusers have an agenda, and they have to be pretty immoral, narcissistic people. Narcissists, particularly, don't fear polygraphs. They're such consumate liars that they typically believe they'll pass them.

So LS, you believe the 25% claim is accurate because it lies somewhere between the 2% and 40% mark.

This reminds of the joke about how if you have two groups, one that claims that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and another that claims 2 plus 2 equals 6, then a 'moderate' is someone who believes 2 plus 2 equals 5.

It is silly to try to find a median position between two claims when one is clearly nonsense right from the start. The 2% figure was always pure advocacy propaganda that should never have been taken seriously to start with.

Lovelysoul police are assholes no doubt about it. I have no problem believing that people avoid reporting to the police to avoid a bad experience. My father beat me pretty severely and i never reported it. The school called the cops once without asking me but the 2 lady cops were horrible people. They basically told me to get a job and run away from home and looked and spoke to me like i was trash. Im not saying that a good beating is anything like rape im just saying that i think i might understand the state of mind of someone who doesnt want to go to the police. Hell Ive had my car stolen and when i went to report it the cops were assholes. They didnt even search the car when they found it. They just had it towed and called me. If they had searched it they would have found some drugs and a used needle the guy left behind. Sorry about the rant i kinda hate the cops and i needed to vent. Anyway i DO have a problem when people see that some women dont want to go and report their rape and use that to inflate the number of rapes that happen and in the same breath say that false reporting never happens and that even if it does its no big deal. Ive actually heard more than one "expert" say that kind of crap.

I think that it's fair to assume that there's a significant problem if the UK is contemplating these changes. This isn't something that you'd come up with unless it was recognized that there's an unusually high probability that the accused will be proven innocent, or the charges will be dropped.

Something to consider is that the anonymity of the accused can also prevent the identity of the victim from being known. People wouldn't be able to infer who the victim is based on the accused. So the measure actually enhances protection for the victim's anonymity.

LS, I agree that polygraphs have a high error margin and I don't really think they should be used at all.

Yet your rationalization is just bizarre. You seem to be saying that liars would be more confident and likely to pass a polygraph than those telling the truth. This is ridiculous. While I am sure that some good liars can pass a polygraph, and some less confident truth-tellers might fail, on average liars would be more likely to fail. If anything, it is more likely that many liars would have pulled out before submitting to the polygraph. So if anything the sample could have been more contaminated towards having more honest claims than normal.

"I'm a rational woman. I'm not going to believe propaganda from either side. You shouldn't either."

Sorry LS, but you are not rational at all. Indeed, you consistently apply logic that is just baffling on various issues. And you have a tendency to interpret things completely back to front, as above. Indeed, reading your posts at times warms me to the heart of my male chauvinist being. Chortle chortle.

As for the claim that the majority of rapes go unreported, I have absolutely no doubt that is true. I am sure there are many cases where a woman is raped and she would prefer to pretend it didn't happen. And the last thing she may want is to go through a long court case.

A lot of people who are victims of various behaviors will often shut down and prefer not to talk about it. Even just speaking for myself, I still find it difficult talking to people (even close friends) about a lot of the abuse my parents directed at me as a child.

But here's the rub. If only a minority of actual rapes get reported, while by definition all false allegations do get reported, what does that say about the proportion of rape allegations that are false? Well, it tells me the sample is pretty skewed towards false allegations and away from genuine victims.

So how is it rational to then believe only a minority of reported allegations are false?

Nick S, I'm glad I warm your heart. :)

Given that accurate figures are almost impossible to come by, I don't see that my logic of basically splitting the difference is any less valid. Certainly more so than believing a pretty widely discredited and unverifiable study. Frankly, the true numbers are anybody's guess.

And I didn't mean that narcissists wouldn't fail a polygraph, just that they won't believe they will. So, they're less likely to be intimidated than an honest person, especially a victim that already feels that the rape is somehow her fault.

My view of the percentages would be the same if we were talking male or female. If somebody said "40-60% of men will lie to purposely ruin a woman's life and put her in jail because they are simply that vile and evil", I wouldn't believe it either. I have a higher opinion of mankind and human nature. I have a higher opinion of men.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't want to live in a world where people are that evil, so, although I know there is a percentage of truly vile and evil people, who would conspire to deceive to the degree of ruining another's life, I'm hopeful and optimistic that the number is lower rather than higher.

Like I said, a person who could knowingly make a false accusation and carry it through has to basically have no conscience. This says to me that that they would either be a narcissist or sociopath. How many people in the general population have those disorders? I don't know - there are probably more accurate figures on that -but I'm doubting it's higher than 25% or we would see even more criminal behavior in all areas, not just rape.

Of course, there are the rare few who are probably just scared enough to lie - afraid of parents, or husbands, or for religious reasons. Maybe they aren't narcissists or sociopaths, but I think, if not, those will recant at some point before they'd put an innocent person in jail. If they carry it through, they have to be without a conscience.

So, how many lie initially? How many lie and then recant? How many actually follow the lie all the way through to a conviction? These are figures we don't have, except to try to extrapolate from incomplete data.

There are also the women who truly believe that the man they identify is the man who raped them. Dr. Phil or Oprah just had one of those on. You could tell she was convinced she'd identified the right man, but DNA proved he wasn't her rapist. They are now friends, but she absolutely didn't believe it at first. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously flawed.

I think it may also be similar to molestation cases, where certain leading questions can expand the events in a child's mind. Because a rape victim is traumatized, I can see how the way police handle the situation, or present certain suspects, might lead to false identifications.

Memory is not a tape recorder, details can get confused, third party influences can unintentionally fill in the gaps, lovelysoul is correct to point out the ease of misidentification under those circumstances.

I was also wondering about the very term of "rape"...do these statistics we are talking about count the old "waking-up-with-a-strange-guy-I-would-have-never-gone-to-bed-with-had-I-not-been-completely-obliterated, so-it-must-have-been-rape-because-there-is-no-way-I-could-give-consent-while-that-trashed" rapes???

Those should be counted as false accusations as well. Because they are FALSE!

I agree with Mike.

It is not the responsibility of men to assess the competence of a woman who willingly puts aside her inhibitions.

Penises do not have breathalyzers.

Women were "liberated" in that they could choose to go out and get drunk.

They are not liberated from the responsibility for their choices while doing so.

And before anyone brings it up, neither mike or Robert are tAlking about women who were drugged without their consent

Good call lujlp, I should have clarified that position a bit.

Lovelysoul, we have had this argument before and you keep resorting to the same discredited arguments.

"My view of the percentages would be the same if we were talking male or female. If somebody said "40-60% of men will lie to purposely ruin a woman's life and put her in jail because they are simply that vile and evil", I wouldn't believe it either. I have a higher opinion of mankind and human nature. I have a higher opinion of men."

This is a gross misrepresentation. You seem to be saying that I believe 40 to 60% of the entire female population would lie about rape. This is absurd. There is a world of difference between saying that 50% of a small subset of people are lying (those that report allegations), and that 50% of an entire gender are liars.

I have no doubt that the majority of women would never make a false rape allegation (and if I genuinely believed that half of all women would do such an awful thing I probably would need to be locked away). But all it takes is a small percentage of women to report a false allegation to overwhelm the system and constitute a relatively high percentage of reported cases.

And I specifically acknowledged that the proportion of reported cases that is false is often high in part because many genuine victims don't report while a lot of false accusers do. In some ways, it may be easier for false accusers to report than genuine victims because they don't have to relive all the trauma.

To say that the majority of women wouldn't make a false allegation, therefore the majority of allegations must be true, is a bit like saying that the majority of men are not rapists, therefore most of those accused of rape must be innocent.

It is a nonsense argument because, by definition, you are dealing with a deviant and aberrant minority. What the majority of the population would do is irrelevant.

I love the argument "If they prosecuted women for making false claims, it would discourage real rape victims from reporting the crime."

How does that make sense at all? It is just like any other crime where there must be FACTS and EVIDENCE. In real rapes, it is quite clear that there is evidence, so what would keep a person from going forward with their claim if they were really raped? If I had been raped, the last thing on my mind would be "I can't go forward because I might be put in prison for a false allegation thanks to all the other false allegations."

Que?

What other crimes are there in the whole world, besides our rape laws and our domestic violence laws, where there is not an evidentiary requirement?

"Penises do not have breathalyzers" Classic....

LS said: Kanin's methodology was flawed, as the victims were all threatened with being polygraphed,

That's funny. When I was the victim of a false claim of sexual misbehavior I INSISTED on a polygraph. For me, of course. Subjecting the person trying to ruin my life to such a thing would have been making a victim of her all over again.

As a result of the polygraph the accusation became dormant. It would be naive to think it went away. It lurks in a database somewhere. There were of course no consequences for the accuser.

The antinomous lovelysoul displays her misandry in every word she writes. It's terrifying to think of her in a position of power.

--
phunctor

Oh please. I have no real power. I'm just the only female here, so the only one left to accuse of misandry.

But what were the crimes of sexual misbehavior you were charged with?

"LS", you are aware of the profound difference between being accused and being charged. There is no indication in my post that I was ever charged with anything, for the very good reason that I was never charged with anything. Your stealthy insertion of "charged" into your question is easily read as an act of rhetorical malpractice, assuming facts not in evidence. So, this isn't a discussion, it's a knife fight. Ciderhouse rules.

You've been artificially sheltered by your environment. You're not as good at slithersome rhetoric as you think you are. To be fair, you're not bad, but your success to date has depended on a pervasive climate of appeasement towards PC bullying that is coming to an end.

I'll leave it up to the nonexistent women who aren't you to make their presence known. You do know that it's possible to disagree with you and still be a woman, don't you?

You want me to re-smear myself because I dared to testify here about a false accusation? Only your acculturation to the bizarro world of the family courts can explain your asking such an impudent question. It is, to coin a phrase, none of your fucking business.

The overall experience was terrifying. I was in jeopardy of becoming unemployable and my options for clearing my name were few.

Shit is sticky, and stinks. That's why when I got smeared I insisted on doing whatever was possible to clear my name. I have no interest at all in further spreading it.
--
phunctor

yeah, funny how so few females in this discussion. Where is momof4 and pirate ho???

Phunctor, we were having a decent, stimulating discussion, then you showed up and started calling me a misandrist.

Why? Is it because I just don't parrot back your beliefs 100%? I could agree with 80% of what the guys post, yet the moment I object to something or say I think it's closer to 25% of false allegations rather than 40% it's....YOU'RE A MISANDRIST!!!!

Don't you see that's as bad as the feminists? That's what they do. Everyone must think the same, view every issue the same, hate men the same, parrot the party line. There is no open forum for debate or independent thought.

If you want to just hear your own echo, go to a men's rights site. Everyone will be praising the Kanin study and talking misandry there. But here we are discussing the issues like grown ups, and that means not all of us will agree on every point all the time. If you can't handle that without spewing insults, expect to be insulted back.

lovelysoul ive been lurking on this site for a few years and i think ive got a pretty good picture of you. Im my opinion you actually are a bit of a misandrist. Defiantly not a full blown man-hater but youve got an underling bias against men and mens issues that is impossible not to notice. Youre not nearly as bad as momof4 though.

Also please dont pretend that everyone is riding your ass just because you think the rate of false reporting is 25% and not 60%. The guys are pissed not that you disagree but at your stated reasons. They are not logically sound. You come from the idea that women simply cant lie that often and then find facts to prove it.

Lovelysoul said: "I do kind of believe in that phrase someone quoted about if you go to a man's house or apt, you're agreeing to sex. I know a lot of women feel differently, but, as far as proving a rape occurred, you are (or should be) at a decided disadvantage in that situation."

I hope you're not saying that it should be illegal to say no once you're in the house?

I'm not sure if I would call Lovelysoul a misandrist. But she is definitely a female apologist and supremacist of sorts. I recall having a similar debate with her on this issue months ago, and she offered up completely spurious and naive reasons as to why women would hardly ever lie about rape. It looks like she has been dragged reluctantly to even acknowledge that 25% may be false.

And you're right, Suvorov. The problem is not that she doesn't agree with us. The problem is that her reasoning doesn't make any sense. I have explained clearly the logical flaws in her position, and she cannot address them. So instead she just whines 'well, you guys just don't like me because I'm female and I don't agree with you on everything'. Oh puhlease!

From Kanin's 1994 paper, which for the interested may be found at:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/maysession/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

"...the investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects. Additionally, for a declaration of false charge to be made, the complainant must admit that no rape has occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false."

From LS:
"Kanin's methodology was flawed, as the victims were all threatened with being polygraphed".

Non sequitur at "as".
Prejudicial at "victims".
Prejudicial at "threatened".
Rather nicely prejudicial in the use of the oppressed victim passive voice at "being".

Let me be clear. It is on your long history of such dishonest rhetoric, in every case slanted against men, that I base my charge of misandry.

Your attempt to dismiss me to a "men's site" is accepted with gratitude as additional evidence.

--
phunctor

Lovelysoul is "team woman" all the way, all the time. She doesn't see it as man-hating -- even though the rest of us do.

She tries, I think, but getting her to overcome her basic prejudice is like trying to explain "blue" to a blindwoman.

Let's face it, you guys believe any woman who doesn't bash women as much as you do is biased. There's nothing else I could possibly say that would please you. It doesn't matter how balanced I try to be because balance isn't what you're after. The only thing that would stop you from calling me a misandrist is if I just conceded that most women are selfish, vicious, golddigging liars, as you believe.

You're right, I have a higher opinion of my gender than that, just as I have a higher opinion of your gender than feminists want me to. My opinions are obviously not popular with them either. Yet, rather than see that I'm actually a moderate, you claim I'm a "misandrist". That's because you're view is so distorted. It's stupid, and frankly, it's getting old having interesting debates interrupted by this name-calling.

(lenona: She's not saying it should be illegal to say no. The point is that, a. no rests on his willingness to accept no as an answer, and b. it is impossible to prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt since only John & Jane know what happened when they were alone together, the only reasonable thing to do under our judicial system is to grant acquital, since our legal system is based upon the idea that better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer)

-----------------

Its an interesting question.

Most women will never report a rape, real or otherwise, because most women are never raped, and some of those that are, refuse to report it for a variety of reasons. The reasons not to report are not part of this discussion, so that will be handled on another occasion, for now, let us concern ourselves with false reports.

So, lets answer the question of false reporting as best we can shall we?

According to the justice department the average number of rapes reported to the police totals: 116,350 between 92-2000
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsarp00.pdf) This does not count the number of rapes that women are treated for at hospitals, who do not also complain to police. I am leaving that number out, because the question at hand is about false reportings.

If we assume that the general population divide between male & female adults is 50/50, we're close enough to accurate. The female population then, totals almost 150,000,000. Divide that population by the total number of reports, and you come up with a rate of report within the population of 1 report for every 1,289.21 women.

So, even if we're talking about a 100% lie rate, then only the tiniest minority of women will false report. Obviously we know that not all cases ARE false reports.

So, what percentage IS?

If the number is 50%, we're talking a total of 58,175 women who would be ready and willing to see an innocent man go to jail. At least at first (some do recant for one reason or another, of their own volition) Now they may comprise only a tiny percentage of the total American female population, but the impact that they have on the system is tremendous.

Now lets take this a wee bit further shall we? The above number, 116,350, is the average number totalled from the 8 year period.

SO...if we are at a consistently 50% rate of false accusation, AND if we presume that the same woman does not make more than one false accusation. (I haven't read anything about serial false accusers, but thinking about that now, I'm curious) then you are talking about 58,175 seperate individuals per year.

A total number of 465,400 women.

That is a still a small minority of the total female population...but it is large enough....

By the by, I will agree that lovelysoul does have a bit of a favorable to disfavorable bias relative between female and male.

But at the same time I should point out that this bias exists in men and women both. Men tend to favorably bias men over women just as readily.

I wouldn't call the mere existance of a light degree of bias "misandrist or misogynist", its just human nature to favor that which is most similar to ourselves.

Although I have to say the most misogynistic people I've ever known, are women. The why of THAT would be book length at least. Just ask a female manager about female employees sometime, hooboy...don't get me started.

But seriously, while she might be a little bit biased, its no worse than my own in reverse. And during this discussion at the least, the worst that can be said of her is her doubt of Kanin's study. Which I myself doubt, since it was not transparent. I don't trust research with hidden sources or questionable methodology.

Besides, there are far better studies out there which show similar results, which are worth citing.

LS, you demand that everyone give you credit for not agreeing with the feminists on everything. Yet you have no qualms about lumping all us guys in with the most extreme woman-haters. So it is okay for you to caricature and demonize the views of others to an absurd degree, but everyone is supposed to be oohing and aahing about how "moderate" you are.

Hypocrisy anyone? This is so typical of the dishonest and self-serving way you frame these things.

I specifically acknowledged that most rapes go unreported and that genuine victims often don't feel comfortable in coming forward. No doubt these are typical views of your caricature misogynists.

It is a matter of some debate as to how many actually go unreported.

The answer depends on how you define "unreported".

Do we mean:
Unreported to the police
Or
Unreported to medical facilities
Or
Unreported to anyone

Medical facilities which record the statement of the victim are the best measure for the number of incidents which go unreported to police. Since even if someone does not wish to report the crime, they are at least probable to seek medical attention.

Going by that number, assuming a 50% false report rate to the police, the number of unreported attacks to reported actual attacks is 2-1.

"LS, you demand that everyone give you credit for not agreeing with the feminists on everything. Yet you have no qualms about lumping all us guys in with the most extreme woman-haters. So it is okay for you to caricature and demonize the views of others to an absurd degree, but everyone is supposed to be oohing and aahing about how "moderate" you are."

I judge you by what you say, and most of it is very anti-female. You may not even realize that, but it's true.

Of course, as Robert understands, I defend my own gender. You, as males, do too. I, as a woman, and you, as men, will always have some bias towards our own gender. That is normal, and I understand it. I wouldn't expect you to sit silently while I maligned your gender, nor should you expect that of me.

Yet, the rhetoric of all male-rights or feminist blogs is that you must despise the hated gender or else. I bet if I went to a feminist blog and said, "hey, ladies, guys are not so bad!," I'd be accused of being a "male apologist".

You all need to realize that you do the same thing in reverse.

I've seen it time and time again: if you can actually get a feminist to debate (which they never seem to want to) they will unravel like an old sweater. Most feminist doctrines are based on "feelings" and not on fact. You can argue all day with facts until you are blue in he face, and they will still never believe them. Inevitably, most feminists resort to name calling, misdirection, and total game-playing when debating a men's rights activist. Nothing fact based. They will lose every time.

Fortunately, a house of cards is a house of cards, and feminism is slowly losing its way and losing its grip on the american public. They really look way out there, don't they? Totally whacked out and crazy with all of the ideas. With their "statistics", out of my 2000 person graduating class in college I guess there were 500 or so that were "raped". Funny, it never made the papers, police blotters, or news of any kind. I guess my school was just "lucky".

Or maybe women at a large southern university, and not some skank filled liberal arts college, are alot more common sense about things like sex, gender roles, and relationships.

Probably a little of both Mike.

A liberal female at a liberal arts university might be taught to believe, "I can do anything a man can do" but never be told "Except fight one on even terms".

The idea of "can do" equates to "should do".

A conservative southern woman I believe, is more likely to realize that men fall into three probable categories to one degree or another:

Bystander, Protector or Predator.

And she's smart enough not to put herself in a position where she'll find out to late which ones are which.

Though I should also add, if 500 out of 2000 are claiming to have been raped at some point, I'd lay good odds that they're almost all either counting one night stands they regret, counting a mutually drunken fuck session, out and out lying, or the harmless (sort of) lie wherein there is an attempt to demonstrate empathy via shared hardship, with someone else making the same claim. Of that 500 claimants to the victim title, I'd guess that perhaps 5 are real. And of that, if my previous stastical analysis has any accuracy, only 1-2 of those 5 will have actually filed a police report.

-------------------

There is no harm in a certain degree of bias when it comes to our own genders. What man respects a man that thinks to poorly of masculine virtues or behavior? Who looks down upon himself and those like him in body? None says I. This bias necessarily implies a certain degree of bias in opposition to its opposite, the fairer sex.

Complimenting that, in an odd sort of way is the similarly favorable preference towards women that many a woman has towards her own gender. The sensible ones, like their male counterparts, recognize that this favorable view, however self supporting in terms of individual pride and self respect, is not a universal truth, and that evidence of perifidy and ammoral behavior must be reacted to severely, regardless of the gender of the person.

A woman who lies about rape is JUST as bad as a male rapist. Before anyone argues that, ask what happens to people sent to prison for sex crimes against women or children. Perhaps towards the real criminal, we can ignore any empathy or horror, but considering the case of an innocent man jailed for years, the horrors of that incarcaration are no worse, or indeed may actually be worse, since it may last for years upon years, whereas the female victim of an actual crime has all manner of support to aid her recovery available immediately.
----------------------

Much has to be addressed in law and culture to rectify the present wrongs.

But accusing relatively moderate of outright hatred over the slightest of inborn and common favorable (or disfavorable) biases, is counterproductive at best. There are enough REAL misandrists out there to target. And you can start with the false accusers.

Those of you who've read my arguments know quite well, that lovelysoul and I almost never agree about ANYTHING. So let none accuse me of coddling her because of her sex, or holding disfavor towards my own gender.

Her arguments on this subject, if not entirely correct in my estimation, are not far from the truth. Reread everything with a calm mind, and you'll see she is not the misandrist you suggest she is. A little biased yes, but so am I.

I can't blame her for not wanting to think the rate of false reports is lower than studies which bring numbers of 40-60% suggest. Any more than we'd like to think about how many actual rapes occur which are never avenged under the law.

The "split the difference" 25% that she puts forth is probably way to low, I'd put it between 40 & 50% just at a guess, it may be higher.

But arguing about the actual rate is meaningless.

If she's right, 1 in 4 accusations being deliberately false is MORE than bad enough to change the laws to increase the required burden of proof. To restrict public accusations, protect the identities of the accused until the verdict...and perform all the legal and cultural actions required to bring the rate of false accusation down until it REALLY IS only a 2-8% false accusation rate.

I guess my point on that is, that even at her lowest estimate, there is a justification for change which even with the innate bias even the most reasonable woman has, that opposition to changing the law to be more equitable to the accused, and more harsh on the false reporter, is impossible.

Ask not what the number is then, to decide if she is a misandrist, ask her rather, will she support the changes that would protect innocent men from false testimony?

So Lovelysoul, to get this straight. You are barracking for Team Women. I'm barracking for Team Men. And you lead the cries from the sidelines of 'he's anti-female. Yah. Boo. Hiss!'.

I'm glad you straightened this all out. I thought there was a bit more to it than that. I'm sorry to have ruined it with my attempts to logically analyze the issue. It turns out it is just a case of primitive tribal barracking.

Believe me, I am getting just as weary as anyone of the inane gender wars. And I am not simply barracking for my gender. Nor do I want to see a society where men are privileged over women.

For you to reduce the issue to a case of 'oh well, it's just natural for me to defend my gender' is so lame.

Hey, hey, hey - while I enjoy dumping on lovelysoul as much as anyone you guys are being a little too harsh.

While she most certainly came across as misandrist when she first arrived she has made some changes, shes changed her postition on circumcsion and the bullshit DV 'primary agressor' laws.

No true misandrist would have ever done that

Thanks, Luj.

I think you guys should read through the threads here and see how much female bashing there is. It's not even close. We women have to put up with this on every topic, and we do so usually without engaging because it's obvious we're outnumbered and we'll just get piled on if we do.

It's not that I'm "baracking for a team", but it's human nature to feel defensive when people start bashing your own kind. Black, white, American, Jewish, or whatever.

What happens here is exactly what would happen to YOU on a feminist site if you dared write anything in defense of your gender. In the gender biased mind, IT'S NOT ALLOWED!

Sadly, you guys are becoming exactly the kind of name-calling, intolerant, gender bigots you hate. You're becoming people who can't tolerate independent views in an civil debate.

My assessment of the numbers was not pulled out of thin air. Barry Scheck is someone I admire and respect.

"They stated, 'Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.'"

So, this means that in 75% of the cases the primary suspect WAS the same as alleged, right?

Now, these numbers are not acceptable. I would rather 100% of rapist go free than 25% of innocent men be imprisoned. Yet, these numbers shed some light on what's happening out there regarding allegations, and gives us a reasonable percentage.

I would think Scheck himself would choose that percentage over Kanin's because, as they said, it has remained CONSISTENT.

Would you call him a misandrist? No? Then, why call me one, especially on an issue where I:

a) Mostly agree with you
b) Haven't called anyone a name or been rude or insulting (other than after I was insulted by Phunctor)

You do this just because that's what gender intolerant people do. Get together and bash a gender and parrot your own biases back to each other. And, like I said, if you want to do that there are better blogs for you than here because I don't think that's what Amy is about.

Im pretty sure someone here has already mention that "'Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing" doesnt mean that 25% of rape allegations are false. It starts with a visit to the police station were they question you. Some allegations dont make it past that stage because of inconsistent testimony but youre smart enough to have already known that. Youre just dishonest.

Suvorov makes a point, it has to make some progress before it gets to the DNA testing level. A fair number of accusations never get that far, which that 25% number lovelysoul quotes would not include.

Moreover, DNA exclusion would not exclude someone who had consensual sex with a woman. DNA may show sexual contact, not whether it was voluntary.

8% of one & 7% of the other, would make up a more probable 40% total number of false acusations.

I've already stated that the data isn't perfect, as we can't know if the cops choose the suspect from their investigation, or the victims allege the suspect, but when you have someone like Barry Scheck saying that consistently somewhere between 20-25% of those submitted for DNA testing are false, year after year, and 75% of those submitted for testing are accurate, year after year, that's pretty compelling evidence that this is the more appropriate percentage to consider.

At least it doesn't appear that 40%-60% of victims are just making up suspects, as you all seem to contend. This, of course, doesn't prove that it was rape in 75% of the cases, but it also doesn't prove that the women weren't raped in 25% of the cases - just that the prime suspect was wrong.

I would think in most date rape scenarios, DNA testing would either not be needed or certain to come out positive for the "suspect".

But that is the whole point, Lovelysoul. If anything DNA would tend to underestimate the number of falsely accused. Because it only uncovers those cases where there is absolutely no evidence of intimate contact at all.

DNA will not help exonerate a man where they had sex but it was consensual. So for every man in jail who has been exonerated by DNA, there are probably many other innocent men who can't be helped.

"Some allegations dont make it past that stage because of inconsistent testimony but youre smart enough to have already known that. Youre just dishonest."

Hey Suvorov. You can't be mean to her. She's a girl.

Well, I mean, really it can't be properly measured. That's the problem with date rape. Every man charged is going to proclaim innocence, so unless the woman recants, we can't know if it is false or not. You may presume that a high percentage of women are lying, but it's merely a presumption.

Does the 2-8% figures quoted by police depts come from actual recants - women who admit lying or have their story easily disproved. Is that correct?

I think that our justice system should err on the presumption of innocence in those "he-said/she-said" cases. Unless there is physical evidence of a struggle - scratches and bruises showing that the woman fought having sex with this person who she was intimate enough to be on a date with or in his/her apt with - then those charges should be declared unfounded or "unproved" or something.

I mean, we have this with child abuse. A lot of the time, even with bruises, a DCF worker cannot determine definitively if the parent abused the child, so it's declared unfounded. The risk of wrongfully removing a child from its home and putting him/her through unnecessary trauma, along with mistakenly arresting the parent, is heavily weighed (or at least it's supposed to be). The standards of proof should be no less strict for rape.

"Every man charged is going to proclaim innocence, so unless the woman recants, we can't know if it is false or not. You may presume that a high percentage of women are lying, but it's merely a presumption."

Quite right lovelysoul.

And that is what we call presumption of innocence, arguably THE foundation of every modern legal system.

------------

And because innocence is presumed, in such a case as "date rape" we cannot justifiably charge the accused with a crime, without SERIOUS corraborating evidence. DNA would only prove sexual contact. Significant physical harm to the victim, a record of accusations against the accused, third party eye witness testimony, something that would tip the balance away from reasonable doubt.

If scratches were enough, then I'd be found guilty every time. Fingernails tend to do that when raked over flesh. And as for bruises, strong grip. Same situation. Unless there was a rather sadistic beating or other abuse...its difficult to make any assertion of victimhood. Even in such a case, one must examine history of the alleged victim. It wasn't to long ago a woman in New York accused a man of abusing her, only for it to turn out that not only had she voluntarily gone to him for the very treatment she accused him of, and was free to go at any time, but the reason for her filing charges was that she wanted to get a job as a teacher, and was worried about the moral terpitude clause in her contract if her past "amusements" came to light.

There was a feminist I heard about once who said, "Sex shouldn't leave you looking like you had a boxing match." I and the women with whom I've been would answer in a resounding chorus, "Why the hell not?!"

(Suffice it to say, I'm careful in whom I spend time with, scary looking people are automatically presumed guilty, rightly or not)
----------

The 25% of exonnerations via DNA only exonnerate the sexual contact of that man or men to that particular victim. It does not show that a rape did not occur, only that he did not do it. So a fair number of those women may be actual victims. What percentage...as we've all agreed, its difficult to identify any number accurately.

DNA should be taken at birth and entered into a national database, and linked with a social security number.

We're not there yet. But there will come a time when that is possible. And it would go a LONG way towards identifying perpetrators, victims, and protecting our identities.

Here is some unpleasant food for thought on the subject we've been discussing:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

Lovelysoul, you are offering more obfuscation. Of course we cannot know with absolute certainty what the exact percentage is. That doesn't change the fact that your reasoning for it being lower doesn't make any sense.

We can safely assume it is more than 25%, although the exact figure may be a matter of dispute.

The problem with claiming that the figure is lower than it really is, is that such views may well prejudice a jury and convict the innocent. A juror who is led to believe most rape allegations are true might well weigh this in leaning towards a guilty verdict.

So you can say that you still support the presumption-of-innocence, but you are compromising the wrongly accused nonetheless.

I really don't get the argument that if a woman names the wrong man as her rapist, it doesn't constitute a false allegation. If my car is stolen, and I accuse some random person of stealing it then that person has clearly been falsely accused. The fact that someone else out there is actually guilty is neither here nor there, unless you are arguing over the total number of offenders that exist.

The only difference is that if a woman makes an honest mistake in naming a man as her attacker, she is not guilty of any offense like making a false statement, perverting the course of justice or perjury. But it still counts as a false allegation, in that the man is innocent and the accusation against him was false, even though it may not have been a deliberate lie.

The other thing is that if the victim can't remember with certainty who the attacker was, but just fingers a man she suspects might be the offender but isn't sure, she is still twisting the truth by not being honest that she cannot really be sure.

In any case, this is really splitting hairs. The proportion of rape cases that involve mistaken identity is only relatively small, and so it shouldn't make much difference to the overall percentages. This is normally only an issue with attacks by strangers. But these represent a smaller proportion of rape allegations nowadays, as much of the vast increase in rape allegations over the years has come from cases of date rape, acquaintance rape, relationship rape etc.

Lovelysoul, the reason that the authorities are less likely to intervene in cases of alleged child abuse is simply that abused children do not constitute a noisy, well-resourced and effective interest group that is able to get its own way.

On the other hand, there are plenty of noisy, well-resourced and effective interest groups that have been successful in getting public policy and the law stacked further in favor of women and against men in many areas. It's this thing called "politics".

My sister works in the human services field, and she is constantly dismayed at the number of children who are sent back or allowed to remain with abusive, fucked-up parents, no matter how compelling the evidence. But alas, abused children don't vote or offer large campaign donations.

The only area where child abuse seems to be taken seriously is when it comes to pedophilia and things like child pornography. But that is only because the same noisy interest groups that are out to demonize and criminalize male sexuality suddenly have a dog in the fight. So it is suddenly all about protecting the kids.

Sexual abuse also gets more attention because it appeals to the prurient interests of the MSM-consuming public. Alas, kids being beaten and starved just isn't titillating enough. So it is ignored.

It's one of our society's guilty secrets that we care more about protecting women than protecting children. Truly, this is the mark of a sick, perverted society. And, I hope, something the men's rights movement will do away with.

I imagine the perception of the percentage of women who would do this - purposely, willfully, accuse a man of a rape that did not occur - is colored by our own experience, relations, as well as age.

I'm in my 40s, and I have no female friends that have done this or I believe would do this. None of my current female friends have charged rape at all, though many are out in the dating world.

I, personally, was almost date raped a few years ago by an airline pilot in a parking lot after a first date. I managed to escape from him, make it to my car, and get away.

I didn't report it because a) it was just an attempt, not a completed rape b) I figured no one would believe me - my word against his, and he was a captain for a major airline, clean-cut, etc.
c) I felt somewhat responsible for putting myself in that situation.

Perhaps it's because women my age were still raised in or close to a time when the victim would be "put on trial", as they say, and also we aren't so free and easy with intimacy as younger women are today.

Therefore, my suspicion is that false allegations are probably much higher within certain pockets of the female population. Namely younger women. Women in college and/or younger than 30. They are much more likely to engage in riskier sexual behavior that would put them in such a date rape situation, and still fear parental disapproval, etc, that could lead them to lie.

The percentage of false rape claims among that population of women may be 60%. I have no doubt the percentage would be much higher on college campuses than almost anywhere else.

Still, this doesn't mean that the majority of women would make a false rape claim. That is important for you guys to realize when you discuss this.

How many rape claims are made each year by women under 30? Do they make up the majority of rape charges? If so, then that might support the higher percentage.

NickS, your view of child protection is a bit pessimistic. The difference is that you don't often have a victim old enough or brave enough to tell. And kids get bruises and injuries in normal play. Believe me, when a child SAYS they are abused, their word is treated much like a female rape victim's is.

The problem with that is obviously that most small kids are incapable of lying for personal gain. They have no agenda. Lying about abuse usually gets them nothing but foster care, so it's a safe bet that they won't lie.

This is not true of a grown woman. I believe Robert is correct that proving date rape should require either injuries, corroborating evidence, or history of previous accusations.

That is pretty much the standard for child abuse when there is no victim testimony.

Lovelysoul, I see we are making progress. Although I sometimes have to drag you to the altar, we seem to get there in the end :-)

I think you are right that there is a generational difference, and younger women are more likely to make false rape claims. That is because they have been raised in an environment where such attitudes are encouraged, and a lot of young women are taught that the definition of rape is much broader than what even the law or previous societal norms would dictate.

I'm 31. A lot of guys in my approximate age group came of age during a time when the feminist excesses and male-bashing (especially during the 1990s) were at their worst. As a result, I suspect many of us tend to have a somewhat jaded and cynical attitude towards relations between the sexes.

"I, personally, was almost date raped a few years ago by an airline pilot in a parking lot after a first date. I managed to escape from him, make it to my car, and get away."

I'm not really surprised by this. And I've never claimed that rape is rare. Although the prevalence of rape is nowhere near as common as the feminist propaganda, it is probably more common than some people would like to think.

The thing is that we all have to live in a world where there are a significant number of unscrupulous and even evil people. In one sense, believing that men hardly ever use physical strength to get what they want is just as naive as believing that women don't abuse laws in their favor to get back at men.

Ah, well, that explains the difference of perception. I often forget there are such youngsters on this blog. :)

At 31, you are probably dating women in their 20s, who are decidely different than how I was, or my contemporaries were, at that age.

For one, most women my age wouldn't typically go to a man's home or apt (or dorm room), unless the relationship had reached the point where we were ready to have sex with him.

Of course, there were drunken exceptions to this in college, but, for the most part, we understood that doing that was suggestive of sex.

Now, I think it's different. Young women seem to believe that they can put themselve in such intimate situations as "just friends". I talk to my daughter about this a lot, but it's clear she thinks I'm old-fashioned in my views, which is a constant worry.

Good point about the age breakdown lovelysoul. You may be on to something.