Metro: One Third Believe Flirtatious Women 'Ask' for Rape

[willman 10]

could be.

i didn't quite understand where the figures related.

however how would you feel if being one of the 39 you were invited for questioning re:rape before they decided the claims were fraudulent.

unfortunately you only have to be accused of such a terrible crime to be interviewed before being arrested.

[evildrneil 14]

Originally posted by banesmabes

From an official Home Office report published this year:

 

"False allegations have been one of the most contested areas within law enforcement responses to rape, with research suggesting rates are no higher than for other crimes sitting alongside perceptions of police officers and the media who take the opposite view. Some of the most frequently cited US studies put the rate as low as two per cent (Katz and Mazur, 1979).

 

The Katz and Mazur book of 1979 (Understanding the Rape Victim) was actually a review book rather than a study per-se and reported the range of previous findings from one and 25 per-cent false allegations. The two percent cited is more usually attributed to a 1993 book (Rape, the Misunderstood Crime) by Allison and Wrightsman which again is a review book rather than an original study and also reports a wide a range of previous findings.

 

The studies by Eugene Kanin (over the period 1978 to 1987) were original and peer reviewed investigations and found 41 precent of reported rapes in a midwestern city and 50 percent of collegiate rapes reported to campus police were later found to be false. While these numbers strike me as rather on the high side (8-ish percent looks more likely to my niave eye) I'm not sure they can be dismissed by refereance to the review books that as stated above found a wide range of values for false reporting.

 

There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent; as a proportion of the 1,817 cases not proceeding beyond the police stage it is 12 per cent (see Table 4.2). In only six of these cases was there evidence of anyone being arrested, and in only two cases were charges laid, although there were at least 39 named suspects. "

 

So it seems the police are pretty effective at weedling out any false claims as only 2 out of 216 false allegations were charges actually brought.

 

What you were saying earlier was false allegations NOT trials. The eight percent false allegations (which is the number the FBI quotes as well) is actually around four times the the level of false allegations for other crimes.

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by willman

could be.

i didn't quite understand where the figures related.

however how would you feel if being one of the 39 you were invited for questioning re:rape before they decided the claims were fraudulent.

unfortunately you only have to be accused of such a terrible crime to be interviewed before being arrested.

 

i'm not sure where you're going, the police obviously have a duty to investigate up until it turns out (in 8% of cases) that the allegation was false.

If you read some of the comments by the police included in that report it's clear that they think that a lot higher proportion are false than is born out by the evidence, which may well lead to them dismissing genuine complaints as false ones.

[willman 10]

i wasnt trying to go anywhere.

 

i just think that if the accused is named then the accuser should be, to hopefully prevent some of the false accusations that's all.

may not be relevant but what the heck, i tried anyway.

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by willman

i wasnt trying to go anywhere.

 

i just think that if the accused is named then the accuser should be, to hopefully prevent some of the false accusations that's all.

may not be relevant but what the heck, i tried anyway.

 

named to the media? I don't see why both names couldn't be kept out of it at least until the cps decide whether to bring charges or not.

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by willman

but there were 39 named suspects who would have been interviewed etc.

216 men have been accused or alleged to have perpetrated rape (8%) and only 6 people arrested. Is that the accused or accuser?

6 out of 216 is only 3%,so they're obviously not pursuing the malicious accusers.

 

what state do you think there home life was in at the time or the mental anguish innocent men went through.

if any one is accused & documented(all documents are leakable) then the accuser should be named.

 

The number arrested refers to the number of men arrested as a result of the rape allegations. What would naming the acuser achieve? Don't you think it would compromise their future safety?

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

the way I understand it (and i did open the report for a quick read). There would have been 39 men interviewed as the others from the group didn't name a suspect, thus there was no one to interview.

 

In 2 cases files were passed to the CPS regarding the complainant with regards to trying to pervert the cause of justice and/or wasting police time.

 

It also doesn't follow that all 39 men were arrested (although i'll admit they may well have been). It's possible though that some of the allegations were withdrawn or determined to be false before it even reached that stage!

 

The numbers refer to the number of men arrested and charged as a result of the false allegations, not the number of women later questioned or charged in relation to them. So 6 out of the 39 named men were arrested, and two were charged as a result.

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by evildrneil

 

 

What you were saying earlier was false allegations NOT trials. The eight percent false allegations (which is the number the FBI quotes as well) is actually around four times the the level of false allegations for other crimes.

 

But is significantly less than 41%, and it seems the police are pretty good at identifying when the allegations are false with less that 1% of false rape allegations actually resulting in a man being charged.

 

I think we need to get this in perspective here. A man is much less likely to be charged with a rape that was a false accusation than a woman is to be raped. Maybe we need to be a little less concerned with this and more concerned with what can be done to decrease the incidence of rape? Again, this is another example of where the debate goes off at a tangent at the expense of the more pressing issues. As I stated before men need to understand and try to overcome their fears about false rape claims in order to tackle the real issues.

[evildrneil 14]

Originally posted by banesmabes

But is significantly less than 41%, and it seems the police are pretty good at identifying when the allegations are false with less that 1% of false rape allegations actually resulting in a man being charged.

 

But considerabley more than the 'same as for any other crime' claim originally made. And, as stated above, these are the result of independant peer reviewed studies and as such aren't that easy to simply dismiss...

 

Maybe we need to be a little less concerned with this and more concerned with what can be done to decrease the incidence of rape?

 

I think we should be very concerned about this. Even taking the much more conservative vale of 8 per-cent false charges it is obvious that more malicious accusations are being made in respect to rape than other crimes which has the two-fold effect of a) being pretty horrific for the man being falsely accused and b) decreasing the likelihood of true accusations of rape being dealt with properly because it will be easier to produce an argument of "the numbers show women make malicious accusations to get there own back / cover up / whatever" where there is no or limited evidence of rape other than the word of one person agains another.

 

I think in the case of rape both accused and accuser should be anonymous untill and unless there is a court conviction as I tend to think that this would vastly reduce the likelihood of malicious accusations.

[SatanInHeels 10]

Originally posted by willman

i just think that if the accused is named then the accuser should be, to hopefully prevent some of the false accusations that's all.

even if that would stop false accusations wouldnt it stop people who have got genuine complaints to make too.. I wouldnt even report what heppened to me cause i didnt want ANYONE to know.. never mind EVERYONE! Perhaps just both remaining anonymous until a conviction is made.. ?

[willman 10]

Originally posted by SatanInHeels

even if that would stop false accusations wouldnt it stop people who have got genuine complaints to make too.. I wouldnt even report what heppened to me cause i didnt want ANYONE to know.. never mind EVERYONE! Perhaps just both remaining anonymous until a conviction is made.. ?

 

that would be beneficial i agree, just can't understand why only women have anonymity at the moment.

or has it always been that way?

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by evildrneil

But considerabley more than the 'same as for any other crime' claim originally made. And, as stated above, these are the result of independant peer reviewed studies and as such aren't that easy to simply dismiss...

 

A study that is not backed up by police statistics. Also, am I correct in thinking the sample was much lower than the Home Office study above, and the study was in another country?

 

Originally posted by evildrneil I think we should be very concerned about this. Even taking the much more conservative vale of 8 per-cent false charges it is obvious that more malicious accusations are being made in respect to rape than other crimes which has the two-fold effect of a) being pretty horrific for the man being falsely accused and b) decreasing the likelihood of true accusations of rape being dealt with properly because it will be easier to produce an argument of "the numbers show women make malicious accusations to get there own back / cover up / whatever" where there is no or limited evidence of rape other than the word of one person agains another.

 

I think in the case of rape both accused and accuser should be anonymous untill and unless there is a court conviction as I tend to think that this would vastly reduce the likelihood of malicious accusations. [/b]

 

But the police are effective at weedling out these accusations and that's the main thing. We cannot let fear of false rape accusations stop us from making reforms that will actually serve justice to the victims of rape, but unfortunately they often do (I wonder if this is because the main decision makers in what reforms to make are usually men?).

 

I know we all have biases in favour of our own sex, but I think the plight of 60,000 rape victims per year is slightly more concerning that 2 men being charged (and I think we can safely assume NOT convicted as they are counted in the false accusations category) with a rape that never happened.

 

We musn't let 216 stupid women ruin justice for the 60,000 others who ARE genuine (most of which don't even report the rape because they fear they won't be taken seriously due to this misguided assumption that a large number of rape allegations are false).

 

Perhaps in conjunction with reforms to increase the chance of gaining a successful conviction and at encouraging more women to report when they have been raped there should be more prosecutions of women who bring false allegations to help counterbalance the effect? The press do need to be responsible when reporting these cases though - they often gain more coverage than successful rape convictions, even though other perverting the course of justice charges bring little media attention (which obviously doesn't help with the perception of the prevalence of malicious rape claims).

 

I do agree (as I stated in a previous post) that men accused of rape should remain anonymous until conviction. I see no reason why this should not be the case - if that means less false accusations are made then that is a bonus.