>
Men’s Rights Movement Claim: A high percentage — 40% or more — of rape accusations are false.
The Facts: This claim is dubious. The studies claiming these high numbers have been debunked. Better studies estimate the rate of false accusations as being in the single digits, generally in a range from 2-8%.
Here are some useful posts and papers on the subject. You’ll notice they don’t all agree with one another; It’s a complicated subject.
False Rape Allegations Are Rare (YesMeansYes)
Excerpt:
The reputable, methodologically sound reviews put the frequency of false reports in the single-digit percentages. There are people who, for propaganda reasons, keep saying that the incidence of false reports is much higher. They create these figures with biased reviews or intellectually dishonest mislabeling. … A new study … based on a review of every single rape allegation made to a US university police department — the study does not disclose which school — over a ten year period. The result: 5.9 percent false allegations.
Critique of Eugene Kanin’s Study Of False Rape Reports (Alas, a blog)
Excerpt:
Eugene Kanin famously found that 41%, or perhaps 50%, of rapes reported to police are false. Kanin’s study is both badly designed and unverifiable; more reliable studies have found that between 2% and 8% of rapes reported to police are false reports.
Here’s the Kanin study being discussed. (pdf).
False Allegations Of Rape Not Common – Or Are They? (Alas, a blog)
More on Kanin.
Report on False Reporting Of Non-Stranger Rapes (abyss2hope)
A discussion of a paper that notes:
In the research literature, estimates for the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false have varied widely, virtually across the entire possible spectrum. For example, a very comprehensive review article documented estimates from 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, very few of these estimates are based on research that could be considered credible. Most are reported without the kind of information that would be needed to evaluate their reliability and validity. A few are little more than published opinions, based either on personal experience or a non-systematic review (e.g. of police files, interviews with police investigators, or other information with unknown reliability and validity).
The paper reviews recent research and notes that the most credible studies find “the rate of false reporting for sexual assault is in the range of 2-8%.”
NOTE: the link to the study on abyss2hope is broken. This one works. (It’s a pdf.)
Why it’s so hard to quantify false rape charges, by Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore (Slate)
[I]sn’t the rate of false rape charges an empirical question, with a specific answer that isn’t vulnerable to ideological twisting? Yes and no. There has been a burst of research on this subject. Some of it is careful, but much of it is questionable. While most of the good studies converge at a rate of about 8 percent to 10 percent for false rape charges, the literature isn’t quite definitive enough to stamp out the far higher estimates.
Anti-feminist myths debunked (Pandagon)
Contains an interesting discussion of the Kanin study.
Claims about McDowell’s research into false rape allegations are not credible (Feminist Critics)
Discussion of another study that found a high percentage of false accusations.
Why Women Allegedly Lie About Rape (abyss2hope)
Also discusses McDowell’s Air Force study
The myth of women’s false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders (Michael Flood)
Excerpt:
Myth: Women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence and rape, including to gain advantage in family law cases. And women use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children.
Facts: The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation. Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims. Rates of false accusations of rape are very low. Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort. Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.
Note: I think this paper lowballs the estimate of false rape accusations. See the YesMeansYes article above for what I think is a more reasonable take.
False Allegations, Recantations, and Unfounding in the Context of Sexual Assault, Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force (pdf)
Explains why recantations cannot be taken as definitive proof that an allegation is false.
Because recantation is used so frequently by victims to halt criminal justice involvement, it should never be seen, in and of itself, as indicative of a false report.
Another kind of false allegation:
The myth of false accusations of child abuse (Michael Flood)
Excerpt:
Myth: Women routinely make false accusations of child abuse or domestic violence to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.
Facts: Allegations of child abuse are rare. False allegations are rare; False allegations are made by fathers and mothers at equal rates; The child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence; Allegations of child abuse rarely result in the denial of parental contact.
(Note: Most data cited from Australia.)
An article in the British magazine New Statesman, by Joanna Bourke, Professor of History at Birkbeck and author of Rape: A History from the 1860s to the Present (Virago, 2007). Excerpt:
[W]hat is the risk of an accused man being falsely accused of rape? Popular prejudices estimate that around half of rape victims are lying, but a major Home Office research project in 2000-2003 concluded that only three per cent of rape allegations were false. Indeed, contrary to the notion that men are at risk of being falsely accused, it is much more common for actual rapists to get away with their actions. Around four-fifths of rapes are never reported to the police. And only five per cent of rapes reported to the police ever end in a conviction. This is the lowest attrition rate of any country in Europe, except for Ireland.
None of this is to say that people aren’t falsely accused — of rape, and of other crimes — or falsely convicted. They are, and it’s a tragedy. Here are two groups that advocate for the the falsely accused and falsely convicted:
The National Center for Reason and Justice
NOTE: I have added text and links to this post since I originally posted it.
>@Tec:I already cited a study earlier in this thread — a government study — which revealed that between 85 and 99 percent of rape cases fail to reach a conviction. This means that when they were properly investigated, there may not have been sufficient evidence to make an arrest or to issue an indictment. It also means that a portion of the cases that went to trial failed to reach a guilty verdict. Does it not occur to you that the insufficient evidence may in fact point to an epidemic of false allegations? It should be harder to convict an innocent defendant, precisely because the lack of evidence points to their innocence! In my state (California), however, feminists have addressed this by making it legal for a mere accusation to be all that is necessary to (A) arrest, (B) indict, and (C) convict a suspect of the crime of rape. So on the one extreme, the low conviction rate for rape indicates too many innocent defendants are getting caught up in the Web of accusation. On the other extreme, those defendants who do go all the way to trial are there precisely because the laws have been changed to lower the legal threshold to convict — and still juries see through the ruse and acquit the defendant.Please spare me your holier-than-thou invective. You're an enemy of justice if you want even more people to be convicted based on a requirement of even less evidence.
>@John"Feminists (including feminists who are writing reports for the government) claim that the rate of false allegations is in the "single digits," as David suggests. There is simply no way to extrapolate from solely the most obvious fabrications that these are the only false allegations out there, and yet feminists make the erroneous claim anyway that false allegations are in the single digits. It is not erroneous to use logic to reject such erroneous feminist dogma. "Actually, if you'd read the study, you'd be able to answer your own question. To bad you're too lazy to bother. It went by the specific legal definition for being a false allegation. But the majority of cases (59%) didn't go to further prosecution, only those where there was sufficient evidence to proceed. Even if you accept Kanin's study that 40% of rapes allegations are false, there is still a gaping hole between rapes occured and rapes prosecuted.
>@Tec:"Even if you accept Kanin's study that 40% of rapes allegations are false, there is still a gaping hole between rapes occured and rapes prosecuted."1. Kanin's study revealed that a significant portion of the rape allegations in his sample were fabricated. In his sample. Let's do more such studies, and ask accusers after the statute of limitations for illegally making false statements has expired, and let's find out just how many recantations are made. To do so would require a complete and utter rejection of feminist political correctness, which inhibits further objective inquiry.2. If there's a "gaping hole" between rapes occurred and rapes prosecuted, as you claim, how do you know this? What crystal ball do you have which incontrovertibly demonstrates that rapes are going unpunished? What credible studies indicate a large portion of suspected perpetrators recanting their assertions of innocence?
>@Tec:"Actually, if you'd read the study, you'd be able to answer your own question. To bad you're too lazy to bother. It went by the specific legal definition for being a false allegation. But the majority of cases (59%) didn't go to further prosecution, only those where there was sufficient evidence to proceed."You think that I was "too lazy" to read the study that I cited? You obviously don't know me. I read the studies that I cite. And the information that I pointed out from the study that I cited is reflected in that study just as I cited it. Were you too lazy to read the conclusion that I made because of the data from that study?85-99 percent of rape allegations (which had to have been investigated on some level in order to be counted in a government report as allegations) fail to reach a conviction. That fact is borne out in the report that I cited. The report does use its own definition for fabricated allegation, and I don't dispute that (nor have I so far in this thread, which you should have known if you were paying attention). But just because they didn't identify a higher number of fabricated allegations doesn't mean that the fabricated allegations, or inaccurate-but-sincere allegations, don't exist in the larger percentage of cases that were investigated but not deemed fabricated.Yes, I did read the study. I do read all of the studies that I cite. I also contact the study authors and even have met a few of them in person, in order to understand the study's findings more thoroughly. You should consider exercising greater discretion before making an unproven allegation like that. Of course, you must think that you were right to say I lazily ignored the study that I cited, merely because you were pointing the accusing finger in my direction. In my opinion, it does reflect your mentality insofar as the veracity of rape allegations in general are concerned.
>"I read the studies that I cite."I don't doubt that. But you dismiss those which disagree with your ideology, and ignore the methodological flaws of those that you do decide to believe — like Kanin's.
>@David Futrelle:"I don't doubt that. But you dismiss those which disagree with your ideology, and ignore the methodological flaws of those that you do decide to believe — like Kanin's."Would you care to point out the methodological flaws in Kanin's study for the first time so far, David? All you have said about that study is that it is "methodologically flawed," and linked to Amptoons (a feminist Web site) and other feminists as support. You yourself haven't explored the supposed methodological flaws of Kanin's study or any study about rape. It's as though you haven't read the studies which you criticize as unsound; if you have read them, then why do you let your cheering squad do your talking for you?And you accuse me of dismissing studies which "disagree with [my] ideology?" Please point out how I have disagreed with credible and methodologically sound studies! Is my adherence to the scientific method somehow methodologically "unsound" whenever it disconfirms the ideology of feminism? It seems to me that you believe so. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
>I think we all learned from your debate with Paul Elam that you don't show jack about what constitutes proper methodology.
>David,You asked: "However, Actually, RB (and anyone else) let me ask you one question:1. Most rapists are never jailed for their crimes. What protections and or laws have MRAs tried to legislate for, not say they agree with, or claim they would be for, but ACTUALLY pushed for in order to make sure these rapists are punished for their crimes? Why do MRAs seem to think that it is okay that most rapes go unpunished?"This seems like spin and not an honest attempt to answer or rebut, and your premise about most rapist never being punished for their crimes if faulty, IMHO. However, to answer the meat of your question regarding MRA'S pushing for more laws that punish rapists the answer is most do not. There are no laws or protections that are pushed for by MRA'S, that I know of, to ensure that rapists are punished for their crimes. The reason for this is that most rapists are punished if the crime is reported. Not much more than that can be done without leaning heavily to a standard of guilty until proven innocent.Remember the MRM is a movement about, in part, responding to feminst oversteps. Like the one here which claims that the current standards of evidence are not sufficient, so a new standard based on soley a woman's word should replace the old standards. People used to have the right to face their accuser, but feminsts have stopped that in the name of helping women. Any more legal steps in the direction that feminist want threatens to (if it hasn't already) completely subvert objective justice. The law should not be "trust women," it should trust evidence. Random Brother
>Tec said: "Overall trends? Like women being the majority of rape victims? (eye rolls)You MRAs engage in such mind boggling doublethink sometimes… or rather all the time."What doublethink? This portion of you post makes no sense to me. Or is this just snark in lieu of a cogent argument?I will ignore the statistics portion of you post because it will just devolve into a statistic war with you claiming my side's facts are BS and vice versa. My question to you is based on your statement here:Tec said: "And of course, that's only taking into account reported rapes."If a woman does not report a rape what can be done about it? My take is next to nothing. If feminists want to truly stop rape or more realisticly reduce rape, as stopping it is not possible, and not just bash men, then they should try to encourage behaviors that do not put women at risk, instead of demanding the justice system become an evidence free zone. By feminists supporting obviously false rape claims, ie Duke, it tends to make men cynical about the legitimate rapes. In other words you are defeating your own cause. Random Brother
>If false accusations weren't a problem there would be no studies recording high %'s of women recanting and admitting that the accusation was false, no large movement, containing may victims of false accusations advocating for the rights of the falsely accused, no statements from the police in the media about false reporting epidemics, no studies showing that its a common tactic for abusive women to use or threaten to use against their partner, no perception that a lot of accusations are false.Of course, feminists magical thinking explains all this away as something akin to the devil deceiving us.
>Feminist rape rape propaganda is responsible for the myth that the conviction rate for rape is lower than that for other crimes, they measure the attrition rate against the conviction rate and then measure that against the conviction rates of crime that actually go to trial which effectually tells rape victims that there is little point in perusing justice which in turn increases the ratio of false reports v's genuine reports in the system.Feminist rape myth is responsible for drink spiking hysteria, no study has shown drink spiking to be close to a significant problem or trend with the overwhelming majority of women reporting having been spikes showing nothing more than the alcohol and drugs that they had taken themselves.Feminist rape myths both victimize genuine female rape victims and suppress politically incorrect victims of sex crimes.
>Sandy thank you for your response. I agree with most of it espeically the point about drug laws and better training for police. However there are a couple of points of disagreement I have with you. Firstly, where you said: "Sentencing must be determined on a case by case basis based on: 1. The circumstances of the crime. 2. The criminals prior convictions. 3. Harm to the victim. Rigid sentencing guidelines have caused serious problems throughout the criminal justice system."I realize the damage rigid sentencing has done, but I also worry that in this scenario people who make false rape claims will be given a slap on the wrist rather than a legitimate sentence that deters other people from doing the same. Secondly, you state: "Rape is a violent crime committed for a variety of reasons. Sometimes power is involved."I agree with this whole heartedly. I only wish the memo would get to the many feminists who constantly scream rape is about power, and who miss that there are other factors.Lastly, you state this: "No, the fact that women are raped in no way suggests that women are at fault for being raped. Men are much more likely to be victims of assault: that does not mean the assault is the fault of the victim due to some sort of typical male behavior."I'm not saying at fault, but engaging in activity which raises probability of being seen as a target. I could walk through a tough neighborhood at night, drunk, with $100 bills falling out of my pockets and screaming "Gang members are all punks!" and if I were mugged I would not be at fault, the people who mugged me should be punished, but at the same time, a better course of action should be suggested to me.Other than that we pretty much agree, again Thank you.Random Brother
>Sandy it doesn't appear that that women are more likely to by victimized by sex crime.The FBI report that 30% of rapes are of males.Studies show that 1 in 6 boys have been raped. Self reporting studies show that men and women are raped in roughly equal numbers.The available information shows female sex abuses exist in relevant numbers too (not that the sex of the perp. should in anyway prejudice the victim in the first place, but it does in the minds of feminists)Gendered rape would appear to be another feminist abuse construct.
>@John Dias, you have absolutely no understanding of how the US legal system works, do you? 1) US prosecutors have wide prosecutorial discretion (you claimed to be living CA, so I am addressing the US). In most districts, the only thing preventing a prosecutor from just not taking any cases to trial is being voted out of office. The US has far more prosecutorial discretion than other developed countries, so, if your notion were true, the US should be seeing the least trials in this matter. 2)The high burden of proof in the US criminal system is designed to make convictions hard. The vast majority of cases taken to criminal trial do not result in conviction. A criminal trial jury does not find the defendent innocent, it finds that the state has failed to show its claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Failing to convict does not demonstrate that either a victim lied, policer officer did an improper investigation, etc., it just means that the jury thought the prosecutor did not prove all of the elements of the crime BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This is a system specifically designed to prioritize minimizing false convictions over ensuring jailing of actual criminals. 3)The rates of rape victims who have been successfully criminally charged for false reporting is incredibly low as well, as is the rate of victims loosing civil case which have a much lower burden of proof.4) Defendents have no legal burden in criminal cases, ever, under the US system. A person accused of rape criminally does not have to show that they did not commit a rape. They do not have to show anything. If the jury thinks the prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, has not met his burden, then the defendent wins, even if they have not put on any case at all. It is, in fact, permissible for the defense to not put on a case in chief at all (it does not usually happen, because they often want to try to further contradict the prosecutor's evidence or experts).5) Due Process still applies in rape cases, as in all criminal cases. Rape Sheild laws do not violate this, they simply change the presumption regarding relevance with regards to the victim's sexual history. There are rules about what evidence is permissible in a trial. One of those rules says that all evidence has to be relevant. Another says that the evidence may not be substantially more prejudicial than probative. What rape shield laws do is count the victim's past sexual history as automatically not relevant and automatically more prejudicial than probative unless the defense can show otherwise. All the defendent has to do is show the judge that the specific instance in the victim's past is stronger as evidence than it is at unfairly prejudicing the jury. Guess what, all other evidence has to meet this standard too, including evidence from other witnesses. Rape sheild laws exist to fix a problem with evidentiary rules being underapplied in regards to certain victims, most of them do not actually impose a higher burden than a non-biased or federal court would be imposing to begin with. The defendant has even more protection against mentioning their past. Even if the defendent had been convicted of rape before, this would often not be allowed in court. The laws defending the defendent's past from scrutiny are far stricter than any rape sheild laws.
>BTW, here in Ireland the all female rape and sexual assault task force was disbanded because they were answering a ridiculously high number of false accusations.Here is some go info from the UK on how they make it appear as if rape have a poor conviction rate.How the panic over rape was orchestratedTAGS: VIOLENCE, HOME OFFICE, CRIMEFor years the Home Office and the former Lord Chancellor’s Department have misled the media about rape statistics – and allowed the media to misinform the public.Anxiety has grown as a result of the apparent increase in rape offences and the inability to successfully prosecute offenders. Women have been needlessly alarmed for their safety, when the actual threat is much smaller than has been pretended. Congratulations, therefore, to the Radio 4 programme More or Less and its reporter Ruth Alexander, who have put into the public domain what some advisers engaged by Whitehall committees have known for some time. This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda. Since 1999 the Home Office has known that its methods for calculating rape convictions are wrong. The real conviction rate is not the publicly broadcast 10 per cent but closer to 50 per cent (it varies slightly from year to year). In a Minority Report (1) which I wrote for a Home Office committee in 2000 but which advisers refused to forward to ministers who were then actively considering new rape legislation, the HO were told that they were confusing ‘attrition’ rates with ‘conviction’ rates. The attrition rate refers to the number of convictions secured compared with the number of that particular crime reported to the police (it must be noted that a crime that is ‘reported’ does not automatically imply that the crime actually took place). The conviction rate refers to the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence. Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. Why? The question is best addressed to Betty Moxon who, in 2000, was head of the Sex Offenders Review Team (SORT) for whom I wrote the minority report. In the most recent edition of More or Less, broadcast last Friday and still available as a podcast, Ruth Alexander questioned why rape has been made an exception. Referring to a new report soon to be published by London Metropolitan University she said it claimed that Britain had the worst record in Europe for rape convictions. Over recent years, she said, the report showed that the conviction rate had fallen from 10 per cent to 6.5 per cent. rest here… http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestrated
>DarkSideCat said… @John Dias, you have absolutely no understanding of how the US legal system works, do you? About the same, what DarkSideCat is asking me all the time…However DarkSideCat's explications are not complete, as they are missing to mention legal fees. Legal fees play a highly important part of the US-legal system. It is the most expensive legal system in this world.Women claiming to be raped (whatever 'rape' might mean in USA) will get assistance free of charge, while accused men find their accounts being locked, might find themselves in jail and have seriously problems to defend themselves.If you look through cases of the Innocent Project, you will find men convicted of rape, for a crime they did not commit. Most of these men were clearly indigent when convicted and unable to continue to defend themselves.Who pays for your lawyers and experts to prove that you are innocent and these allegations against you are wrong? The Duke case is estimated with USD 5,- million for legal defense fees, and these men were lucky, as theywere students out of rich families.On the other side, what happens with the accuser, if it turns out nevertheless that such allegations were fabricated by a malicious woman because of her bad mood? As we see again with the Duke case … nothing.
>At least in Europe female politicians see 'false rape allegations' less biased against men than David and his US-feminist co-horts…Please study the following article from UK:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.htmlHarriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday. The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks. The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction. …..Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.
>Eoghan said… If false accusations weren't a problem …They are a problem – wordwide.The question is however, how to deal with these accusations. In US, false rape allegations are not really seen to be a crime, with the argument, they are 'rare' – But is a 'rare crime' not a crime?Such argument sounds like an excuse by feminists, but if a crime is rare or frequent is not relevant, it is still a crime.Same in UK:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493352/Woman-falsely-cried-rape-EIGHT-times-spared-jail.htmlA woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail.Gemma Gregory, 28, accused seven different men over a six-year period.Former boyfriends were subjected to police questioning and DNA testing to clear their names.Her fantasy stories also wasted huge amounts of police time.What said David? The conviction rate for rapists is so low? So tell me what should the judge do in such a case? To convict innocent men for crimes which never took place?BTW, the conviction rate for 'rare' false rape allegations is also low, too low…just my opinion.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328986/Teenager-cried-rape-cheating-boyfriend-ex-partner.htmlAgain, and again, every day, but David is telling us, false rape allegations are so rare.A teenager who cheated with her ex-boyfriend has been jailed for 12 months – for falsely claiming he raped her….When asked why she did it, she told police: 'Because I'd just had enough of him, because every time I got a boyfriend he still wanted sex with me and everything like that.'
>Best headline in gender politics of last week goes to The Spearhead."Imaginary Mass Rape Drugging Prompts Drink Ban"http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/11/imaginary-mass-rape-drugging-prompts-drink-ban/
>@DarkSideCat (comments paraphrased below):1. "U.S. prosecutors have wide prosecutorial discretion, more than other developed countries"U.S. prosecutors are also under the direction of the lead prosecutor, the District Attorney, who has to convince voters that he or she is "tough on crime." It's the "lock 'em up" mentality of U.S. prosecutors (and lawmakers) that explains why 2 million males are in U.S. prisons, a higher percentage of the population than in any other country. Not only is there a strong political incentive to indict, but also there is a major disadvantage to poorer defendants who have to rely on overburdened and under-aggressive public defenders.2. "U.S. convictions are difficult to achieve because of the high burden of proof; beyond a reasonable doubt"Convictions are also difficult to achieve when the jury sees through the accuser's bogus accusations. That's one reason why the conviction rate for rape in Europe is less than half that of the U.S. In Sweden, only 1 percent of all rape cases result in a conviction.3. "Although false accusers are rarely charged with a crime, they are more often successfully sued"And to you this is justice? If the defendant had been convicted of criminal charges, he would have gone to prison and probably been violently raped or otherwise assaulted. In my opinion, a fabricated criminal charge by a false rape accuser should absolutely result in a criminal charge as well as a civil suit against the false accuser, and this should occur more often than it currently does.
>@DarkSideCat, continued (comments paraphrased below):4. "Defendants in the U.S. don't have to prove innocence, but prosecutors have to prove guilt"That's not always true. In some rape cases, the issue boils down to a completely subjective matter of the alleged victim's consent. Although it is not legally required of them, it is often necessary for defendants in rape cases to assert an "affirmative defense," i.e. proving that consent was obtained by the defendant, in order to have the strongest chances of acquittal. A strain of feminism known as "Legal Dominance Feminism" is trying to change the laws so that in rape cases, the definition of consent is radicalized. Source:"The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim'"By E. Greer33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdfBased on the above source, here is my summary of the various definitions of rape, from the non-radical to the (feminist-inspired) most radical:1. Non-radical: Force overcoming all-out resistanceRape has occurred when force is used against the explicit objections and physical resistance by a rape victim.2. Slightly radical: Non-compliance with verbal objectionsRape has occurred when the victim says "no" but otherwise doesn't resist or try to escape. Also known as date rape.3. Radical: Lack of explicit verbal consentRape has occurred because the perpetrator didn't get the victim to explicitly agree to sex prior to the onset of sexual activity (i.e. the lack of a "yes" constitutes a "no").4. Very radical: Lack of mental consentRape has occurred because the victim didn't consent in her mind. Provides the pretext for prosecutions based on retroactive non-consent.5. "Even if an alleged rape victim's history is rendered inadmissible and considered irrelevant, defendants still have plenty of due process"That's your subjective opinion, and I disagree with it. The jury should have all of the facts. If an accuser has a pattern of making false allegations of rape, in my opinion that should be made known to the jury. Also, I also believe that the more promiscuous a person is, and the more outrageously so, the more likely it will be for them to justify their behavior by claiming that it was all against their will. We saw that in the Hofstra case, where the false accuser engaged in group sex and called it rape in order to prevent her boyfriend from acknowledging her act of cheating. I personally disagree with laws that consider the motivations to falsely accuse — and the related circumstances — to somehow be irrelevant. It's all completely relevant in my view.6. "@John Dias, you have absolutely no understanding of how the US legal system works, do you?"Translation: I do not share your values or political beliefs, and therefore I must somehow be ignorant. Consider your premise rejected!
>TEC: As abyss2hope points out several times, the only way to prevent false/wrongful convictions as well as ensure rightful convictions is proper investigation of the rape claim. I admire all these police investigators who are doing a good job.The problem however remains the same. What to do with a malicious woman, who is producing false rape allegations?See below, 40 false rape allegations, probably world record. And what will happen to this woman?Answer: Nothing…Anonymity for life. You think this is right?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127303/BBC-personality-40-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriend.html…..accused him of raping her 40 times throughout their two-and-a-half-year relationship. He was arrested, held in a police cell and handcuffed as police searched his flat for evidence of his crime. But she retracted her allegation weeks later, and the officer investigating the claims described them as 'inconsistent' and 'not credible'. Despite the lack of evidence, the incident remains on the Police National Computer thanks to a legal loophole, which campaigners say is blighting the lives of falsely accused men.Even if the 'victim' withdraws their allegation, it will show up under enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks that are undertaken regularly on people who apply for jobs with employers such as the NHS or schools. It will also prevent them from travelling to the United States.The boyfriend cannot be identified to protect his accuser's anonymity, but wants to make his case public.
>I'm confused about your definition of a false allegation of rape. Do cases of mistaken identity fall under your definition of false allegations, or are you only referring to accusations that are maliciously false?
>racingthoughtThe definition of a false accuser thats used in the studies that the mens moment point to is a rape accuser that goes on the record to admit that the accusation was false. Her motive is recorded too.