Basically they have 3 problems with it: it assumes 1 rape per rapist (clearly false, and overestimates the number of rapists), it (probably) overestimates the number of unreported rapes, and funnily enough, it may overestimate the number of false allegations!
I'm always interested when the "but false allegations are rare" thing comes up. It's true, of course, but what does that mean? Are we supposed to not give alleged rapists the presumption of innocence in the courts? Should we not be reporting false reports in the media? I'm never quite sure what the logical extension is...
Oops, sorry, my mistake - obviously the Slate article is critiquing the US version of this graphic, not the NZ version. I don't know if the criticisms would apply to the one above also...
ChundaMars - I don't know whether that particular critique applies to the NZ graphic (I would guess it does, but perhaps someone can confirm), but there are one or two issues with it.
In part, the graphic is comparing the incidence of two types of crime: rape, and the making of false allegations of rape. Unfortunately, it applies different standards to assessing whether there has been a rape, and assessing whether there has been a false complaint of rape.
In short, it is not comparing like with like.
If the graphic applied the same standard that is uses to determine that there has been a false complaint of rape, to determining that there has been a rape, then the number of rapes would drop below 20.
Chunda - nope NZ graphic is comparing sexual offences (which may or not be perpetrated by one person) - as the research it uses says. Graeme - how did you get that figure? It makes no sense that I can see at all. The vast majority of sexual offences on this graphic are not "reported" to anyone, so the idea they might be false is ridiculous. Why would someone tell a crime researcher for the NZ Crime and Safety Survey that they had experienced a forced sexual experience, when that information is collected as part of a series of questions on experiences of crime? There are problems with taking the "False Allegation" figure at face value too, discussed in the Facebook page. Unfortunately, the "standard" applied to that in the research this graphic is based on is simply "did the Police record this as likely to be false". We know in NZ that sometimes those complaints turn out, on subsequent investigation, to be perpetrated by rapists who rape many other women (eg Malcolm Rewa) or to be "difficult" victims, rather than necessarily making a false complaint. But that's the figures we have.
As I said, the graphic is comparing two crimes: rape, and making a false claim of rape to the police.
It assumes that a rape has occurred whenever someone says they have been raped (including to police, but not necessarily).
It assumes that the making a false rape allegation has occurred only if someone tells police that they have been falsely accused of rape, and only if police investigate that claim, and only if police then conclude that this has occurred and have enough evidence to charge someone with making a false allegation (although a charge need not eventuate, a warning also suffices, or another reason for not laying a charge, for example the mental state of the complainant).
The standards used to determine whether to two crimes have occurred are vastly different. If the same test was applied to both, by using the standard this graphic uses to determine that a false allegation had occurred to also determining whether a rape had occurred, then:
rapes not reported to police wouldn't count. and rapes police don't find enough evidence to charge someone wouldn't count.
This would reduce the number of rapes in the graphic to below 20.
In short, the assumption this graphic uses is that every allegation of rape is true unless proved false to the satisfaction of police, but that every allegation of a false complaint of rape is false, unless the contrary is proved.
To me, the logical extension is a cultural (not legal) change - that we take rape complainants at their word rather than automatically doubting women based on the rare instance of false allegations (which seems to happen any time there is a high profile rape case). You can support a victim in their experience without immediately assuming the guilt of the alleged perpetrator.
I'd also point out there are some (minor) differences in US law vs NZ law.
As an example, if you are a counsellor in New York and you have sex with one of your clients it is a statutory rape, while here in NZ it is considered "unethical".
In addition to this the graphic/data assumes everyone surveyed understands every single type of rape. Only a couple of weeks ago I corrected a wife who still thought her husband couldn't rape her because they were married.
My point is that there are many ways in which a person can be raped and how many of those surveyed felt they could adequately identify rape situations? I think if we ran a quiz most people would get questions incorrect. We SHOULD do just that to help educate people that rape isn't always a stranger with a knife in a dark alley, in fact it hardly ever is.
Graeme: "It assumes that the making a false rape allegation has occurred only if someone tells police that they have been falsely accused of rape, and only if police investigate that claim, and only if police then conclude that this has occurred and have enough evidence to charge someone with making a false allegation (although a charge need not eventuate, a warning also suffices, or another reason for not laying a charge, for example the mental state of the complainant)."
That isn't true and I don't know where you can your information.
False complaints are counted as ones the police believe are false due to various reasons (conflicting stories, alibi of the person claimed to be rapist, etc), and those that the victim withdraws. So it just needs to be recorded by police as false, not necessarily proved as such.
Both of these factors mean the number of false complaints are likely to be over-stated because police culture is synonymous with rape culture in a lot of ways.
Not to forget that lots of people who make false complaints are only lying about ONE aspect of their attack. For example, saying they were sober or something so they don't get battered with victim-blaming. If the police then find out the victim was drunk it is liable to be recorded as a false complaint EVEN IF THE RAPE DID HAPPEN, JUST NOT EXACTLY HOW THE VICTIM CLAIMED.
To summarise: stop commenting on a subject you clearly know nothing about.
12 comments:
Oh wow. I need to bookmark this to show to any 'but what about the false complaints?' malarkey whenever we dare to talk about rape statistics.
I was just reading a critique of this graphic on Slate.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/08/the_enliven_project_s_false_rape_accusations_infographic_great_intentions.html
Basically they have 3 problems with it: it assumes 1 rape per rapist (clearly false, and overestimates the number of rapists), it (probably) overestimates the number of unreported rapes, and funnily enough, it may overestimate the number of false allegations!
I'm always interested when the "but false allegations are rare" thing comes up. It's true, of course, but what does that mean? Are we supposed to not give alleged rapists the presumption of innocence in the courts? Should we not be reporting false reports in the media? I'm never quite sure what the logical extension is...
Oops, sorry, my mistake - obviously the Slate article is critiquing the US version of this graphic, not the NZ version. I don't know if the criticisms would apply to the one above also...
ChundaMars - I don't know whether that particular critique applies to the NZ graphic (I would guess it does, but perhaps someone can confirm), but there are one or two issues with it.
In part, the graphic is comparing the incidence of two types of crime: rape, and the making of false allegations of rape. Unfortunately, it applies different standards to assessing whether there has been a rape, and assessing whether there has been a false complaint of rape.
In short, it is not comparing like with like.
If the graphic applied the same standard that is uses to determine that there has been a false complaint of rape, to determining that there has been a rape, then the number of rapes would drop below 20.
Chunda - nope NZ graphic is comparing sexual offences (which may or not be perpetrated by one person) - as the research it uses says.
Graeme - how did you get that figure? It makes no sense that I can see at all. The vast majority of sexual offences on this graphic are not "reported" to anyone, so the idea they might be false is ridiculous. Why would someone tell a crime researcher for the NZ Crime and Safety Survey that they had experienced a forced sexual experience, when that information is collected as part of a series of questions on experiences of crime?
There are problems with taking the "False Allegation" figure at face value too, discussed in the Facebook page. Unfortunately, the "standard" applied to that in the research this graphic is based on is simply "did the Police record this as likely to be false". We know in NZ that sometimes those complaints turn out, on subsequent investigation, to be perpetrated by rapists who rape many other women (eg Malcolm Rewa) or to be "difficult" victims, rather than necessarily making a false complaint. But that's the figures we have.
As I said, the graphic is comparing two crimes: rape, and making a false claim of rape to the police.
It assumes that a rape has occurred whenever someone says they have been raped (including to police, but not necessarily).
It assumes that the making a false rape allegation has occurred only if someone tells police that they have been falsely accused of rape, and only if police investigate that claim, and only if police then conclude that this has occurred and have enough evidence to charge someone with making a false allegation (although a charge need not eventuate, a warning also suffices, or another reason for not laying a charge, for example the mental state of the complainant).
The standards used to determine whether to two crimes have occurred are vastly different. If the same test was applied to both, by using the standard this graphic uses to determine that a false allegation had occurred to also determining whether a rape had occurred, then:
rapes not reported to police wouldn't count.
and rapes police don't find enough evidence to charge someone wouldn't count.
This would reduce the number of rapes in the graphic to below 20.
In short, the assumption this graphic uses is that every allegation of rape is true unless proved false to the satisfaction of police, but that every allegation of a false complaint of rape is false, unless the contrary is proved.
@ ChundaMars
To me, the logical extension is a cultural (not legal) change - that we take rape complainants at their word rather than automatically doubting women based on the rare instance of false allegations (which seems to happen any time there is a high profile rape case). You can support a victim in their experience without immediately assuming the guilt of the alleged perpetrator.
Hi there,
I'd also point out there are some (minor) differences in US law vs NZ law.
As an example, if you are a counsellor in New York and you have sex with one of your clients it is a statutory rape, while here in NZ it is considered "unethical".
In addition to this the graphic/data assumes everyone surveyed understands every single type of rape. Only a couple of weeks ago I corrected a wife who still thought her husband couldn't rape her because they were married.
My point is that there are many ways in which a person can be raped and how many of those surveyed felt they could adequately identify rape situations? I think if we ran a quiz most people would get questions incorrect. We SHOULD do just that to help educate people that rape isn't always a stranger with a knife in a dark alley, in fact it hardly ever is.
K.
PS - I didn't mean to minimise the author who put that together, it is a great graphic that has a lot of visual impact.
K
Graeme: "It assumes that the making a false rape allegation has occurred only if someone tells police that they have been falsely accused of rape, and only if police investigate that claim, and only if police then conclude that this has occurred and have enough evidence to charge someone with making a false allegation (although a charge need not eventuate, a warning also suffices, or another reason for not laying a charge, for example the mental state of the complainant)."
That isn't true and I don't know where you can your information.
False complaints are counted as ones the police believe are false due to various reasons (conflicting stories, alibi of the person claimed to be rapist, etc), and those that the victim withdraws. So it just needs to be recorded by police as false, not necessarily proved as such.
Both of these factors mean the number of false complaints are likely to be over-stated because police culture is synonymous with rape culture in a lot of ways.
Not to forget that lots of people who make false complaints are only lying about ONE aspect of their attack. For example, saying they were sober or something so they don't get battered with victim-blaming. If the police then find out the victim was drunk it is liable to be recorded as a false complaint EVEN IF THE RAPE DID HAPPEN, JUST NOT EXACTLY HOW THE VICTIM CLAIMED.
To summarise: stop commenting on a subject you clearly know nothing about.
me.
"where you can your information" = "where you got your information"...apologies. Dunno why I typed the wrong word!!
me.
Post a Comment