Slashdot Mirror

Is that true? (Something to think about.) Even if what you say is true, that says nothing about these specific individuals. Unless you prove that someone is right in this specific case, I'd hold off on the accusations. To me, the individuals matter more than the statistics to begin with, so I'll refrain from calling her a liar, and I'll refrain from calling him a rapist.

What disturbs me here is the knee-jerk suggestion that she invented the story for some unspecified reason. Statistically, only a very small number of rape accusations turn out to be fabricated.

You have been lied to, or are just bullshitting. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a fool.

Eugene Kanin study: 41% false rape figure in a metropolitan community; Follow up study finds 50% of rape allegations in college to be false, of the false charges 53% of the women admitted to filing false claims as an alibi. HTML, PDF

What I find disgusting is the fools like you who believe things without searching out any evidence to substantiate a claim. It's not a "knee jerk" reaction to disbelieve an unsubstantiated claim; It's common sense based on the natural state of a scientific mind, and past corroborating empirical evidence.

ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male sexual misconduct. Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem. The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism.

Maybe these studies are wrong? You say there are statistics, show they aren't fabrications: Where's your study? Who told you those stats in the first place?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/11/bc-false-accusation-harrison.html

Goes directly to the point I was making. This was an actual accusation, to the authorities, not just trash-talking.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_4_7.htm

And so was the case study in this one.

You claimed mere association with pedophilia "is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life". Yet the teacher smeared here is still alive and still employed. Furthermore, the examples you gave contain more than mere association; they contain specific, false, accusations made to the relevant authorities.

People have lost their jobs because of false accusations:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/11/bc-false-accusation-harrison.html

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_4_7.htm

There are plenty more, google is your friend in this.

I have experience not in false accusations, but in the area of trying to get fathers involved in kids sports. As the president of a youth hockey league, I needed coaches. We - myself included, had to undergo a State Police background check, as part of the process. But it is an excellent and quick way to lose volunteers, in my experience, most men are terribly afraid of an identity error, or some other mixup. One told me it just isn't worth it, and even if he declined the background check, there were people who would see that as some sort of proof of guilt. But he said that it was simply not worth the risk. And that was the only one who would talk to me about it. The others just were "too busy" after finding out about that requirement. It's a real threat, and hopefully you will never be falsely accused.

Thanks, but how about this.

"In this sense, everyone was a victim of ... a system that in seeking to prevent abuse was shown capable of participating in and fostering a kind of abuse as damaging as the abuse it sought to prevent."

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_4_7.htm

It's not like government has a history of abusing power ...
What about banning child pornography ?

If you're gonna libel the entire Army, at least do it with a crime that's not as falsely reported as rape. And give links to actual websites, it's not my job to provide evidence for your claims, I'm quite capable of typing in Army rape in google.

These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases (n = 109) reported during this period.

Warren Farrell, in his book The Myth of Male Power (1993, p.322), cites an Air Force study that investigated 556 charges of rape by servicewomen. In that investigation, 27% ADMITTED that their accusations had been false either before or after being confronted with lie detector tests.

Unfounded charges of assault, which like rape is often productive of conflicting testimony, comprise only 1.6% of the total compared to the 8.4% recorded for rape.

Province-wide, the system reports that about 5.7 percent of all such allegations are false. Meanwhile, analyses of incidents involving a Toronto police squad that restricts itself to handling major rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim, a whopping 30 percent of cases -- 69 out of 232 cases -- turned out to be false.

The fact that you choose the emotionally charged crimes of rape and domestic violence to back up your claim, instead of, oh, say, violent crime in the army, lends credence to the conclusion that for whatever reason you have some axe to grind with the military.

Incidentally, see if you can find any research citing the actual percentages of wrongly convicted people. It's something that ought to be statistically estimated. I can't find anything and that makes me think that it's because the percentage is extremely low.

These guys say .5%:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume8/j8_3_ br16.htm

I like your idea that such people be incarcerated until cured - of course what that means in the vast majority of these cases is a life sentence with no parole. How economically feasible is that?

According to this page many states already require "sexual offenders judged likely to reoffend to be civilly committed until they were judged to be no longer at risk." And as of 1998 it was confirmed to be constitutionally acceptable by the US Supreme Court. (Not sure if it was struck down since then, but I doubt it.)

More on that in the article Professionals as Evaluators or Indoctrinators in Sex Abuse Cases. Search for "Bjugn" to find one grim case.

I live in Norway, where the town named Bjugn will carry a stigma for a long time to come. When the first headlines appeared, I immediately thought it had to be some kind of mass hysteria. All the reality checks failed face down. But that did not stop the prosecution.

A recent study by Hanson, Steffy, & Gauthier (1990) on recidivism examined offenders from 3 to 23 years after treatment. The treatment was a short-term, multimodal program and recidivism was assessed through records of reconvictions. The researchers report that 44.3% of their total sample of 106 child molesters were reconvicted with 9.4% of the total sample being reconvicted between 10 and 23 years after being released. Incest perpetrators were reconvicted at the slowest rate (21%), homosexual pedophiles at the highest rate (66.7%), with heterosexual pedophiles and undifferentiated offenders showing an intermediate rate (42.2% & 36.36%). This study demonstrates the importance of extending the follow-up period when examining recidivism.