We're hearing more and more instances of false rape accusations being reported in the news. Of course, as awareness of this despicable crime rises, the question of just how prevalent it really is comes up quite often. While it may never be possible to produce an exact figure, I found the following article from Wendy McElroy to be quite compelling.


False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
By Wendy McElroy

Is it the new 1-in-4 statistic?

I don't mean the widely-circulated '1-in-4 women will be raped in their lifetime' but a statistic that suggests '1-in-4 accusations of rape are false.'

For a long time, I have been bothered by the elusiveness of figures on the prevalence of false accusations of sexual assault. The crime of 'bearing false witness' is rarely tracked or punished, and the context in which it is usually raised is highly politicized.

Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports. Men's rights sites point to research that places the rate as high as 41 percent. These are wildly disparate figures that cannot be reconciled.

This week I stumbled over a passage in a 1996 study published by the U.S. Department of Justice: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.
The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned.

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. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."
The authors continued, "these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."

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). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

Before analyzing the competing figures, however, caveats about the one just mentioned are necessary.

First, the category of 'false accusations' does not distinguish between accusers who lie and those who are honestly mistaken. Nor does it indicate that a rape did not occur, merely that the specific accused is innocent.

Thus, there is a drive by voices for reform, like the Innocence Institute, to improve eyewitness identification techniques within police departments.

For example, the Innocence Institute suggests "Police should use a 'double-blind' photo identification procedure where someone other than the investigator -- who does not know who the suspect is -- constructs photo arrays with non-suspects as fillers to reduce suggestiveness."
Second, even if false accusations are as common as 1-in-4, that means 75 percent of reports are probably accurate and, so, all accusations deserve a thorough and professional investigation.
Third, the 1-in-4 figure has 'fuzzy' aspects that could influence the results. For example, Neufeld and Scheck mention only sexual assault cases that were "referred to the FBI where results could be obtained."

It is not clear what percentage of all reported assaults are represented by those cases. As well, the terms 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are often used interchangeably, especially when comparing studies, and it is not clear that they are always synonyms for each other.

Nevertheless, the FBI data on excluded DNA is as close to hard statistics that I've found on the rate of false accusations of sexual assault.

Where do the other figures come from and why is there reason to doubt them? Let me consider the two statistics that I have encountered most often.

"Two percent of all reports are false."

Several years ago, I tried to track down the origin of this much-cited stat. The first instance I found of the figure was in Susan Brownmiller's book on sexual assault entitled "Against Our Will" (1975). Brownmiller claimed that false accusations in New York City had dropped to 2 percent after police departments began using policewomen to interview alleged victims.
Elsewhere, the two percent figure appears without citation or with only a vague attribution to "FBI" sources. Although the figure shows up in legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, legal scholar Michelle Anderson of Villanova University Law School reported in 2004, "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the two percent false rape complaint thesis."

In short, there is no reason to credit that figure.

"Forty-one percent of all reports are false."

This claim comes from a study conducted by Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987.

Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."
Although Kanin offers solid research, I would need to see more studies with different populations before accepting the figure of 50 percent as prevalent; to me, the figure seems high.
But even a skeptic like me must credit a DNA exclusion rate of 20 percent that remained constant over several years when conducted by FBI labs. This is especially true when 20 percent more were found to be questionable.

False accusations are not rare. They are common.


Here we see evidence compelling enough to confidently suggest that at least 20-40% of rape accusations are false. Chances are the number is even higher but due to either a lack of thorough investigative techniques or blatant dishonesty, over 20%of men who are accused of rape are innocent.

Luckily, in this day and age we have the benefit of DNA testing so men who are falsely accused are far less likely to lose years and years of their lives sitting in jail because of a false accusation. That, however, does nothing to address the men who have already served time for a crime they didn't commit, or the men who's lives will be ruined and who will be forced to endure the humiliation of a false rape accusation before being cleared of the charges.

The feminists cling so desperately to their "only 2 percent" claim. Of course, their sole concern when cases of false accusation come to light seems to be how it's going to effect women. Granted, they do have a point. Real victims of actual rape are hurt by the false claims. False rape claims are an affront to those who really have been victims of such assaults. However, as much as I realize this, when I hear about a false accusation, what I think about is the man's life who's been ruined, like the lives of the 28 men above; 28 documented cases of innocent men who served an average of 7 years behind bars for crimes they didn't commit. This is where our concern and where our outrage should lie.

Any time a human being is accused of a crime they didn't commit, it is an outrage. However, some of these accusation fall into the category of human error. We need to make sure that procedures are set in place to minimize the likelihood of human error. That men are actually convicted of rape on no other evidence than the alleged victim's testimony is a travesty and a disgrace.

The unthinkable travesty is when a person's life is destroyed over a lie. Hardly a week goes by that I don't hear a new story of a woman who attempted to falsely accuse a man of rape; sometimes out of vengeance, sometimes to cover up for their own indiscretions or to hide an infidelity. Such a crime, such a disregard for the lives of others, is an extremely heinous thing. Until recently, the punishment for such a crime was generally very, very little....to nothing. A woman could accuse a man of rape, unconscionably attempting to destroy his life, and then simply walk away.

I've been happy to see that there are judges who are starting to address the severity of false rape accusations, albeit not nearly enough of them and not nearly to the extent they need to. I've long been of the opinion that any woman who intentionally accuses an innocent man of rape should be given the exact same sentence she was willing to sentence that man to. Whatever the average years served for rape in that area is what she should serve.
If even one man's life was destroyed because of a lie, we should be outraged, but, as Wendy succinctly stated, "false rape accusations are not rare. They are common."

If feminsts are truly concerned for women as they claim to be then they should spend a little less time worrying about whether or not an advertisement or road sign could possibly be construed as "sexist" and a little more time figuring out why it is that some women have little enough conscience and empathy to be able to ruin a man's life with a false rape claim; whether telling women it was all about them and their happiness (regardless of the impact upon the lives of others) was really such a good idea after all.



More...

Thanks for the find Kim and thanks also to Wendy for a dogged research effort and her balanced, objective and sensitive approach.

This is one for my copy and paste to file folder.

The thrust rests upon the FBI findings. It has to be understood that FBI agents and analysts and forensic scientists are highly trained and very experienced. They do not do the arresting and investigating though.

First, and usually last, line investigation and arrest rests with the Police. These are 'troops'. Many are in small town cop shops manned and womaned by basicly trained people who exhibit the most modest skill and intelligence. They are not dummies but let's face it, if they were surgeons, you would want a better one to operate on you.

Their 'careers' are dependant on closing cases and getting a successful 'bang-up'.

DNA testing takes weeks and months, unlike on the TV cop shows where they seem to be done while the stars are sipping coffee. The 'line-ups' are wind ups. The statements taken are verballed.

While 'after the fact' investigation by FBI agents can take a long while, the local Mayor and police Chief want results yesterday.

FBI shows 25% false accusation conclusion. And a large percentage of 'don't knows'.

I would suggest that the 'on the ground' figures for the everyday police investigation is likely to be at least 50%.

No one should ever be convicted of rape just because a woman said it happened. If it is a "he said-she said" situation and the man is convicted of rape, that means a man's testimony is viewed as less trustworthy than a woman's. There can be no justice on any issue in a society that practices such sexism.

True Akuus

Innocent til proven guilty was important to the founding fathers of America.. That's how it should be.

.

Yes, but in older days the legal codes allowed for different levels of credibility & accountablility between men and women. Now we give lip service to equality while still maintaining a de facto double standard.

Well said. Can you elaborate a bit about the legal code differences? That sounds significant.

Sorry, I don't really know the details, other than that women were often viewed as being under the authority of a husband or father, who might suffer legal penalties on the woman's behalf for crimes she committed.

In Islam I believe that a woman's testimony was considered less valid than a man's, but I don't know if that depended on her age or marital status.

I'm interested by the fact litte has been said about consensual sexual activity. It is necessary to use DNA testing and other forensic tools to establish whether a man did or did not rape a woman. However, this cannot be the definitive mechanism to establish such a thing. What would happen if a man's DNA was found? Would we assume that he had raped the woman based on the accusation and the fact his DNA had been found? I think one of the most difficult factors to be considered in rape cases is establishing consent was given. Impacting factors such as alcohol use and what constitutes consent complicate matters. In Australia there are proposed changes to rape laws and some groups are petrified of the ramifications for men. A South Australian member of parliament described the changes as 'the law moving into the bedroom' of couples where all of the onus is on the man to be clear about his identity and intentions and ensure he has consent. My concern is that a man can be convicted of rape - due to the woman's regret or change of heart or whatever - when he cannot prove he sought consent (what qualifies as consent?) even though they were both willing participants.

From Luke.
This is a clear example of the bias. It is assumed that HE has to get HER consent. They are not considered equal. What about HIS consent?

The same discrimination is seen in the burden of contraception. Around my entire sexual life is the fear relating to this kind of thing. Not only could a woman say, whenever it fancied her, that I raped her (and nothing short of a recording of the event could prove otherwise. She said it, therefore it must be true,) but if one of my sexual partners was to conceive, it would be my fault. The poor woman can't protect herself, it was my doing and my evil plan all along.