Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
as I imagine the only way they'd find out if they'd been falsel accused would be if they had been reported and faced trial, no?
It's the burden of proof that sees so few reported rapes go to trial, and so few of those result in convictions. It would take a very concerted attempt to fit someone up for a false accusation to come out only a trial stage.
those are in the ones who faced trial but then didn't get convicted. So I'd think false accusations don't make it to trial as they are proved false.
that someone would be falsely accused of being a rapist without it being reported to anyone or being taken to trial.
I wasn't aware that a verdict as to whether you raped someone or not could be settled out side of court. I assume you'd have to have that reported though to even get to the stage where you would be investigated/questioned? I dunno. Its still in the wrong place the way I read it.
Its all guessed data from what the website says:
Some reports suggest that only 5-25% of rapes are reported to authorities. Other suggest that close to half are reported. We assumed 10%, which is dramatic, but possible.
Regarding, "But it doesn't make an awful lot of sense
that someone would be falsely accused of being a rapist without it being reported to anyone or being taken to trial." I think the point of the image is supposed to shock people who do think there must be loads of women out there just crying 'rape' to get back at a man. I can't imagine it will work.
Being found not guilty at trial, or the CPS deciding that there is not a strong enough likelihood of conviction to even pursue a trial in the first place, is not evidence of a false accusation- the number of people falsely accused and the number of people reported but (for any reason) not tried/convicted are unrelated.
Rape convictions are low for a number of reasons, probably the most pragmatic and tangible being that the nature of the crime, how it is reported and the evidence it may (or may not) leave behind makes proving an accusation to the required legal standard very difficult. If an allegation makes it to trial, it'll be because there is a decent amount of corroborating evidence. Apart from very rare anomalous cases, false accusations will be discovered fairly early.
* Some reports suggest that only 5-25% of rapes are reported to authorities. Other suggest that close to half are reported. We assumed 10%, which is dramatic, but possible.
* Of the rapes that are reported, approximately 9 are prosecuted.
* Of the prosecuted, 5 result in felony convictions. This is across the board for all felony prosecutions, not just rape.
* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)
pretty much every statistic about any social issue
but I think here there seems more leeway. I don't like the background here, personally. It's a laudable cause and should be championed but based on such evidence as this it's not worth the pixels its made out of if you're trying to use it to benefit the point.
but how is it known the incidence of unreported rape is that high when it doesn't get reported?
Clearly (see above) those stats are open to interpretation. But if we consider child abuse and how much of that clearly didn't get reported until we got to a point where people felt comfortable to talk about it, I guess it's perfectly possible.
I think as well that probably part of reason it's so hard to convict rape charges will be part of the reason that so many aren't even reported, that the same considerations of blame, etc. run through the victim's head so they don't even consider taking the matter further.
but how, then, does a statistician KNOW roughly how much of it there is, if there are no statistics for it in the first place?
I guess the thing with stats is that it never seems like a sample of 1000 is enough but it always turns out to be enough so stats is one of those fields that baffles the way humans think.
Which is an easy way of saying I don't know the answer but I'm prepared to accept that the figure between 98% and 50% unreported has at least been found by experts.
It's just something I've never been able to get my head around and I'd very much like to know how they do arrive at that figure. Something for a particularly cheerful lunch hour perhaps
and then you can ask if they've been raped and whether they reported it and then extrapolate that to the whole population.
so say they have 100, they'll know that 100 people are rapists and that 10 people have been reported as a rapist. Then they have like 2% or whatever of the reported rapses get convicted so thats how they get that number.
But there isn't 1 rapist for every rape. There might be 1 rapist for 10 of the unreported rapes etc
I agree with you.
*world blows up*
Depending on where you live - as in if you're in a middle eastern country (not all) and you report a rape, you could run the risk of being killed for bringing shame on your family. In Africa, in some tribes it is a man's right to 'rape' as a woman cannot say no. It is also a very invasive process you have to go through if you report the rape. Swabs, photographs, detailed descriptions. Some women don't want to relive it over and over again and choose to pretend it never happened as a coping mechanism.
because rape is something to be sarcastic and jokey about.
I shouldn't really have to explain this, but wishpig- based on her previous posts- is hardly a rape apologist. She posted this and the things above because they're often the kind of things chauvinistic men (and women) say, and which in her opinion contribute to rape culture. Maybe 'ironic' would have been a better word than 'sarcastic'.
Two peas in a pod.
Sorry, I'm running the risk of speaking for other people here- just surprised that someone needs a point that obvious (to me anyway) breaking down for them. And also a little annoyed that I've been accused of being 'sarcastic about rape' by someone who doesn't believe the stats in the first place.
I still think saying 'oh yes, because rape is something to be sarcastic and jokey about' when that isn't what was going on in the first place is a pretty dumb thing to say, but each to their own.
I'll leave now because I don't want a sub-thread argument about semantics and sarcasm to trivialise the actual issue. But anyway wishpig is right. bd.
I was asking how they know these stats but its come to light that they have taken one statistic, that ISNT acurate, and have just expanded it. Albeit the point of this graph is to shock people into seeing how many rapes are reported and how many rapists there are etc but I'm asking 'how do they know this?' they don't really. Its all assumed from another assumed statistic.
are derived from reasonably sound statistical models that have been developed over the course of many complicated longitudinal studies. They're not assumed in the same way that you or I assume things.
but it seems that they've taken an average number based on various other reports over the years rather than their own.
Butttttt I'm not allowed to talk about rape stats unless im just saying rape is bad cause rape is bad yo
Taking the data from various places is a pretty good way to make it robust.
Would 'satirically' be okay?
while telling another what it is she meant. And in this thread of all places. No shame.
You don't rob a bank when the guard is walking out front swinging their baton.
Hasn't been enough time for a couple of gormless specimens to fashion a hole for themselves.
I feel like channelling my inner Royter-Hatfood and bullying someone the way he bullied "silky" that time he bullied him.
Certainly compared to crashing in and being all HURF DURF NUMBERS MADE UP LULZ
misread on my part?
are all of the "this"-ers card-carrying bellends too?
Probably only further muddies the water
The others are just normal users.
Some people have posited a question of how do you find out these numbers when they aren't reported which I think is a valid topic for discussion.
wishpig then arrived spraying vitriol at everyone for opinions they hadn't expressed. Which I don't find especially constructive
Most of this thread has been a valid question about how figures on something that isn't reported come about. I don't think that equals a HURF A DERF made up attitude which was posited above
The subject matter makes me very upset. I just find the way you approach argument sometimes a bit unproductive. Sorry
3. They've said so themselves that it is an assumed estimate they've made. Why 10%? Why not 11% or 12% or 13% etc.
It makes for an interesting read from people who have looked into it/investigated it more than I have.
is completely reasonable.
Don't drag me into this fucking argument.
unreported estimates of any crime.
Can I see people jumping in in the same way if we were talking about, say, burglary? Nah.
Would you really expect the majority of the discussion to be over whether or not the methods for estimating the rate of unreported crime were accurate? Reeeeeally doubt it.
Why should people defend and not question a statistic just because its about rape? Its a sensitive subject but its still a statistical picture that is there to make us think and question it....but i'm not the kind of person thats just gonna go along with what I see because thats what I'm told to believe even if it might not be correct. It could be more than this. It could be more shocking than this. I'm not defending rapists and the figures, I'm just doubting their source as they've said themselves that its assumed.
I'm saying that people are more quick to be dismissive of estimated rape stats than other crime stats.
I'm not saying you're doing this - but the users in the linked comment totally are.
"I'm not saying you're doing this".
Saying "because they are made up" and leaving it at that - is completely being dismissive.
I think anyone who honestly thinks there could ever be enough to be remotely statistically significant or important is probably too busy to engage with us, as they'll be working out the tricky details of their Republican 2016 US Presidential campaign.
but you can't just go 'here are the cold hard facts in this infographic' when you've just pulled them out of your arse and not expect people to take the piss
To this day I don't know for sure if was guilty. If I new that he was for sure then *friendship terminated*, but as it stands we're still alright with each other. I don't see him as much as I used to though, and some of our mutual friends won't talk to him at all. These things are very very tricky.
WE'VE GOT HUMAN BEINGS USING HUMANS FOR A BOMB
Yes, some are going to go to trial and even, i.e "Suge" Knight, do some time. But Fred Durst and Debbie Harry have experienced the ordeal of false rap allegations being made against them.
If someone's rapping, best to just grass them up to THE PIGS.
Right, now I'll click on the link at the top...
You couldn't have known. Don't beat yourself up about it.
FUCK this shit
Maybe that top 150 profile view position doesn't carry the sway I'd hoped it did
is evidence of a natural and innate inclination to deception.
Bye mates! Enjoy the thread
is it rape if they can't remember having sex? Asking for a friend
jim davidson is seething enviously as we speak
and apply it to most DiS threads
cba with that