That does a disservice to the very large number of rape victims out there.
Some rape accusations are false, but to claim the majority of them is false would require a citation I think.
Indeed. I've often heard that claim from people who don't (or don't want to) believe that in most cases of rape the victim knows the perpetrator. According to statistics in Sweden, only one third of rapes are performed by someone unknown to the victim[1].
There was a case like this on TV here recently, where a young boy who has been found guilty of rape (twice!) gets a lot of sympathy from his community while the victims are trash-talked along the lines of "she actually wanted it and changed her mind later"[2].
Oh, I also forgot one very interesting question: why would a woman falsely accuse someone of rape? In the case of a custody battle I can see the logic, but what would be the gain of accusing an acquaintance (who account for a third of reported rapes)? If it's a case of "did something she later regrets", wouldn't it be a lot easier to just deny that it ever happened?
Not exactly correct. If bob is accused of rape then he can be named as an alleged rapist. If he is acquitted of the charges and you Google his name you will still see the rape charges story and perhaps the "acquitted" story is buried or just not in the first few pages of results. Worse still if charges are dropped then all you will really find on Google is the fact he was arrested for rape.
Do you have any evidence that he's a rapist? I know he hasn't been convicted, so I would hope you at least have something more than an unfounded accusation.
There are not a ton of details in the article but I imagine what they are saying is the evidence used to convict him was wrong, but it still doesn't mean he didn't do it.
The victim identified him as 1 of the 2 rapists and DNA cleared him. He might not have left DNA behind, but the victim still identified him.
I think you and the other poster are misconstruing the claims the OP made. He specifically compared false rape in his 10x claim, not all rape as you are. I don't know if this claim is true.
Furthermore, he specifically said that if there's evidence of intercourse, the guy is screwed in a rape accusation, where you're talking about all rape charges regardless of the availability of evidence.
This is a relatively incredible set of claims. Care to back them up?
Specifically the 10x more likely to be exonerated of murder than rape, and the more surprising claim that a majority of false rape claims end in the guy being screwed, by which I assume you mean jailtime.
All of the evidence I've seen directly contradicts both of those assertions, so I'd like to know how you concluded that.
I think the claim is that one is innocent until proven guilty. If they haven’t been convicted of sexual misconduct then calling them rapist is inappropriate.
> False accusations are rare, so it is more likely that he raped her
That's not correct. Studies of false accusations have found roughly 5-8% are false. However, most of these studies are looking at accusations that are made to police reasonably soon after the alleged event and are investigated, and to count as "false" there must be strong proof that the accuser is lying or mistaken, not merely a lack of proof that the accusation is true. Note that this means these studies undercount false accusations.
I haven't seen any studies on the false rate for accusations years after the alleged event.
"The police also knew exactly who was involved, and have known for over a year.
The "lack of evidence" referred to by police was not a lack of evidence of who was involved, but rather a lack of sufficient evidence that the sexual encounter was criminal. "
You do seem trustworthy, I would just like to verify and read more.
reply