So where did the 2-8% number come from?\u00a0 If you read about it in Zerlina Maxwell’s piece<\/a> in the Washington post you might be reasonably confused that the range is from the FBI<\/p>\n In fact (despite various popular myths), the FBI reports that only 2-8 percent of rape allegations<\/a> turn out to be false, a number that is smaller than the number (10 percent) who lie about car theft.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Maxwell linked to a 2009 paper that hypothesized the 2-8% range, but has nothing to do with FBI statistics or car thefts. However, there is an earlier version of the 2009 article that was published in 2007 with the same name that included this bit of data:<\/p>\n For example, the Portland, Oregon police department examined 431 complaints of completed or attempted sexual assaults in 1990, and found that 1.6%1<\/a><\/sup> were determined to be false. This was in comparison with a rate of 2.6% for false reports of stolen vehicles (Oregon Attorney General’s Office, 2006).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is from a single police department, in a single year, and is not an FBI statistic. \u00a0As it so happens, there\u00a0is<\/em> a relevant statistics from the FBI, but instead of 1.6%, it is 8%, which would mean it wouldn’t fit her point about stolen vehicles. On the other hand, \u00a0there is also a separate statistic2<\/a><\/sup> that says about 10% of stolen vehicle reports are false. \u00a0OK, so now we have a source for the 2-8% range, an FBI estimate that is in that range, and another statistic that shows a higher percentage of car thefts. \u00a0So while she is confusing her sources a little bit and that makes what she is saying somewhat misleading, overall her point is accurate, right?<\/p>\n That is where we run into a slight issue3<\/a><\/sup> – we are sourcing all these statistics from different places, so how do we know that they are on a similar enough basis as to be comparable? Were Maxwell were to check that FBI 8% statistic, she would find that they actually have something to say on this matter – though it doesn’t fit in so well with her narrative. The 8% number comes from section II of the FBI’s Crime in the US<\/em> reports<\/a> from 1995 to 1997 which say:<\/p>\n 1995<\/p>\n The \u201cunfounded<\/span>\u201d rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. In 1995, 8 percent of forcible rape complaints were \u201cunfounded,\u201d while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1996<\/p>\n The \u201cunfounded\u201d rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were \u201cunfounded,\u201d while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1997<\/p>\n A higher\u00a0percentage of complaints of forcible rape are determined \u201cunfounded,\u201d\u00a0or found by investigation to be false, than for any\u00a0other Index crime. While the average of \u201cunfounded\u201d rates for all Crime Index offenses was 2 percent in 1997, 8 percent of forcible rape complaints were \u201cunfounded\u201d for the same timeframe.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So when you look at things on a comparable basis and from crime data across the country and across multiple years, instead of the percentage of unfounded reports being lower for rape than other types of crime, forcible rape actually has the highest unfounded rates and was consistently 4x the average.<\/p>\n Let’s go back to that 2-8% range from 2009.\u00a0 Think for a minute about what would make for a good statistical source on false rape reports.\u00a0 Given how easy it can be to manipulate statistical research, you’d probably want someone unbiased if the data is to be at all useful. Now click through to the source Maxwell listed.\u00a0 It is an article that appears in The Voice, the newsletter for The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women.\u00a0 The article is titled False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault<\/em><\/a>. OK, so not starting out so hot on the unbiased front, but let’s give it the benefit of doubt and dig into the article.<\/p>\n The article starts out with a note that estimates for sexual assault false reports vary quite a bit (1.5% to 90%).\u00a0They then go on to say that they don’t find many of the prior data points to be credible, and attempt to narrow that range.\u00a0The first study<\/a>4<\/a><\/sup> they attempt to discredit was done in 1994 by Professor Eugene Kanin. In it, Kanin found that 41% of the 109 sexual assault reports made to a midwestern police department over a 9 year period were determined to be false. This would seem to stand in pretty stark contrast to their assertion that the real number is 2-8%. The authors present two main reasons why the Kanin study is invalid.\u00a0This first is that the determinations that the reports were false were made only by the detectives. \u00a0They work in a quote from an article written by\u00a0David Lisak, one of the authors of the paper (the 2009 iteration anyway):<\/p>\n Kanin describes no effort to\u00a0systemize his own \u2018evaluation\u2019\u00a0of the police reports\u2014for\u00a0example, by listing details or\u00a0facts that he used to evaluate\u00a0the criteria used by the police\u00a0to draw their conclusions. Nor\u00a0does Kanin describe any effort\u00a0to compare his evaluation of\u00a0those reports to that of a second,\u00a0independent research\u2014\u00a0providing a \u2018reliability\u2019 analysis.\u00a0This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to\u00a0ensure that observations are\u00a0not simply the reflection of the\u00a0bias of the observer (p. 2).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n They then go on to sum up this first point as follows:<\/p>\n In other words, there is no way to explore\u00a0whether the classification of these cases as\u00a0false was simply made as a result of the\u00a0detectives\u2019 own perceptions and biases,\u00a0without any real investigation being conducted.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I’ll take this opportunity for a brief detour into irony land. Remember how I said there was an earlier version<\/a> of this paper from two years prior? Though David Lisak was not an author of that paper (Dr. Alan Berkowitz took his place), the other two authors – Dr. Kimberly A. Lonsway, and Sergeant Joanne Archambault (Ret.) – were. \u00a0In that version, the “credible” range was 2-4% instead of 2-8% and they offered three pieces of evidence to support it. \u00a0The first is the Oregon Police Department data (it would seem the police are perfectly capable of an unbiased determination – so long as you like the number they come up with). \u00a0The second was this5<\/a><\/sup>:<\/p>\n Similarly, Sgt. Joanne Archambault of the Sex Crimes Division of the San Diego Police Department routinely evaluated the rate of false reports over several years and found them to be around 4%<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Observer bias can be a\u00a0real issue, but it does work both ways. Later on we’ll get to the evidence that they are using for their new estimate (thankfully they scraped the first two sources from 2007 this time around).\u00a0When we do, keep in mind what kind of views they had going in.<\/p>\n Let’s return\u00a0to the Kanin study.\u00a0Their primary concern is essentially that the police are making the true\/false determination on their own, potentially on a whim without much investigation, which on the surface is a pretty valid complaint. \u00a0Except, of course, for the fact that\u00a0it completely misrepresents how the reports were determined to be false. \u00a0What they want you to think is that this is just a bunch of cops who don’t believe the women and so they classify it as false without digging into the details at all. \u00a0They can do that because they know that pretty much no one is actually going to go and read the underlying research. \u00a0If you did, you would find this right up front in the methods section:<\/p>\n This city was targeted for study because it offered an almost model\u00a0laboratory for studying false rape allegations. First, its police agency is not\u00a0inundated with serious felony cases and, therefore, has the freedom and\u00a0the motivation to record and thoroughly pursue all rape complaints. In fact,\u00a0agency policy forbids police officers to use their discretion in deciding\u00a0whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect\u00a0that complaint may be. Second, the declaration of a false allegation follows\u00a0a highly institutionalized procedure. The investigation of all rape complaints\u00a0always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and\u00a0the suspects. Additionally, for a declaration of false charge to be made,\u00a0the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole\u00a0agent who can say that the rape charge is false. The police department\u00a0will not declare a rape charge as false when the complainant, for whatever\u00a0reason, fails to pursue the charge or cooperate on the case, regardless how\u00a0much doubt the police may have regarding the validity of the charge. In\u00a0short, these cases are declared false only because the complainant admitted\u00a0they are false. Furthermore, only one person is then empowered to enter\u00a0into the records a formal declaration that the charge is false, the officer\u00a0in charge of records. Last, it should be noted that this department does\u00a0not confuse reported rape attempts with completed rapes. Thus, the rape\u00a0complainants referred to in this paper are for completed forcible rapes\u00a0only. The foregoing leaves us with a certain confidence that cases declared\u00a0false by this police agency are indeed a reasonable–if not a minimal reflection\u00a0of false rape allegations made to this agency, especially when\u00a0one considers that a finding of false allegation is totally dependent upon\u00a0the recantation of the rape charge.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since this is the internet and that was a long quote, allow me to sum it up<\/p>\n Credibility is important here. \u00a0In order for the\u00a02-8% range to be believed, you have to accept the premise that the article’s authors reviewed the relevant research and fairly and accurately distilled the data down to that range. With what you now know about the methodology, ask yourself the following question – Does the view put forth by the authors fairly and accurately represent\u00a0the facts of the study?<\/p>\n Let’s move on to their second problem with the Kanin study.<\/p>\n This concern is compounded by the\u00a0fact that the practice of this particular police\u00a0department was to make a \u201cserious offer to\u00a0polygraph\u201d all rape complainants and suspects\u00a0(Kanin, 1994, p. 82). In fact, this practice\u00a0\u201chas been rejected and, in many cases,\u00a0outlawed because of its intimidating impact\u00a0on victims\u201d (Lisak, 2007, p. 6).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I have to take another detour here. \u00a0People use a lot of different tactics when they are trying to convince you of things and some are more effective than others. \u00a0I don’t know about you, but quoting yourself as authority sits pretty far down on the list of things that convince me. It kind of has that “My point is really great, but I seem to be the only one making it” ring to it. Sometimes it may be a good option, and I’m sure if I keep this blogging thing up long enough I’ll end up doing it a few times myself, but in disputing the Kanin study the authors use three different quotation – and they’re all the same Lisak article<\/a>. \u00a0Oh and just for bonus\u00a0points, that Lisak article they keep citing? In it Lisak cites Lonsway and Archambault’s 2007 version of\u00a0False Reports<\/em>.\u00a0So I guess that makes it authority squared?<\/p>\n Setting aside the fact their sources for critiques of the Kanin study only seem to come from one of the authors themselves, their complaint is not completely without merit. In the underlying article Lisak notes that when investigators express doubt when interviewing potential victims it can cause feelings of confusion, shame, and self-blame. \u00a0I’m not going to dispute that or say that I think the police using a polygraph makes for good policy. \u00a0However, I’m not really sure how it disproves the fact that, in this case, 41% of the women admitted they made the allegation up.\u00a0In fact, Kanin himself deals with this very point in the study<\/p>\n A possible objection to these\u00a0recantations concerns their validity. Rape recantations could be the result\u00a0of the complainants’ desire to avoid a “second assault” at the hands of the\u00a0police. Rather than proceed with the real charge of rape, the argument\u00a0goes, these women withdrew their accusations to avoid the trauma of police\u00a0investigation.<\/em><\/p>\n Several responses are possible to this type of criticism. First, with very\u00a0few exceptions, these complainants were suspect at the time of the complaint\u00a0or within a day or two after charging. These recantations did not\u00a0follow prolonged periods of investigation and interrogation that would constitute\u00a0anything approximating a second assault. Second…in those cases where a suspect was identified\u00a0and interrogated, the facts of the recantation dovetailed with the\u00a0suspect’s own defense. Last, the policy of this police agency is to apply a\u00a0statute regarding the false reporting of a felony. After the recant, the complainant\u00a0is informed that she will be charged with filing a false complaint,\u00a0punishable by a substantial fine and a jail sentence. In no case, has an\u00a0effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Don’t get me wrong, I’m not naive enough to say that there is no such thing as a false confession. \u00a0However\u00a0false confessions don’t just happen – they are made for certain reasons6<\/a><\/sup>, and I’m not really sure those reasons have much to do with the situations being discussed here. \u00a0False confessions made in an attempt to end long long hours of coercive interrogations, or to avoid physical violence make sense. \u00a0What doesn’t make sense is the idea that these women admit to making up the the allegations and provide explanations that comport with other facts of the case instead of just getting up and leaving if they felt uncomfortable with the questioning. \u00a0It makes even less sense when they are then told they will be charged with false reporting and continue to\u00a0stick with the the story that they made it all up.<\/p>\n You don’t have to just take my word for it though, we can use some simple math to help us evaluate these claims. \u00a0If the 2-8% range is correct, how many of the confessions in the Kanin study would be false? To avoid issues with rounding, let’s multiply all the reported numbers by 1,000 (so total reports goes from 109 to 109,000 and the number of women who confess to making\u00a0false reports goes from 45 to 45,000). \u00a0If we assume that the true false reporting rate is 8%, there would be 8,720 reports that were actually false. That means that 80.6% of the time (36,280 cases), the women were admitting to making the report up and accepting punishment for doing so, despite there genuinely being a rape. \u00a0Actually, the number is probably even higher. \u00a0Remember that the Kanin study only counts a report as false if the woman admits that it was false. \u00a0The above numbers assume that 100% of the women who filed the false reports are caught and admit to doing so. \u00a0If only 75% of the those who file false reports confess, than it goes from an 80.6% false confession rate to 85.5%. \u00a0The following chart shows the false confession rate based on a variety of actual false reporting rates (down the left) and false reporter confession rates (across the top).<\/p>\n So the question you have to ask yourself is – Does this seem like a plausible range for the the percentage of false confessions in situations where the women are free to leave without confessing, and face fines and jail time if they do?<\/p>\n There is one final thing I find curious about their critique of the Kanin study. If they feel that the use of the polygraph is throwing off the results of the study so much, you would think they would at least mention the addenda to the study that describes a different data set that they later gained access to7<\/a><\/sup>. \u00a0In 1998 Kanin obtained access to the police records of two large Midwestern state universities. \u00a0The result? \u00a0Over a three year period, 50% of the forcible rape complaints were false. \u00a0Once again, only cases that included a recantation of the charge were classified as false, and there was no use of polygraph this time. \u00a0Here is what Kanin had to say about that data<\/p>\n In both police agencies, the taking of the complaint and the follow-up\u00a0investigation was the exclusive responsibility of a ranking female officer.\u00a0Neither agency employed the polygraph and neither declared the complaint\u00a0false without a recantation of the charge. Most striking is the patterning\u00a0of the reasons for the false allegations given by the complainants, a patterning\u00a0similar to that found for the nonstudent city complainants.\u00a0Approximately one half (53%) of the false charges were verbalized as serving\u00a0an alibi function. In every case, consensual sexual involvement led to\u00a0problems whose solution seemed to be found in the filing of a rape charge.\u00a0The complaints motivated by revenge, about 44%, were of the same seemingly\u00a0trivial and spiteful nature as those encountered by the city police\u00a0agency.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Given the amount of time I have spent defending the Kanin study, you might think that I regard it as some sort of gold standard – I do not. \u00a0There are a number of valid complaints about the study. \u00a0First of all, the initial study is\u00a0from a Midwestern city with a population of 70,000 and the universities were Midwestern as well, so you can’t reliably extrapolate these rates as being indicative of the entire country. \u00a0Second, the data is fairly dated at this point, with the study being published in 1994 and addenda from 1998, so it doesn’t necessarily give us a lot of information about how things are currently. However, the criticisms that Lonsway et al chose to bring up are not only weak, but significantly misleading. [Update: I have since written more about the flaws in the Kanin study here<\/a>]<\/p>\n So if that is the data that they don’t like, what kind of data do they think we should be relying on? \u00a0Check back soon for\u00a0How to Lie and Mislead With Rape Statistics: Part 2.<\/p>\n UPDATE: Part 2<\/a> is now available.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n As it turns out,\u00a0only 7.8% of rape reports are true. I know that may seem hard to believe, but I\u00a0didn’t just make it up.\u00a0 Technically, it is completely true.\u00a0 It is also completely horse shit.\u00a0 It is so misleading and built upon so many undisclosed caveats, that most people would consider it as good as … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[9,8],"class_list":["post-102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-argument-analysis","category-sexual-assault","tag-fun-with-numbers","tag-sexual-assault"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":245,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102\/revisions\/245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
![\"False](\"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/False-Reporting-Rates-Resized.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n