DiscussMormonism.com

Of the 136 cases of sexual assault 8 (5.9%) were coded as false reports, 61 (44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action, 48 (35.3%) were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action, and 19 (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded (see Table 2). It should be noted that in no case did the research team “override” the classification of a false report made by the police department. The eight cases that were described as false reports by the police investigators were also categorized that way by the coders.

Of the eight false reports, three involved clear admissions from complainants that they had fabricated the report for ulterior motives, and a fourth investigation yielded a partial admission, combined with other evidence that facts had been fabricated. Three cases were coded as false reports after extensive police investigation—multiple witness interviews and careful fact checking—yielded evidence that the reports were fabricated, even though the complainant did not ultimately state that her report was false. A final case was coded as a false report even though it was complex and ambiguous. The complainant recanted her report, but the facts yielded by the investigation suggested that her initial report was as much a mislabeling of the incident as a deliberate effort to fabricate.

Lisak D, Gardinier L, Nicksa SC, Cote AM. False allegations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against Women. 2010 Dec;16(12):1318-34.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164210

44% did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action?

EAllusion? Res Ipsa?

DoubtingThomas wrote:EAllusion? Res Ipsa?

Yes? What do you think that number shows?

One of my psych classes was under a prominent rape researcher at the time. When you hear statistics like, "X% of women in college have been sexually assaulted" that number comes from research produced or reviewed by a handful of people of which she was one. She was a leader on campus for sexual assault survivors and prevention.

Her research was flawed and she was the most misandrist person I've ever encountered. She dripped with contempt for men. This was well known enough that men generally avoided her classes. I took it because it was in a time slot I found convenient. While the class I was taking had nothing to do with her subfield, we did take some time from class to go over her research because she was one of those professors.

The most notable thing about her research to my mind is that she defined rape in an ideological way that did not match how people ordinarily think of rape. When trying to get topline estimates of how many women have experienced rape, she used self-report surveys. I remember one question people were asked in these surveys is if they ever had sex while being above the legal drinking limit. If the answer was yes, then they were raped. If both the man and the woman were above the legal drinking limit and they had sexual relations, then the man ipso facto raped the woman due inherent power differentials between men and women. Now, there are circumstances where a person is so inebriated that they no longer have the capacity to consent and having sex with them in that state is rape. But most people do not regard being tipsy as the point where capacity for consent is gone. Yet, when a newspaper article cites her statistics, they don't also include the fact that the operational definition of rape is radically different from the legal definition or ordinary understanding of it.

Other questions focused on whether a person ever felt emotionally manipulated into sex, including in retrospect. Again, there are circumstances where emotional manipulation can become coercive enough that it is reasonable to think of it as rape. But questions like that could easily capture people who simply felt "led on" and were not raped in the way the law or people ordinarily think of the term. Quick and dirty citing of her statistics miss the fact that it is impregnated with radical ideas about sexual consent.

When criticisms of her research was pointed out to her, she was so mean-spirited and condescending it was unbearable. This experience never left me, and I have a strong natural skepticism of rape research findings unless I get to peak under the hood at the methodology.

On the flipside, estimates of "false allegations of rape" tend to take police department and prosecutor office findings as definitive way to much. Police departments and prosecutors are notorious for handling rape allegations poorly. This includes unfairly concluding alleged victims are making false allegations. For instance, the DoJ report on Baltimore's criminal justice system a few years ago found systemic problems that are infuriating including describing victims with a strong case in terms like "conniving little whore."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

I have no reason to doubt these 8 cases. They seem solid enough, but I suggest a healthy skepticism in police department claims. Remember, while confessions at first seem rock solid, police departments get confessions out of innocent people all the time.

DT, just to give you an additional viewpoint, not taking any statistical findings at their face value without looking at the methodology underlying the results is a very normal, even ordinary position to take, regardless of any personal information you may or may not have about the researcher. There are honest and dishonest researchers in every field; all you can do is evaluate the work they produce. Good people produce bad research and and bad people produce good research all the time.

Lemmie wrote:DT, just to give you an additional viewpoint, not taking any statistical findings at their face value without looking at the methodology underlying the results is a very normal, even ordinary position to take, regardless of any personal information you may or may not have about the researcher. There are honest and dishonest researchers in every field; all you can do is evaluate the work they produce. Good people produce bad research and and bad people produce good research all the time.

You are right. Thanks.

EAllusion wrote: police departments get confessions out of innocent people all the time.

That is so messed up.

Lemmie wrote:DT, just to give you an additional viewpoint, not taking any statistical findings at their face value without looking at the methodology underlying the results is a very normal, even ordinary position to take, regardless of any personal information you may or may not have about the researcher. There are honest and dishonest researchers in every field; all you can do is evaluate the work they produce. Good people produce bad research and and bad people produce good research all the time.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that the best possible practice is to do a deep dive on underlying methods of any published research to evaluate it, but I would disagree that this is necessary or practical. Even the best educated people can only do that with a tiny fraction of their knowledge base and heuristics generally are sufficiently up to the task of developing tentative confidence in research. As you know, some fields are better than others in their standards and practices. My point was just that personal experience has motivated me to take a more skeptical eye at sexual assault publications. That’s not to be dismissive, of course. Just a more careful. Similarly, I think the replication crisis has been helpful at highlighting methodologies and sub fields that also require enhanced scrutiny.

For what it is worth, I don’t think the professor I described was dishonest, or at least not dishonest in the sense of actively trying to mislead. I think she was blinded by her own biases to the point that she had a hard time considering criticisms as legitimate or how outside perspectives would interpret her claims. I think this was reinforced by her peers and experience.

EAllusion wrote: police departments get confessions out of innocent people all the time.

That is so messed up.

Over a quarter of the people the Innocence Project has exonerated with hard evidence had false confessions or incriminating admissions about the crimes they didn't commit.

It's a fact that should make you take a hard pause. It's something to keep in the back of your mind.