Misplaced Pages

False accusation of rape: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:11, 31 January 2013 view sourceWikiHogan654 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users840 edits See also← Previous edit Revision as of 07:18, 31 January 2013 view source Roscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits Undid revision 535807643 by WikiHogan654 (talk) rv, not supported as falseNext edit →
Line 119: Line 119:
'''Related:''' '''Related:'''
*], a famous example of a false rape allegation in 2006 *], a famous example of a false rape allegation in 2006
*]
*] *]



Revision as of 07:18, 31 January 2013

A false accusation of rape is an allegation of rape that is not true. As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities is difficult to determine and the absolute value remains unknown.

Estimates of the prevalence of false accusations

FBI statistics

FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%. However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation. Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that:

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.

British Home Office study (2005)

A 2005 study, "A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases" was the largest and most rigorous study to date commissioned by the British Home Office on UK rape crime, from the initial reporting of a rape through to legal prosecutions. The study was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports.

The researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%. The researchers concluded that "one cannot take all police designations at face value" and that "here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors." Moreover, they added:

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.

Police in Victoria (Australia)

Another large-scale study was conducted in Australia, with 850 rapes reported to the Victoria police between 2000 and 2003 (Heenan & Murray, 2006). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers examined 812 cases with sufficient information to make an appropriate determination, and found that 2.1% of these were classified by police as false reports. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.

Kanin's report (1994)

In 1994, Dr. Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike those in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to "seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits." He further states each investigation "always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects" and "the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false." The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period. The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused's version of events.

Criticism

Critics of Dr. Kanin's report include Dr. David Lisak, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Men's Sexual Trauma Research Project at the University of Massachusetts Boston. He states, "Kanin’s 1994 article on false allegations is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations."

According to Lisak, Kanin's study lacked any kind of systematic methodology and did not independently define a false report, instead recording as false any report which the police department classified as false. The department classified reports as false which the complainant later said were false, but Lisak points out that Kanin's study did not scrutinize the police's processes or employ independent checkers to protect results from bias.

Kanin, Lisak writes, took his data from a police department whose investigation procedures are condemned by the U.S. Justice Department and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. These procedures include the almost universal threat, in this department, of polygraph testing of complainants, which is viewed as a tactic of intimidation that leads victims to avoid the justice process and which, Lisak says, is "based on the misperception that a significant percentage of sexual assault reports are false." The police department's "biases...were then echoed in Kanin’s unchallenged reporting of their findings."

Bruce Gross writes in the Forensic Examiner that Kanin's study is an example of the limitations of existing studies on false rape accusations. "Small sample sizes and non-representative samples preclude generalizability." Philip N.S. Rumney questions the reliability of Kanin's study stating that it "must be approached with caution". He argues that the study's most significant problem is Kanin's assumption "that police officers abided by departmental policy in only labeling as false those cases where the complainant admitted to fabrication. He does not consider that actual police practice, as other studies have shown, might have departed from guidelines."

Rumney (2006)

A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations. Data from Rumney (2006).
Number False reporting rate (%)
Theilade and Thomsen (1986) 1 out of 56
4 out of 39
1.5% (minimum)
10% (maximum)
New York Rape Squad (1974) n/a 2%
Hursch and Selkin (1974) 10 out of 545 2%
Kelly et al. (2005) 67 out of 2,643 3% ("possible" and "probable" false allegations)
22% (recorded by police as "no-crime")
Geis (1978) n/a 3–31% (estimates given by police surgeons)
Smith (1989) 17 out of 447 3.8%
U.S. Department of Justice (1997) n/a 8%
Clark and Lewis (1977) 12 out of 116 10.3%
Harris and Grace (1999) 53 out of 483
123 out of 483
10.9% ("false/malicious" claims)
25% (recorded by police as "no-crime")
Lea et al. (2003) 42 out of 379 11%
HMCPSI/HMIC (2002) 164 out of 1,379 11.8%
McCahill et al. (1979) 218 out of 1,198 18.2%
Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 370 20%
Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4%
Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24%
Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164
62 out of 164
41% ("false" claims)
38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41%
Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45%
Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47%
Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90%

A 2006 paper by Philip N.S. Rumney in the Cambridge Law Journal offers a review of studies of false reporting in the USA, New Zealand and the UK. Rumney draws two conclusions from his review of literature. First, the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies by Kelly et al. (2005), Lea et al. (2003), HMCPSI/HMIC (2002), Harris and Grace (1999), Smith (1989), and others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgement. Rumney notes that some officers seem to "have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimization." He adds that "qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as 'proof' of a false allegation."

Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies. He argues, for instance, that in addition to their small sample size the studies by Maclean (1979) and Stewart (1981) used questionable criteria to judge an allegation to be false. MacLean deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will".

Lisak (2010)

Dr. David Lisak's study, published in 2010 in Violence Against Women, classified 8 out of the 136 (5.9%) reported rapes at a major northeastern university over a ten-year period to be false.

Applying IACP guidelines, a case was classified as a false report if there was evidence that a thorough investigation was pursued and that the investigation had yielded evidence that the reported sexual assault had in fact not occurred. A thorough investigation would involve, potentially, multiple interviews of the alleged perpetrator, the victim, and other witnesses, and where applicable, the collection of other forensic evidence (e.g., medical records, security camera records). For example, if key elements of a victim’s account of an assault were internally inconsistent and directly contradicted by multiple witnesses and if the victim then altered those key elements of his or her account, investigators might conclude that the report was false. That conclusion would have been based not on a single interview, or on intuitions about the credibility of the victim, but on a “preponderance” of evidence gathered over the course of a thorough investigation."

Other studies

DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 8%.

Taylor (1987) wrote that "suspicion and disbelief of women who charge men with rape have for centuries had a stranglehold on laws nominally designed to protect women against rape. As a result, many women did not report or prosecute rapes because the process was so often humiliating."

See also

Advocacy:

Related:

References

  1. The Legacy of the Prompt Complaint Requirement, Corroboration Requirement, and Cautionary Instructions on Campus Sexual Assault Forthcoming
  2. "Section II: Crime Index Offenses Reported". FBI, 1996.
  3. "False Allegations, Recantations, and Unfounding in the Context of Sexual Assault". Attorney General's Sexual Task Force, SATF Oregon.
  4. ^ Gross, Bruce (Spring 2009). "False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice". Forensic Examiner.
  5. Kelly. L., Lovett, J., Regan, L. (2005). "A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases". Home Office Research Study 293.
  6. Kelly. L., Lovett, J., Regan, L. (2005). "A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases". Home Office Research Study 293.
  7. Lonsway, Kimberley A.; Aschambault, Joanne; Lisak, David (2009). "False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault". The Voice 3 (1): 1–11.
  8. Cybulska B (2007). "Sexual assault: key issues". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 321–4. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.321. PMC 1905867. PMID 17606752. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. Heenan, Melanie; Murray, Suellen (2006). "Study of Reported Rapes in Victoria 2000-2003, Summary Research Report". Abstracts Database – National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
  10. Kanin, Eugene J., "False Rape Allegations", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994, p. 81. (MS Word document at the Internet Archive)
  11. ^ Lisak, David (September/October 2007). "False allegations of rape: a critique of Kanin". Sexual Assault Report. 11 (1). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Lisak, David; Gardinier, Lori; Nicksa, Sarah C.; Cote, Ashley M. (2010). "False Allegations of Sexual Assualt: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases". Violence Against Women. 16 (12): 1318–1334. doi:10.1177/1077801210387747.
  13. ^ Rumney, Philip N.S. (2006). "False Allegations of Rape". Cambridge Law Journal 65 (1): 128–158. doi:10.1017/S0008197306007069.
  14. Stewart (1981) quoted in Rumney, Philip N.S. (2006). "False Allegations of Rape". Cambridge Law Journal 65 (1): 128–158
  15. DiCanio, M. (1993). The encyclopedia of violence: origins, attitudes, consequences. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-2332-5.
  16. Taylor, J. (1987). "Rape and women's credibility: Problems of recantations and false accusations echoed in the case of Cathleen Crowell Webb and Gary Dotson". Harvard Women's Law Journal (now Harvard Journal of Law & Gender) 10: 59–116.

Further reading

Categories: