All your percentages do is justify wrongly treating rape victims as likely false accusers. That you then figuratively pat these rape victims on the head and tell them they are not malicious in their false reports does nothing but make you appear to be on the side of rapists as you instruct them on how to use rape loopholes to avoid legal accountability for the rapes they commit.

The core problem here is that I was CONTRASTING the way investigators treat those who report having been mugged to the way investigators treat those who report being raped — despite the fact that both crimes have been falsely reported.

OK, let’s talk just about this for a moment.

Yes, both crimes have been falsely reported. No debate there. But that language tells us nothing about the issue.

The variance in the TYPE of “false” reports are going to be different between mugging and rape. If you only look at one subset of false reports–as you seem to be doing–then you will reach the wrong conclusion. The variance can probably explain much (though probably not all) of the difference in reactions to the accusations.

I have written on the different types of “false” accusations, at http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2007/05/false-false-false-false-or.html

So, let’s start with “maliciously false,” a.k.a. “subjectively and objectively false.”

What %age of mugging reports are maliciously false?
What %age of rape reports are maliciously false?
You and I both agree, IIRC, that these %ages are likely to be close to identical. And small, FWIW.

Where we run into the problem is LEGAL falsity, e.g. “subjectively true, objectively false.” You can read more about that definition on the linked post.
what %age of mugging reports are legally false?
What %age of rape reports are legally false?
It seems obvious that mugging reports will tend to match more accurately to the legal ability to convict the mugger. Why? Well, because mugging is fairly simple: you threaten someone or beat them up, and you take their money. Society’s expectation of what mugging is, is a good match for the law. If someone says “John mugged me and took my wallet” then the assumption is that, if the story is true, John should be convicted. And that assumption is generally right. Moreover, it rarely has anything to do with what the mugger says. There aren’t many escapes for mugging other than “I didn’t do anything;” there are not may loopholes.

Rape is different. Why? Because society’s expectation of what “rape” means is a BAD MATCH for the law. There are many, many, situations in which someone says (and feels) “I was raped” and the law does not agree. This in fact is one of the larger issues in rape prosecutions. For an example, see http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2006/10/analysis-of-oregon-rape-law.html

So even though pretty much everyone who says “John raped me” will, in their heart, believe that this is true (just like everyone who says “John mugged me,”) for the rape victims this is less likely to be accurate. It’s not based on malice. They are not responsible for knowing the intricacies of rape law, so even if it turns out that what they thought was rape isn’t something that their state has chosen to define as a crime, it’s not their fault. Bit the fact that this is more likely is, probably, an effect on investigators.

Finally, there is the issue of convictions. Rapes are, well, hard to prove. Rape convictions are hard to get. Prosecutors or investigators who have limited resources are not always willing to invest significant resources into crimes which are more difficult to solve. This is a problem, but is nonetheless what happens. And if they do go into an investigation at the beginning, they are similarly more likely to terminate an investigation, or to decline to bring formal charges, if it reveals that a conviction is unlikely.

Again, this isn’t fair or good. But be that as it may, police DO feel that way; I have heard them grumble about (non-rape) cases where they felt their work would be “wasted” by the prosecutor.

So there you have it.

Now, before you go attacking me for saying, I dunno, that we shouldn’t investigate rape cases or something… I do not like this. That is why I have written posts, for example, on language of rape laws.

But I think my summary reflects reality NOW. And I think that it is important to accept, not deny, what is really going on. How else are you going to fix it to make it work? If you blame the wrong party (be it the prosecutor, police, judge, jury) then you will put your attention in the wrong place, and it won’t get fixed.

And I think it’s important not to confuse the issue, like I think you were doing here.

Do both mugging and raping victims make false reports?

Sure. But not only is it not the whole explanation, your post actually leads people to the wrong conclusion.

I still dont get in the types of cases I’m talking about, behind closed doors, no witnesses, no physical evidence, how an allegation of rape could result in me going to jail

Because your credibility and statements may be insufficient, in comparison to the credibility and statements of the accuser, to raise the defense of reasonable doubt.

It is not so difficult to imagine that we will reach a conclusion based on no more than a credibility analysis, without physical evidence. We do it every day. The guy on the street corner who claims that the FBI killed his wife may actually be right, but I don’t regard him as credible enough to believe him.

We do the same in the courts as well. Judges grant restraining orders on a frequent basis, on the substance of generally-conflicting oral testimony. Same with rape.

Just remember, as well, that the LEGAL definition of rape is a very small subset of the MORAL definition of rape. The defendant does not need to use his credibility to prove he was a “good guy” or that he acted morally. He only needs to use what credibility he has to convince the jury to buy into one of the various “escape clauses” in the rape law.

That is why convictions based only on testimony are incredibly hard to get.

You wrote: “I point out why that’s a bad analogy in my view, and suggest that fraud is better (note: better, not ideal) and I also say that fraud “is not nearly as poor treatment as the way we treat rape victims, but is closer to that than the way we treat theft victims.” (again: closER. BettER. There is no perfect analogy for rape other than rape, but the wallet analogy really sucks.)”

The core problem here is that I was CONTRASTING the way investigators treat those who report having been mugged to the way investigators treat those who report being raped — despite the fact that both crimes have been falsely reported.

Your closer, better analogy wipes out this contrast and then you attempt to silence all discussion of the contrast I highlighted in the original post.

That’s dismissive, disrespectful and intellectually dishonest.

And of course when I don’t let your repeated “corrections” stand as gospel I’m the one attacking you.

You claim that mugging is a bad analogy because you either don’t understand the point of my analogy (you seem to have tunnel vision as you ignore the actual point of my analogy as you try to debunk it) or you assume all reports of muggings to be valid. But false reports of muggings do happen.

Ignoring all rape cases of this type based on your fear of a false conviction would not save you from what you fear, but it would prevent the possiblity of true convictions in thousands of rape cases each year. This would leave more rapists feeling entitled to rape and it would leave your reputation more tainted if someone made a false allegation against you when they consented because your assumption means that you can never prove that you weren’t rightly accused under these circumstances.

Your denial becomes meaningless. Same goes for anyone you know who claims to have been wrongfully accused where DNA or other physical evidence doesn’t clear them. Studies have shown that confessions can and are induced when the person confessing is innocent so retractions without the evidence to prove them also become meaningless.

However, if you did commit a sex crime there is a real possibililty under these circumstances that even with the defense “she consented” you could be convicted and properly so — if the investigators know how to get all of the relevant evidence in cases such as this and if they recognize what is meaningful.

Many people who commit sex crimes rationalize away lack of consent so that if they are rightfully accused they view themselves as wrongfully accused and they can and do make statements to friends and others which incriminate them. Others simply feel above the law so even though they are guilty they have no fear of being convicted. Some of these rapists go online and brag about their conquests.

If police assume there is no evidence except the victim testimony they won’t even bother looking for evidence of guilt which in some cases isn’t hard to find and which will be admissible in criminal court.

Many people who commit crimes like this are serial rapists and prosecutors have successfully argued to try a series of crimes together to show a pattern which is no different from murder cases where a widow or widower accidently shot his/her last 3 spouses.

That needs to change, I agree with you on that but I wasn’t discussing cases where the defendant admitted to a lack of consent.

“Many people continue to view date rape as nothing more than a dispute where no crime happened because nobody was injured. If she ain’t maimed or dead, he ain’t guilty.”

Many people do feel that way, I’m not one of them though for me there is a clear distance between maimed or dead and no physical evidence at all.

“You have fears about being denied justice, but I don’t believe the laws and enforcement of those laws should be based on your fears so that thousands of rape victims are undeniably denied justice.”

I dont get this, the two dont need to be in conflict. I agreed with the first part I quoted, said where I disageed on the second and with this one, you seem to again be going for the larger argument where I am still discussing cases that lack physical evidence. Is the system as a whole fucked up? Yes. Are there many, many things I would agree with you on as far as handling and invesitgation of rape cases? Yep, ive already listed a few. But my fears of being denied justice in the cases I am talking about don’t seem so inconsequantial to me and again it does not need to be an either/or proposition from the outset.

I still dont get in the types of cases I’m talking about, behind closed doors, no witnesses, no physical evidence, how an allegation of rape could result in me going to jail and I understand the difficulties that result from that but I dont know how to fix them.

-you write on wallets

-I point out why that’s a bad analogy in my view, and suggest that fraud is better (note: better, not ideal) and I also say that fraud “is not nearly as poor treatment as the way we treat rape victims, but is closer to that than the way we treat theft victims.” (again: closER. BettER. There is no perfect analogy for rape other than rape, but the wallet analogy really sucks.)

-You mischaracterize my wallet comment for some reason.

-I point out that you did so. You don’t apologize for it. You don’t address the issues I raised in my wallet comment. You don’t concede the possibility that one or the other of us is simply miscommunicating. Instead, you again assign me your own personal “what Sailorman is doing is…” (which incidentally is pretty much the worst interpretations of my post) and go off on it.

-Then, you do the same for fraud. AGAIN, you apparently ignore the rest of my sentence that provides the all-important context.

I am continually amazed at your deliberate mischaracterization of my views in this thread. I think “any conviction a miscarriage of justice?” WTF? I have said hundreds of times that rape convictions are difficult; that they are biased against victims. I have written plenty on rape. Hell, I wrote on this very subject back in 2007, myself: http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-on-bias-neutral-improvements-for.html We have exchanged many comments. Why are you–just now–acting as if you’ve never read any of my stuff, i’ve never read abyss2hope, and as if I’m some MRA “all men are innocent” writer?

We need to understand and acknowledge the issues which make it difficult to convict rapists. We need to understand and acknowledge the extraordinarily difficult problem of trying to convict people in situations where the physical and circumstantial evidence do not necessarily support conviction–even though a crime occurred.

If we don’t understand them, we can’t fix them. If we don’t acknowledge them, and pretend that the evidence is different, we will fail to be persuasive when discussing the evidence. You can talk all you want about the fact that a jury or observer “should” come to X conclusion, or deliver Y verdict. But unless you know WHY they do it, your opinion isn’t going to change their mind.

This matches the exonerations of people wrongfully convicted of murder or stranger rape which many people use to try to undermine all rape cases. So if a child who lives with you or near you is raped and murdered that’s when you are at greatest risk of being falsely charged and falsely convicted.

Yet when those cases are being discussed those who like to shout “innocent until proven guilty” remain silent. At one blogger’s site where this was a big theme another rape was reported at the same place and when it came out that the suspect was black and the alleged victim white, that was all the evidence they needed to dismiss that case as not worth thinking about. The case fit their expectations for a real rape and that’s all they needed to know.

The family of JonBenet Ramsey was only recently announced to be off the list of potential murderers. Imagine what would have happened if an investigator got an innocent family member to agree to be interrogated and that person broke down and falsely confessed. Would you believe that a confessed murderer was innocent?

In the example you gave the most likely outcome is that the cops will charge nobody because what happened will be viewed as an argument which got out of hand and in which nobody was injured. This might be true even if the woman who assaulted you told the cops, “He asked for it.”

In date rape cases where the defendant has admitted that the alleged victim didn’t consent juries have still let these rapists go.

Many people continue to view date rape as nothing more than a dispute where no crime happened because nobody was injured. If she ain’t maimed or dead, he ain’t guilty.

You have fears about being denied justice, but I don’t believe the laws and enforcement of those laws should be based on your fears so that thousands of rape victims are undeniably denied justice.