If we look at FBI investigations into police reports, they classify allegations as True, Unknown, False (which means provably false). That does not mean we know the total number of false allegations, since some of the Unknown cases are false too. It's aggravating when people argue, "Even if 2% are innocent..." The number is more likely 30%, and we don't know what it is. Also, if it was 5%, I'd tell those 5% to take one for the team unless we can prove them innocent. Anyone else tired of the 2% misquote, and the due process folks arguing, "but even if 2%"?
Indeed, 2% -- 8% accusations were found to be false. 7% -- 14% accusations were found to be true. We do not know about over 80% of accusations.
The ratios would tend to indicate about 1/3 are false in total, but it is probably a lot easier to determine that an allegation is false than that it is true.
If...... courts were allowed to use sensitive lie detectors.......... at least as evidence to prove innocence..... the percentages could be greatly improved.......... .... especially if qualified hypnotherapists were allowed to regress the accused to the time of the incident.......... Google the name Helen Wambach Ph. D. to get an idea of how serious this part of the formula really is........
The left are hypocrites. When it comes to the death penalty they are against it because 2% of people might be innocent. When it comes to accusing a man of sexual harassment all are automatically guilty.
In a sense it has, but it is very costly and involved a brain CAT scan, which is huge levels of radiation. It works because the areas of the brain for reasoning and for memory are at different locations. If telling a lie, the major brain activity will come from the part of the brain that deals with logic. If telling the truth, the major brain activity will be in memory. In a sense, one area is measuring the subconscious mind (the memory bank) and the other the conscious mind (logic). While in theory a person potentially could be so conditioned that possibly a lie could be so deeply implanted in memory a person believed it true, but no one had been able to beat the system so far. (I read alot about that, but don't remember how to find it.) The regular lie detectors actually are guilty-conscious detectors and require a person is cooperative as well. Mostly, they are a buff and interrogation gimmick.
Thank you. Could you give me more information/links of perfect lie detector. Can it become less expensive?
I know when Democratic D.A.'s charge Republican officeholders with crimes, it's almost always bogus. Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens, etc. The list is endless.
It's an interesting question. There is not surprisingly much research on the subject. The best study I have seen was done was done by the Air Force in the 1980s This approximate 40% number pops up the few times an actual through study has been done. The thing to remember is that rape is still rare about 150/100,000. There are are lot more psychos out there more than caoabable of making false accuations than there are rapes.
I was one of the 2%. I can't tell you how often it happens though. I'd imagine the vast majority of the time (99.5%) you never hear about it when it happens. Many of the prosecutors can be just as bad. They'll try to get a conviction just to justify the fact that the accused was arrested and held in jail for many months. A lot less accountability than you might imagine. Certainly a Libertarian argument here; the more laws there are the more likelihood there is for people to get caught up in those laws, even if innocent
No matter whom the prosecutor sides with, the other side will scream foul. If they flip a coin, both sides will call foul. Pretty obvious though that no guy accused of rape will tell anyone, and no guy afraid of being accused will say so, and no guy extorted with the threat of being accused will report it until after he is actually accused. Note: the Obama administration only asked how many students were assaulted, not how many were afraid of being assaulted or of being accused, not that I would have trusted their count.
I've heard that about 6% of rape allegation have been shown to be false allegations, so I'd say your figures seem to be in the ball-park.
Lots of discussion of this very issue, and how BS gets circulated/reinforced, in a law review article cited here several times. Article is in the context of false rape claims. IME and opinion, 10-20% of allegations against anyone of any nature are false. Adjust that significantly upward for female accusers and down for male. For every bad type of behavior men tend to engage in, there is an equally reprehensible female behavior. Without going into psychology and gender, a disturbingly large chunk of women tend to be completely comfortable making false accusations against others. http://www.avoiceformalestudents.co...nisms-two-percent-false-rape-claim-figure.pdf To the death penalty and other crimes, claiming that a certain % of allegations are false is only tangential to the actual issue, "what % of convictions and pleas result in unjust outcomes due to innocence of the accused?" which includes various evidentiary and procedural standards. THAT is the pertinent question, false allegations are only a subset of it. IME and opinion, a far lower percentage of pleas and convictions are unjust due to innocence of the accused. Adjust up if a male victim is convicted/pleas to crimes against a woman or child, and down when a woman is convicted/please to crimes against a man. Adjust up in cases of prospective recidivism due to the unfortunate and unjust erosion of evidentiary rules prohibiting the admission of prior bad acts in many jurisdictions. Adjust WAY down in instances where the death penalty is a possible penalty.
As bad as a false accusation is...a false conviction leading to the death penalty leads to you and me (the state) KILLING an innocent person.
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).4
The Bush department of Justice found very low numbers, whereas the Obama department of Justice found very high numbers for how many women have been raped. Clearly one of them, or maybe both, is lying about the numbers they counted. Also, it would not take many women wanting laws in their favor to strategically vote in these surveys. The outcome is laws that let them convict whomever they want whenever they want.
Even without these extreme laws, if a guy rapes a woman in a park, no jury will believe him that she voluntarily had sex. The new laws allow women to convict their spouses years after sex if he does not agree to a favorable alimony package. All made possible by the claim that 100% - 6% = 94% of rape allegations are true.
Evidence? I am much more persuaded by the astonishing statistics (usually from other countries) on the proportion of men who admit to having committed rape.
I don't believe rapists would admit even in a survey to having raped. Motivated surveyors could have misreported the results. Also males wanting to protect women with stronger laws could have lied in the survey that they raped. As for friends, I knew a 300 pound woman who told me someone had raped her the previous night. I knew another woman who told she was raped, but her story did not add up. A third woman's story was much more believable. Also I've seen two sexual assualts at parties. It definitely happens often, but I think 40% are false. Even 10% of students is bad. I just wish people did not deliberately mislead on statistics and ignore the innocent men whose lives would be ruined by overbroad definitions that deny him of a trial as to whether he committed a real rape.
