Rape Statistics

[Eric D]

Frankly, I'm staggered particularly when you factor in the number of unreported cases. I wonder what your thoughts are? Do these claimed figures shock and surprise you?

Studies like these fail to do anything but give a rough idea of the number of reported or alledged cases of rape. It doesn't really give a number of actual victims of sexual assault. I know it doesn't sound nice, but there's the possibillity that a large number of women may not be telling the truth. For whatever reason. Attention. Spite. It happens. Does anybody remember the girl who took her rape story to youtube? Set off my woo-detector. Not that I believe most women would lie about such a thing.

 

[Niggle]

Don't tar everybody with the same brush, I and a good few others said nothing of the sort. This accusation is a good indicator why it's hard to get reliable data on anything let alone rape figures.

As previously requested, would you like to tell us your agenda, if any for the "what gender" question and you might even want to tell those of us who aren't familiar with you what gender YOU are in the interest of balance an' all.

Sorry for the generalizations; I'll try to be more precise in the future. I have no agenda other than to point out that it seems like the ones talking in mild terms about ass-grabbing and feel-copping are male (I only know because I've heard them say so in other threads) and are not taking into account how said acts are perceived by the grabbee/coppee. While everyone seems to be universally against rape, there seems to be ambivalence about the "lesser" acts from the male point of view. Said ambivalence seems to stem from a perception that the victim is exaggerating.

I'm female. At the point I started posting, there were few/no other females posting (ETA: that I know of, which is why I asked). I was trying to give you guys the view from the other side. You're talking about how the statistics are skewed. I'm saying they may be skewed, but part of that is perception that may nevertheless be valid (e.g., the hands down the pants may be a sexual assault to you but an attempted rape to the victim). Neither view is necessarily wrong, but without the definitions being included in the study, we have no way of knowing.

FWIW, I agree that there can be problems if those definitions are too broad. I understand that laws can only go by what happened, not what was intended, hence the grab can only be classed as assault, but the difference will show up in the statistics if that grab is counted by asking the victim or by looking at the police report. I do agree that it's ridiculous if a woman can have consensual sex and later file a rape charge if she regrets it; there's a certain point where personal responsibility has to come into play. That line gets awfully fuzzy if the consent was given while impaired (drunk, etc.). If non-impaired consent cases are also included here as rapes, they're wrongly inflating the statistics (IMO).

That's all the agenda there is. I promise.

 

[Niggle]

It's essential in knowing whether the things we do to solve the problem are working or not.

This is true, but we're talking about an epidemic-level problem. I think we're pretty well agreed that the statistics are inflated, but even if they are, the numbers still make taking action to reduce them urgent. Considering how long it takes to design, fund, set up, run, and analyze a study, you're talking about years during which more women will be subjected to this crime, at rates that are still unacceptable. We need to start doing something about it now.

If it helps, add a time element to the next study (e.g., rapes occurring in year-block increments), which should help determine if the problem is getting worse of better (see Bikewer's post about attitudes toward rape in the sixties). The rapes those detectives refused to investigate may or may not be counted here, depending on where they got the numbers from. You may find that the numbers are even higher than you think. Or you may find that the measures that have been put into place already are already helping to reduce them. Or both, which is really scary.

 

[Niggle]

Studies like these fail to do anything but give a rough idea of the number of reported or alledged cases of rape. It doesn't really give a number of actual victims of sexual assault. I know it doesn't sound nice, but there's the possibillity that a large number of women may not be telling the truth. For whatever reason. Attention. Spite. It happens. Does anybody remember the girl who took her rape story to youtube? Set off my woo-detector. Not that I believe most women would lie about such a thing.

ETA: Emphasis added.

Well, which is it? Are most of us lying, or are most of us telling the truth?

 

[Matthew Best]

The two bolded passages are not necessarily contradictory. "A large number" does not mean "most".

So a large number of women might be lying and still most of them would be telling the truth.

 

[Eric D]

ETA: Emphasis added.

Well, which is it? Are most of us lying, or are most of us telling the truth?

I'm not omnipotent. How should I know? I can't take a stance on something without knowing whether or not it's true.

I spoke of the possibillity that a large number (didn't say most) of women may not be telling the truth. I said I do not believe most women would lie about such a thing, but I didn't say I disbelieve it either. I simply don't know, and these statistics don't clear anything up for me.

I hope you're not implying that I'm being insenstive and brushing off rape victims as liars. I'm simplying saying I don't know.

 

[Cain]

But arguably the most distressing statistics came from a study conducted at the University of California in 1980.

I just got back from the IMDb board for the 1992 film Bad Lieutenant. There's an infamous scene where Harvey Keitel

Interrogates two under-age girls (sisters) in their car. He asks where they live, what they're doing in the city, whether or not their father knows their whereabouts. The scene plays out at an uncomfortable pace because he's going to have one of the girls show her ass while he INSISTS the other demonstrates how to suck a cock. He uses this imagery to masturbate.

On the forum some guys(?) claim they got off on the scene, that it was "hot."

 

[bluesjnr]

I just got back from the IMDb board for the 1992 film Bad Lieutenant. There's an infamous scene where Harvey Keitel

Interrogates two under-age girls (sisters) in their car. He asks where they live, what they're doing in the city, whether or not their father knows their whereabouts. The scene plays out at an uncomfortable pace because he's going to have one of the girls show her ass while he INSISTS the other demonstrates how to suck a cock. He uses this imagery to masturbate.

On the forum some guys(?) claim they got off on the scene, that it was "hot."

I'm struggling to see the relevance and your quote is not referenced so that doesn't help. We are debating rape statistics here Cain, quite what Bad Lieutenant has to do with that is beyond me. I'm familiar with the scene in question and at a huge leap can see how you might find it germane. From a personal point of view, I don't think analysing fiction and the reactions to it is going to advance this discussion.


ETA - I found the quote referenced on Pro Yaffles post on page one. It relates to a study completed using fiction to assess attitudes to rape. I see where you are going now.

 

[MikeMangum]

Just read an interesting article at Straight Statistics regarding rape statistics published by the government of the UK.

For years the Home Office and the former Lord Chancellor’s Department have misled the media about rape statistics – and allowed the media to misinform the public.

Anxiety has grown as a result of the apparent increase in rape offences and the inability to successfully prosecute offenders. Women have been needlessly alarmed for their safety, when the actual threat is much smaller than has been pretended.

Congratulations, therefore, to the Radio 4 programme More or Less and its reporter Ruth Alexander, who have put into the public domain what some advisers engaged by Whitehall committees have known for some time.

This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda.

Since 1999 the Home Office has known that its methods for calculating rape convictions are wrong. The real conviction rate is not the publicly broadcast 10 per cent but closer to 50 per cent (it varies slightly from year to year). In a Minority Report (1) which I wrote for a Home Office committee in 2000 but which advisers refused to forward to ministers who were then actively considering new rape legislation, the HO were told that they were confusing ‘attrition’ rates with ‘conviction’ rates.

The attrition rate refers to the number of convictions secured compared with the number of that particular crime reported to the police (it must be noted that a crime that is ‘reported’ does not automatically imply that the crime actually took place). The conviction rate refers to the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence.

Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. Why? The question is best addressed to Betty Moxon who, in 2000, was head of the Sex Offenders Review Team (SORT) for whom I wrote the minority report.

...

By contrast, the Met Police figures for reported rape show a curve which is surely unsustainable. The experience of New Zealand, which at one point ceased paying compensation to rape victims, is instructive. After a corresponding fall in claims the re-introduction of compensation for rape was followed by a recovery in the number of reported rapes.

As if to acknowledge the discrepancy the Home Office Research Dept has published more than two papers on how this gap between rape claims and rape convictions arises. In essence, their paper, HORS 196, (2) lists over 50 per cent of reported rapes as being without credible evidence to take them to trial.

This is where the ‘attrition rate’ saga begins. Of the initial 483 cases reviewed 25 per cent were ‘no-crime’ and 31 per cent were listed as ‘no further action’ (NFA). Both categories signify a suspicion that the claimed crime did not occur, or did not occur in the way first explained, and requires that the claimant make a retraction before the police can categorise them as ‘no-crime’ or NFA.

There's alot more there, but there's one thing that I found insane is that people have a financial incentive to charge someone with rape because the government literally pays them to make a claim of rape. Do these people not understand incentives?

 

[bluesjnr]

That certainly is an interesting read.

In the UK one could possibly get compensation via the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) it doesn't even depend on a successful conviction or even require the individual to have been charged! Here are the complete eligibility requirements stated on the web page, my bold.

* You have been injured seriously enough to qualify for at least our minimum award (£1,000).
* You were injured in an act of violence in England, Scotland or Wales. An offender does not necessarily have to have been convicted of, or even charged with that crime.
* You have made your application within two years of the incident that caused your injury. (But we might accept applications outside this limit if in your particular case it wasn't reasonable for an application form to have been submitted within two years of the incident and there would still be enough evidence for us to consider.)

I'm assuming the defendant would have to have been charged with some crime in connection - if not it's just plain daft.

ETA - An interesting observation. The web site offers information on organisations that can help individuals with their claims, here they are as listed.

Where else can I get free help?

You can get free confidential support and advice from Victim Support and the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Here are some other organisations that may be able to offer free help and support:

Rape Crisis
Rape Crisis Scotland
Womens Aid
Scottish Womens Aid

Can anybody else see a slight bias here or am I being cynical?

 

[bluesjnr]

Well that silence tells me I'm being cynical.

 

[Brainster]

Rape may also be over-reported for various reasons. There was a famous case about 20 years ago where a girl claimed to have been raped and her supposed rapist was imprisoned. Then she was "born again" and recanted the charges, admitting that she had consensual sex with a boyfriend (not the man jailed) and worried she might get pregnant and be in big trouble with her parents, so she made up a story about being raped instead.