So they say that only 8% of rape claims are false?

[LJ_Reloaded]

That's TWICE the rate of other crimes.

Time for feminists to fly into a personal attack rage again!!!

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

Begin with evidence of false accusation of rape, the crime which has become not only the metaphor for all cases of sexual misconduct but for male sexuality itself. Alan Dershowitz (1991), for example, has further harassed his students by telling them that an annual F.B.I. survey of 1600 law enforcement agencies discovered that 8% of rape charges are completely unfounded. That figure, which has held steadily over the past decade, is moreover at least twice as high as for any other felony. Unfounded charges of assault, which like rape is often productive of conflicting testimony, comprise only 1.6% of the total compared to the 8.4% recorded for rape.

Consult also a recent development, DNA testing, which is now becoming routine in rape investigations (Krajik, 1993). Also routine is the discovery that a third of the DNA scans produce non-matches. Consequently, a growing number of men are not only gaining acquittals but are also being released from prison. As with all rape statistics, these figures need careful scrutiny. Police investigators warn, for example, that a mismatch proves innocence only when the DNA could have come from no one but the assailant and its profile or makeup doesn't match the suspect's. Even so, the DNA tests, primarily a prosecutorial weapon, have now been added to the arsenal of defense attorneys, and more evidence of false allegation is appearing.

Although useful, the F.B.I. and DNA data on sex crimes result from unstructured number gathering. More informative, therefore, are the results of a focused study of the false allegation question undertaken by a team headed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division. Its significance derives not only from its scholarly credentials but also its time of origin, 1984/85, a period during which rape had emerged as a major issue, but before its definition included almost any form of non-consensual sex.

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations. Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape. That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false. In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations. To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation. Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

 

[Skiddles2014]

Just suck a dick and get it over with.

 

[Dream59]

Probably more than that. But since all rapes are not reported all figures pertaining to rape are just guesses.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Just suck a dick and get it over with.

Just eat a shotgun

ever, nevermind, it looks like you already tried that

 

[dahlingdoll]

That's TWICE the rate of other crimes.

Time for feminists to fly into a personal attack rage again!!!

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

Feminists don't really need to fly into a personal attack rage considering the outdated data, questionable methodology, small sample size versus the FBI statistics.

Charles McDowell tested the 'validity' by judging himself with his checklist whether the allegation was true or not and then having three 'reviewers' agree with his judgement. This is a falsehood: "To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation." McDowell's investigation initially tried to get the victim to recant without any investigation on the alleged rape which is a faulty methodology considering rape victims often do blame themselves so 'recanting' in this form is not viable to me. Another faulty methodology of McDowell's is the ' indicated deception in a polygraph' as it doesn't mean the polygraph stated she did but that he thought she did because of her stressed vital signs indicated deception to him.

McDowell tested the validity of each rape claim by using of a checklist of questions, in which respondents are scored between 0.5 and 5 points for each answer, with a score over 16 indicating that the woman’s rape allegation was probably false. There exists no documentation anywhere establishing the validity of this methodology, and indeed the questions themselves rely on outdated and disproven rape myths, many of which have exactly zero bearing on whether the account is true or not. The entire test seems designed to maximize the proportion of claims labeled false based entirely on McDowell’s prejudices about women’s dishonesty and has no methodological validity whatsoever.

His testing method

One of the campaign's demands is an end to the use of the so-called McDowell checklist to determine whether rape reports are valid. The checklist, developed by retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charles McDowell, is made up of 57 questions that are scored with .5 to 5 points for each answer. A score of over 16 points means a woman's rape charge is "probably false," over 36 is "false" and over 76 is "overkill." If a woman is having problems with her husband or boyfriend, she gets three points. Financial problems earn one point. Even "demanding" to be given medical treatment by a female earns her a point.

"There is no way any rape victim can pass this test," said Mackey. Considering the seeming irrelevance and bias of the questions, it is not surprising that the McDowell checklist turns up a 60 percent incidence of "false" rape reports, compared to a national average of about eight percent (according to FBI numbers).

More on his questions

In the early 1980s, retired Lieutenant Colonel Charles P. McDowell developed a "rape allegation" checklist, which he developed and distributed for decades during his service. In simple terms, the checklist is designed to "reduce the number of successful prosecutions of rape in the military."

McDowell made the unfounded claim that over 60 percent of rape allegations were false. This idea has been debunked by the FBI, which reports that only 2 percent of all rape claims are false.

According to Pack Parachute, the checklist is meant to verify the accuracy of allegations by asking the victims over 50 questions for which their answers are assigned a quantitative 'score'. Questions include: Does victim report her assailants as being from a different ethnic group? Does victim report anal sex? And so on. The checklist is then scored in the following way: 0 – 15: Ambiguous or doubtful, 16 – 35: Allegation Probably False, 36 – 75: False Allegation, 76 + up: Overkill

Accordingly, "victims would have to score less than 0 in order to be judged to be telling the truth, meaning there would be no way for the assault to be judged as actually taking place."

Let's look at McDowell's numbers. 60% of 556 is 334. Subtract the 80 originally classified as false and the result is get 254 out of the 256 cases originally determined to be inconclusive are reclassified as false. It's odd to me how a body of cases rated “inconclusive” by one set of researchers can be so conclusively and one-sidedly rated by the reviewers.

 

[dahlingdoll]

Here is McDowell's list in which the victim must score below a ZERO to be considered telling the truth about being raped.

RAPE ALLEGATION CHECKLIST
Created by the US Pentagon and
Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D. USAF, OSI


Initial Complaint
Points
1 Was the complaint timely? Y N N=0.5
2 Was the initial complaint made by the victim to a friend? Y N Y=0.5
3 Were law enforcement authorities notified by someone other than the victim? Y N Y=3.0

Nature of the Allegation

4 Does victim report being abducted? Y N Y=0.5
5 Does victim report being intoxicated at the time of the assault? Y N Y=3.0
6 Does victim’s recollection of the details of the assault seem overly broad? Y N Y=0.5
7 Does victim report offering vigorous resistance to her assailant? Y N Y=3.0
8 Is victim able to identify or locate the scene of the assault? Y N N=3.0
9 Does victim report passing out or losing consciousness during the assault? Y N Y=0.5
10 Does victim report waking up (or coming to) and finding her assailant engaging in intercourse with her? Y N Y=0.5
11 Does victim have difficulty in describing the sexual details of the assault? Y N Y=0.5
12 Does victim report anal sex (sodomy)? Y N N=1.0
13 Does victim report forced oral sex (fellatio)? Y N N=0.5
14 Does victim’s story contain any significant changes in subsequent retelling? Y N Y=2.0
15 Does victim describe the assault in flat, unemotional tones? Y N Y=0.5
16 Does victim describe the assault with a sense of relish or enthusiasm? Y N Y=0.5
17 Does victim report being assaulted at gunpoint? Y N Y=3.0


Suspect Description

18 Does victim report being assaulted by multiple assailants? Y N Y=0.5
19 Does victim report her assailant(s) as being of a different race or ethnic group? Y N Y=0.5
20 Does victim report keeping her eyes closed during the assault (and therefore not able to identify her assailant)? Y N Y=0.5
21 Does victim describe her assailant as having an unsavory appearance? Y N Y=0.5
22 Does victim report her assailant wore a mask? Y N Y=0.5
23 Does victim report her assailant wore gloves? Y N Y=0.5
24 Does victim describe her assailant as a person she knows or who is familiar to her but can’t provide a good physical description? Y N Y=3.0

Physical and Medical Evidence

25 Is the crime scene consistent with the story? Y N N=3.0
26 Does victim display any minor sharp weapon injuries (lacerations)? Y N Y=3.0
27 Is the condition of victim’s clothing consistent with her story? Y N N=3.0
28 Does victim present bruises from the assault which are inconsistent in color (age) with the time of the assault? Y N Y=0.5
29 Does victim display any cross-hatching scratches to the face? Y N Y=5.0
30 Does victim display shallow scratches to the face, neck, breasts, thighs or stomach? Y N Y=5.0
31 If scratches are present on the face or breasts, do they cross the eyes, lips or nipples? Y N N=3.0
32 Do any lacerations include hesitation wounds? Y N Y=5.0
33 Does victim display any writing on her body allegedly done by the assailant? Y N Y=5.0


Victim’s attitude

34 Does victim seem ambivalent toward her injuries? Y N Y=0.5
35 Does victim appear to feign emotions when relating details of the assault? Y N Y=0.5
36 Is victim reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement authorities? Y N Y=0.5
37 When telling about the assault, does victim have difficulty explaining anomalies or inconsistencies? Y N Y=0.5
38 Does victim demand to be treated by a female physician or interviewed by a female police officer? Y N Y=1.0
39 Does victim express a desire to “drop” the whole matter or otherwise indicate she does not want it investigated? Y N Y=1.0
40 Does victim become outraged when asked to corroborate her assault? Y N Y=1.0
41 Does victim try to steer the interview into “safe” topics or those that will engender sympathy? Y N Y=0.5

Assailant’s Communications

42 Does victim report receiving obscene phone calls prior to the assault? Y N Y=1.0
43 Does victim report receiving phone calls from the assailant after the assault? Y N Y=1.0
44 Does victim report receiving any kind of written communication from her assailant before, during, or after the assault? Y N Y=1.0
45 If victim has received a written communication, was it a “cut and paste” note? Y N Y=3.0
46 If victim has received written communication, does it contain any kind of rhyming scheme or take the form of poetry? Y N Y=3.0
47 Does victim report being watched (surveilled) by her assailant prior to the assault? Y N Y=0.5
48 Does the victim report being complimented by her assailant during the assault? Y N Y=0.5

Personality and Lifestyle Issues

49 Does victim report engaging in high risk behavior prior to her assault? Y N Y=2.0
50 Does victim have a history of alcohol abuse? Y N Y=3.0
51 Does victim have a history of financial problems? Y N Y=1.0
52 Does victim have a history of mental or emotional problems? Y N Y=3.0
53 Does victim have a significant medical history? Y N Y=2.0
54 Does victim report prior rapes or assaults? Y N Y=2.0
55 Does victim have a history of work-related problems? Y N Y=2.0
56 Does victim have problems in her interpersonal relationships (i.e., with her husband, boyfriend, or others)? Y N Y=3.0
57 Does the allegation solve a problem for the victim? Y N Y=5.0


SCORING SCALE:
0 - 15: EQUIVOCAL
16 - 35: ALLEGATION PROBABLY FALSE
36 - 75: FALSE ALLEGATION
76 + UP: OVERKILL