Talk:Rape reporting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 False reporting 2 Source Material Went Away 3 POV Check rape reporting definitions, sources, statistics 4 Offensively Biased Political Statements 5 section about the experiences of those falsely accused of rape 6 other interpretations

[edit] False reporting

Given the sensitive nature of the subject, I think this article could do with a lot of work. For instance, the section on false reporting is composed mainly of a single study into false reporting, and one which looks to me to have a suspect methodology - might many rape victims withdraw allegations out of fear rather than because they are admitting that they made it up? I am not sure, but I do know that more care is needed in such a controversial issue. -gregorya-

It's true that true allegations might be withdrawn for various reasons (bribery, intimidation, fear of the court process, embarrassment), but the study tried to take that into account. It only listed those allegations that the women later stated to be false, not those that were simply withdrawn.[1] [2] If you have other studies with contrary information, or published critiques of the Kanin study, please include them. Paul B 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know of any other studies; the reason I came to this page was to find some discussion of the issue. I think the article should at least qualify Kanin's study with the disclaimer that the conclusions of a single study doesn't imply that we know anything to any great degree of certainty.

I also wonder if information should be added, either by modying this article, or as a distinct one, about rape convictions. I found this page looking for numbers on the topic after it came up in the news, and the figures were disputed by a times article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2577435,00.html. It might be nice to see some discussion of how high/low rape convictions actually are, and what this implies. Again, I'm afraid that I'm not the person to do this; I know very little about the topic. User:gregorya 13:28 2 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Source Material Went Away

I pulled the sentence

Fisher found that:

"... many women do not characterize their sexual victimizations as a crime for a number of reasons (such as embarrassment, not clearly understanding the legal definition of rape, or not wanting to define someone they know who victimized them as a 'rapist') or because they blame themselves for their sexual assault."

because while trying to determine if, in fact, it says "women and men" as some IP editors have changed the wording to, I made a discovery: the link's to a 404 error. Obviously, the 404 error says nothing about the characterization of sexual victimizations by anybody. So, I moved it to here. Can an alternative source for the Fisher (is this someone with an article?) study be found, to check the quote? Can an alternative quote with the same intended meaning as Fisher be found? Is any quote needed? The Literate Engineer 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check rape reporting definitions, sources, statistics

I added the following quick and dirty content to raise POV issues about the how rape is reported that need to be shown here. These issues need to be addressed here in depth to make this article credible and NPOV. I don't have time to source and or cite all these statements now but I welcome other editors to weigh in. (drop in editor)

Content at issue:

Rape reporting are one of the most unreliable and politicized forms of crime reporting in the United States. States define rape in many different and contradictory ways. Some forms of rape are not defined as rape at all in some states while in others they are. This leads to wildly unreliable rape incidence statistics. In addition, male-female rape is a highly political issue so male-female rape statistics are often wildly exaggerated or falsified to fearmonger (see The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability, Laura Kipnis, 2006) for perjorative political purposes. Reverse sexism is rampant in rape reporting to the detriment of male victims of both male and female rapists. Female victims of female rapists especially girls are rarely reported at all. "Indeed, no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than has rape." [3] (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.210 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Offensively Biased Political Statements

This page is written in the most offensively biased manner that I have witnessed in a long time.

The author makes a variety of inaccurate claims that are, at best, sexist, and at worst, deliberately misogynist.

The original author needs to give more references than a single book to support the assertion that rape statistics are exaggerated for political reasons. If anything rape statistics are usually based on reported rapes, which are known to be significantly under reported.

I would propose that this page be removed as it perpetuates a stereotype that revictimises rape survivors.

Datura Greenleaf 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its unclear, but I think the opening paragraph refers not to statistics of rapes reported to police, but statistics gained from surveys that use very absurd definitions of rape (such as defining rape as feeling any pressure of any kind to have sex or as regretting it later). These statistics are often passed around college campuses or found on the internet and are used for political purposes to inflame people. The opening parapraph is definitely biased but the rest of the article seems fine. Qvkfgmjqy 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay - heated subject so let's go carefully. I agree the first paragraph needs a total rewrite, and far better ciation. I do not agree with Datura Greenleaf that the page needs removing. Indeed, I feel from the tone of that editors entry on this talk page she feels very emotive about the subject. Given this, it is surely better to have a strong, NPOV,article than to "dust it under the covers" by removing all content ???? Pedro1999a |  Talk  14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address the problem re the intro, and have removed the tag. Still, more references would be desirable. Paul B 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section about the experiences of those falsely accused of rape

Would a section about the experiences of people falsely accused of rape be added to this article? Or should that be some other article? I know some people have compared being falsely accused of rape to the experience of actually being raped. Qvkfgmjqy 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be the right article, since it's about reporting statistics and motivations for either failing to report or making a false report. Paul B 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other interpretations

I took out the other intrepations section. The article only states that in some studies a very high number of rapes reported to the police are recanted and were likely baseless. It says nothing about whether this says anything about all women any more than the rape article says anything about whether the fact that some men rape means something about all men. The fact that some people who recant may well have actually been raped is now talked about(and largely refuted) in the section on Kanin's reports. Qvkfgmjqy 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The statistics part of my paragraph can be interpreted independently of that first sentence. I don't see why it needs to be removed. Xiner (talk, email) 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They werent statistics, they were hypothetical numbers used to illustrate a point, correct? Qvkfgmjqy 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A point that is pertinent to the issue. Why do you think people argue over the false reporting rates? Xiner (talk, email) 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Noone is saying that all women are liars. Noone is saying that all women who accuse men of rape are liars. I dont understand why you feel the need to specifically refute either of those things. And you're hypothetical, totally out of no where numbers, assume that all women who are raped report it to the police. They also assume that each false accuser only makes one false accusation per year. So if you want to keep them, than you should account for those two things. Qvkfgmjqy 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do people argue over the false reporting rate? Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Noone knows the overall false reporting rate. Thats how people figure stuff out, they argue! Assuming that there was no funny business in the town and two universites that Kanin observed, and no funny business by Kanin than those figures form a reliable lower estimate of the false reports of completed forcible rapes in those two places at those two times. Other times, other places? Noone knows! Its unreasonable to assume that Kanin's numbers apply across the US or across the world. But it is reasonable to assume that a significant number of rapes reported in the US are false assuming that the town and two universities are not substantially different from the rest of the country in some way. Qvkfgmjqy 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To argue that everyone argues over the false reporting rate without any ulterior motives is as believable as arguing that everyone argues over the prevalence of rape without any ulterior motives. Xiner (talk, email) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a part about the intellectual and moral bankrupcty of modern feminism, and the stranglehold that that movement has over research into this area but I took it out because I thought that you might think that the feminists are only ones with moral and intellectual integrity and I didnt want to alienate you. Yes it is politicized. But just because something is politicized and just because people say totally different things doesnt mean that the truth isnt out there. Qvkfgmjqy 02:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The other interpretations section is pure OR and special pleading. It has almost no relation to the text footnoted, and is a personal extrapolation. The issue here is reliability of rape reporting not a guestimate about how many women in the population overall would tell the truth if they were raped. Paul B 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Qvkfgmjqy 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's an article on Rape reporting, it should include relevant debates about the statistics. Otherwise it's just not complete. Why do you think we have pages like this? Xiner (talk, email) 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What methodology did they use to get that number? My understanding is that the 2 to 3 percent number is just something that someone said in a book and has never providied any justification for. And, unfortunately, its become gospel and is the number used on rape crisis center pages and the like. Qvkfgmjqy 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the statistics of rape reporting not of the proportion of truthful women in the population. The page you refer to has no connection with what you wrote. Paul B 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedia article, this is an editorial piece. It's riddled with someone's personal opinion. The author has cherry-picked her research to support her predetermined conclusion, ignoring several widely cited and highly credible studies that reach the opposite conclusion. Quite frankly, I find it rather tempting to edit the whole thing down to just facts... but then there wouldn't be much of an article left, would there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slurpophogus (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

If there are "widely cited and highly creditable studies" that are omitted, then say what they are and add them. "Editing it down" is of no value unless you are removing uncited, O.R. or irrelevant material. Adding more relevant material is useful. Paul B 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UT