America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

We don't do sensible, non-partisan decisions in this country any more, I'm afraid.



Except for the book deals and lecture circuit tours, of course. Just two things that occur off the top of my head.

I have no idea what her net income is, but being a proffessor at Palo Alto universtity and as a research psychologist at Stanford seems like great gigs. She has some publications, but I have no idea how these performed. Based on the information I have, in my opinion I dont see financial gain as a motive. But then again I dont have enough information on her. Perhaps she is looking to break into politics? Personally I dont think using an accusation of a high profile judge is a good way to start with that.

 

[Dotini]

I have no idea what her net income is, but being a proffessor at Palo Alto universtity and as a research psychologist at Stanford seems like great gigs. She has some publications, but I have no idea how these performed. Based on the information I have, in my opinion I dont see financial gain as a motive. But then again I dont have enough information on her. Perhaps she is looking to break into politics? Personally I dont think using an accusation of a high profile judge is a good way to start with that.

Understanding another person's motivations is sometimes the most difficult thing to do.
In her case, I doubt very much it is personal gain. Is she an activist? Perhaps she is on a moral crusade or vision quest for women's or victim's rights? If so, confabulating a personal truth could be justified, since she would be trying to "do good".

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps she is looking to break into politics? Personally I dont think using an accusation of a high profile judge is a good way to start with that.

I mean...it can be argued that accusing a United States Senator and presidential candidate of not being a natural-born-citizen and consequently ineligible for that prospective office worked.

 

[PocketZeven]

I mean...it can be argued that accusing a United States Senator and presidential candidate of not being a natural-born-citizen and consequently ineligible for that prospective office worked.

In a normal world I agree. But in the US female accusers of alleged sex offences are sadly judged by different values then orange monkeys.

Understanding another person's motivations is sometimes the most difficult thing to do.
In her case, I doubt very much it is personal gain. Is she an activist? Perhaps she is on a moral crusade or vision quest for women's or victim's rights? If so, confabulating a personal truth could be justified, since she would be trying to "do good".

She also had no other encounter with Kavanaugh after the incident, so it couldnt be a personal revenge plot. Perhaps the FBI will find a courtcase which negatively influenced her life which Kavanaugh preceded over.

Or she could just be telling the truth. Which seems more likely, analyzing her possible motivations.

 

[TexRex]

In a normal world I agree. But in the US female accusers of alleged sex offences are sadly judged by different values then orange monkeys.

She also had no other encounter with Kavanaugh after the incident, so it couldnt be a personal revenge plot. Perhaps the FBI will find a courtcase which negatively influenced her life which Kavanaugh preceded over.

Or she could just be telling the truth. Which seems more likely, analyzing her possible motivations.

An accusation is an accusation; its veracity and what it alludes to are of little consequence if it feeds a narrative.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I understand you sympathize with the men who have been falsely accused. There are cases where they come out of it unscathed and cases where their lives were ruined. But remember that very likely the false accuser has her/his name ruined as well. I pointed out that she has nothing to gain as a lack of a motive to lie. Either she is mentally disturbed or she is politically sacrifices herself at risk of being a high-profile liar, viewed by millions of people. I find that unlikely.

Based on the particulars of this case, Dr. Ford is highly unlikely to have her name ruined in the slightest. Regardless of the outcome she'll likely be held up by Trump's opponent as a brave victim who finally came forth in the interests of justice to serve her country. Why? Because her accusation is so vague it likely won't ever be misproven. She doesn't know the date, couldn't even narrow down the year not too long ago, doesn't know the place it happened, doesn't know who drove her home and didn't tell anyone at the time. She named several other potential corroborating witnesses who all denied they were there. The only "evidence" presented so far are the potentially alcohol tainted, 35 year old rememberences of someone who was 15 years old at the time. So if we use a crystal ball and imagine that a week from now, nothing new is uncovered, her vague recollections will stand and she won't be refuted. She will be a hero to the Democrats and this uncorroborated and unproven allegation will haunt Kavanaugh and his family for the rest of his life.

But for every false accusation There are more cases of assaults that go unreported. I have not found a credible source for the percentage that go unreported (obviously) to post here. Of false allegations I found a percentage ranging from 2 to 8%. This percentage does not take in account all the unreported allegations. So let’s take the highest percentage of 8 percent. Then take account that only 0.6 % of accusers actually face jail time at all. I find it hard to believe the theory that Ford is lying.

8% means nearly 1 in 12. That's why someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. That's far more than a reasonable doubt in the absence of hard evidence. The sex crimes prosecutor who did the questioning on behalf of the Republicans, says there isn't enough evidence to begin a prosecution.

She explained it in the hearing. At risk of being accused a liar and shame she never reported it. She was traumatized and in therapy reveled to her husband in 2012. She then was confronted to the nomination of Kavanaugh and wrote a letter to her representative. She tried to remain anonymous to the public, but no one will take anonymous accusation seriously. Her identity got leaked and at the last moment decided it was her story to tell. Like most high profile cases like bill Cosby, Kevin spacey all we’re accused decades after the fact. So it isn’t hard to imagine. Her only evidence till now is her testimony. An FBI investigation will hopefully find more evidence if it happened or not.

She says she revealed it in therapy and told her husband. Neither her husband, her therapist, nor anyone at the group therapy session has testified or been cross-examined so it's hearsay to speak on their behalf. The FBI will not find evidence if it happened or not. The only people that know it happened, if it happened, are the people who were in the room, and so far the alleged other people in the room deny it happening. The FBI will be looking for facts and details around this time in all of their lives and submit that information to the committee.

That said I just watched the most recent bit on the hearing on last week tonight:

You're getting your news from comedians. You know that right? The sex crimes prosecutor who did the questioning on behalf of the Republicans, says there isn't enough evidence to begin a prosecution. Perhaps SNL did a skit on that or maybe Comedians in Cars covered it.

 

[Joey D]

I'm of the mind it probably did happen. Rich, prep-schools often have things like that happen. But to be able to prove it? I'm not sure how anyone could prove the allegations true or false.

Really the only outcome I see is the FBI being able to prove Ford made the story up for some reason. Even then, I'm not sure how they'd prove it unless they can uncover evidence that shows her trying to figure out how to fabricate the story. Past that, I can't see any way in the eyes of the legal system to prove that it actually happened.

It does seem a bit odd, this just came out now, right before the confirmation hearings. On the surface it looks like someone trying to derail another person's career, however, I agree there's probably way more to it than that. It's just how it looks at first glance.

 

[huskeR32]

Kavanaugh DID NOT know who his accuser was until SOMEONE outed her.

He said he didn't know who it was. If we're supposed to be skeptical and take what she says with a grain of salt, shouldn't we give him the same treatment?

 

[PocketZeven]

Based on the particulars of this case, Dr. Ford is highly unlikely to have her name ruined in the slightest. Regardless of the outcome she'll likely be held up by Trump's opponent as a brave victim who finally came forth in the interests of justice to serve her country. Why? Because her accusation is so vague it likely won't ever be misproven. She doesn't know the date, couldn't even narrow down the year not too long ago, doesn't know the place it happened, doesn't know who drove her home and didn't tell anyone at the time. She named several other potential corroborating witnesses who all denied they were there. The only "evidence" presented so far are the alcohol tainted, 35 year old rememberences of someone who was 15 years old at the time. So if we use a crystal ball and imagine that a week from now, nothing new is uncovered, her vague recollections will stand and she won't be refuted. She will be a hero to the Democrats and this uncorroborated and unproven allegation will haunt Kavanaugh and his family for the rest of his life.

8% means nearly 1 in 12. That's why someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. That's far more than a reasonable doubt in the absence of hard evidence. The sex crimes prosecutor who did the questioning on behalf of the Republicans, says there isn't enough evidence to begin a prosecution.

She says she revealed it in therapy and told her husband. Neither her husband, her therapist, nor anyone at the group therapy session has testified or been cross-examined so it's hearsay to speak on their behalf. The FBI will not find evidence if it happened or not. The only people that know it happened, if it happened, are the people who were in the room, and so far the alleged other people in the room deny it happening. The FBI will be looking for facts and details around this time in all of their lives and submit that information to the committee.


You're getting your news from comedians. You know that right? The sex crimes prosecutor who did the questioning on behalf of the Republicans, says there isn't enough evidence to begin a prosecution. Perhaps SNL did a skit on that or maybe Comedians in Cars covered it.

I stated 2- 8% of reported accusations, with 8 being an estimated maximum. That also mean he is 92% or nearly 11 out 12 likely to be guilty if you spin the data around. So a serious investigation is warranted. And ofcourse the sexcrime prosecuter said that. There had been no investigation just the hearing of them both. Other witnesses and accusers werent there to make a statement.

You also have to take in account unreported accusations with an estimate of 80% and that reduces that percentage significantly to 1.6% false accusations. We had a discussion before about how the numbers of rape being higher in the Netherlands. I found out because the Rape convictionrate (0.6%) is much lower in the USA. I will do some more research but apparantly the USA has a culture were women are victim blamed and shamed. Less so here in the Netherlands.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...xual-assaults-greatly-underreported-/3648197/

I didnt claim Last week Tonight was news. It is a variety comedy show, but it does give some interesting and funny insights. I just wanted to post it as entertainment. I thought it was common knowledge that Last Week Tonight was a comedy show as a multiple Emmy winner. I apologise if people were confused and think I tried to insinuate it is news.

Edit: added comment and cleaned up spelling

 

[Northstar]

He said he didn't know who it was. If we're supposed to be skeptical and take what she says with a grain of salt, shouldn't we give him the same treatment?

Of course, but at the same time what the accused says should always carry more weight since it’s supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”.

But I get it, lynch mobs are far more fun!

 

[McLaren]

I understand you sympathize with the men who have been falsely accused. There are cases where they come out of it unscathed and cases where their lives were ruined. But remember that very likely the false accuser has her/his name ruined as well.

Why should I remember that? Falsely accusing someone of sexual allegations and having your name tarnished as a result is the easiest of outcomes in this country. False accusations should be met with a more severe punishment.

I pointed out that she has nothing to gain as a lack of a motive to lie. Either she is mentally disturbed or she is politically sacrifices herself at risk of being a high-profile liar, viewed by millions of people. I find that unlikely.

Again, doesn't exonerate her from lying. As of right now though, she looks she's got over 700,000 reasons to stick to her allegations now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

But for every false accusation There are more cases of assaults that go unreported. I have not found a credible source for the percentage that go unreported (obviously) to post here. Of false allegations I found a percentage ranging from 2 to 8%. This percentage does not take in account all the unreported allegations. So let’s take the highest percentage of 8 percent. Then take account that only 0.6 % of accusers actually face jail time at all. I find it hard to believe the theory that Ford is lying.

Your percentages still don't exonerate her. Only .6% of accusers face jail time for false allegations? That's an incredibly safe bet to lie then, if so. The 2-8% percentage of allegations being false also indicate that yes, there is a possibly she could be lying. Very rare, & still a possibility with the tiniest of chances she would face any sort of actual punishment for it.

For the record, I'm not saying Ford is lying, but I'm not going to take her word automatically to heart just because she says so. Evidence needs to be presented which is her obligation as the accuser and Kavanaugh being presumed as innocent until proven guilty. And right now, her evidence doesn't look very credible based on the witnesses she named to help validate her and that she doesn't remember any other detail except that was Kavanaugh.

Ford, who claims Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school in the 1980s, says she can’t remember the date or location of the alleged attack. She says she can’t remember how she got to the house party where she says she was assaulted. She says she can’t remember how she got home. All four witnesses to the party named by Ford have denied any recollection of what she describes. Kavanaugh denies everything.

The first witness, Ford’s husband, said he learned of the attack in 2012 during a couple’s therapy session, as the Washington Post previously reported. The second witness, Adela Gildo-Mazzon, who says she has known Ford more than 10 years, claims she learned of the alleged attack in 2013. The third witness, Keith Koegler, claims Ford told him about the attack in 2016. The fourth and final witness, Rebecca White, said Ford told her about the assault in 2017.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why should I remember that? Falsely accusing someone of sexual allegations and having your name tarnished as a result is the easiest of outcomes in this country. False accusations should be met with a more severe punishment.

Again, doesn't exonerate her from lying. As of right now though, she looks she's got over 700,000 reasons to stick to her allegations now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

Your percentages still don't exonerate her. Only .6% of accusers face jail time for false allegations? That's an incredibly safe bet to lie then, if so. The 2-8% percentage of allegations being false also indicate that yes, there is a possibly she could be lying. Very rare, & still a possibility with the tiniest of chances she would face any sort of actual punishment for it.

For the record, I'm not saying Ford is lying, but I'm not going to take her word automatically to heart just because she says so. Evidence needs to be presented which is her obligation as the accuser and Kavanaugh being presumed as innocent until proven guilty. And right now, her evidence doesn't look very credible based on the witnesses she named to help validate her.

You are spinning the facts I posted. 0.6% face jailtime for sexual assault not false accusations. That is disturbingly low. That is 1 of the reasons why up to 80% dont come forward with their accusations. Ofcourse Kavanaugh is innocent untill proven guilty, but somehow some people in this thread are assuming that she is lying. I am just stating my opinion based on the facts that it is unlikely, but not impossible, she is lying. Hopefully a FBI investigation will find more evidence if she is lying or not.

We had a discussion about memory in this thread. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/28/17914654/strikethrough-kavanaugh-accusers-christine-blasey-ford-memory

1 of the four witnesses of the party was Kavanaugh himself. And apparantly there is a lot of confusions about these statements. They only stated they have no memory of the event. They did not say it didnt happen. The friend that Kavanaugh quoted, also stated she believes Ford. (which Kavanaugh conveniently omitted from his statement). So the statements do not exonerate Kavanaugh or prove Ford is lying.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...878f96be19b_story.html?utm_term=.3e7bdf65e4fa

These witnesses should also have been heard and questioned.


edit: added response

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are spinning the facts I posted. 0.6% face jailtime for sexual assault not false accusations. That is disturbingly low. That is 1 of the reasons why up to 80% dont come forward with their accusations. Ofcourse Kavanaugh is innocent untill proven guilty, but somehow some people in this thread are assuming that she is lying. I am just stating my opinion based on the facts that it is unlikely, but not impossible, she is lying. Hopefully a FBI investigation will find more evidence if she is lying or not.

Who on this thread is assuming she is lying? No one that I can see. All that has been said is that a decision should be made on corroborated facts in evidence. Talking about percentages of this and that only opens the door to reasonable doubt. He said/she said should not be enough to sway his confirmation.

 

[McLaren]

You are spinning the facts I posted. 0.6% face jailtime for sexual assault not false accusations. That is disturbingly low.

That is not what you said.

Then take account that only 0.6 % of accusers actually face jail time at all.

You said accusers. Ford is the accuser, Kavanuagh is the accused of the crime.

That is 1 of the reasons why 80% dont come forward with their accusations.

I think you may want to dig into the whys of that 80%.

13% Believed it was a personal matter
8% Reported to non-law-enforcement official
8% Believed it was not important enough to report
7% Did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble

22% of those who do not come forward apparently do not feel it was worth investigating for various reasons.

Ofcourse Kavanaugh is innocent untill proven guilty, but somehow some people in this thread are assuming that she is lying. I am just stating my opinion based on the facts that it is unlikely, but not impossible, she is lying. Hopefully a FBI investigation will find more evidence if she is lying or not.

Probably because to them, the facts don't support her claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her. You claim based on the facts, it's unlikely she's lying. What facts are those? That she has nothing to gain? That's a really weak fact in comparison to her own witnesses not corroborating her story.

 

[PocketZeven]

double

 

[PocketZeven]

Who on this thread is assuming she is lying? No one that I can see. All that has been said is that a decision should be made on corroborated facts in evidence. Talking about percentages of this and that only opens the door to reasonable doubt. He said/she said should not be enough to sway his confirmation.

I agree. And it is a good thing there is an FBI investigation.

That is not what you said.

You said accusers. Ford is the accuser, Kavanuagh is the accused of the crime.

I think you may want to dig into the whys of that 80%.

22% of those who do not come forward apparently do not feel it was worth investigating for various reasons.

Probably because to them, the facts don't support her claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her. You claim based on the facts, it's unlikely she's lying. What facts are though? That she has nothing to gain? That's a really weak fact in comparison to her own witnesses not corroborating her story.

That is a typo on my part. I meant 0.6 % of accused. Apologies for the confusion. At least 22% dont report because of the culture of not wanting to be shamed or accused a liar. Think about deeply why they think it isnt worth reporting.

The facts I was referring to are the statistics I was using. And my claim is only my personal opinion. There is enough out there for an indepth investigation. I hope we can agree on that.

Again, doesn't exonerate her from lying. As of right now though, she looks she's got over 700,000 reasons to stick to her allegations now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

Did you read the article you posted? She had to relocate and private security. This was setup to cover these costs. Additional money is going to a women's organisation. I fail to see this as a motivation to Lie.

 

[McLaren]

That is a typo on my part. I meant 0.6 % of accused. Apologies for the confusion. at least 22% dont report because of the culture of not wanting to be shamed or accused a liar.

And that's a shame itself. But, that's the "downside" of innocent until proven guilty. If you come at someone with an accusation, that person can not be deemed guilty because you say so; they have to be proven guilty of the crime. That's a hard pill for victims of any crime to swallow, but it is how this country conducts itself, at least from the legal standpoint. These people should not be automatically seen as liars, but they still have to bring forth their testimony and evidence has to support them. You can't sentence someone just because someone else says so; you open a dangerous can of worms.

The facts I was referring to are the statistics I was using. And my claim is only my personal opinion. There is enough out there for an indepth investigation. I hope we can agree on that.

I would think the actual details of this particular case would be more important at reaching a conclusion, than going by general statistics that aren't 100% in favor of 1 side.

 

[PocketZeven]

And that's a shame itself. But, that's the "downside" of innocent until proven guilty. If you come at someone with an accusation, that person can not be deemed guilty because you say so; they have to be proven guilty of the crime. That's a hard pill for victims of any crime to swallow, but it is how this country conducts itself, at least from the legal standpoint. These people should not be automatically seen as liars, but they still have to bring forth their testimony and evidence has to support them.

I would think the actual details of this particular case would be more important at reaching a conclusion, than going by general statistics that aren't 100% in favor of 1 side.

These are my personal opinions and I have not yet reached to a conclusion. I only wanted to counter the idea that false accusations should be punished more then a real accusation. Imagine being assaulted and knowing 0.6% face jailtime, so why bother reporting the assault? How is the impact of a false accusation larger then the assault itself? Only because the person is male?

 

[McLaren]

These are my personal opinions and I have not yet reached to a conclusion. I only wanted to counter the idea that false accusations should be punished more then a real accusation. Imagine being assaulted and knowing 0.6% face jailtime, so why bother reporting the assault?

I never said a false accusation should be punished more than a real accusation, I only said getting off with your name tarnished is a weak outcome compared to what an accused individual goes through. Nikki Yovino's 1-year sentence for false allegations is a much fairer punishment.

Do you have a source for that percentage that breaks down why it happens? I imagine a statue of limitations is a big contributor.

 

[PocketZeven]

I never said a false accusation should be punished more than a real accusation, I only said getting off with your name tarnished is a weak outcome compared to what an accused individual goes through. Nikki Yovino's 1-year sentence for false allegations is a much fairer punishment.

Do you have a source for that percentage that breaks down why it happens? I imagine a statue of limitations is a big contributor.

It is very difficult to find any sources on unreported sexual assault. The 80% was an estimate made by the National Research Council.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...xual-assaults-greatly-underreported-/3648197/

 

[McLaren]

It is very difficult to find any sources on unreported sexual assault. The 80% was an estimate made by the National Research Council.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...xual-assaults-greatly-underreported-/3648197/

Yeah, I believe the 80% claim. I'm asking about where you're getting the 0.6% of accused face actual jail time. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if statue of limitations is what keeps some from being sentenced.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Since politics and social justice is war by other means, any amount of lying or illegal action is morally justified on the basis of "doing good". But if your goal is truth, safety, peace or prosperity, it is better not to lie or use illegal means to achieve it. This is the eternal conflict within a society of free individuals.

Doesn't take much thought to know that an individuals personal dogma (political or otherwise), warped ideals of "justice" and the better good should be left to their own minds, unless they have the proper evidence to know that said things are indeed proper and true justice is failing. We don't have that and all we have it was seen on the floor last week. So for people on either side to act as if their "gut" knows best and they act on that for whatever good they've deemed is sad, a step back as a race of being, and so forth.

There is no justification no matter how much a person racks their brain and perverts the idea, it is wrong to lie and potentially put someones means of living and name through a grinder all because they don't like that someone. It's sad to think people would actually find a means to derail proceedings because of their dogmatic views and just goes to show that Flake is right about how bad the state of politics is here. Though many of us have been saying that for years and even decades but people like to play "color me surprised" to the obvious.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yeah, I believe the 80% claim. I'm asking about where you're getting the 0.6% of accused face actual jail time. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if statue of limitations is what keeps some from being sentenced.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

Of 1000 rapes, 994 will walk free. And these are reported cases obviously.

 

[Imari]

You're getting your news from comedians. You know that right?

To be fair, despite presenting it in an entertaining manner, John Oliver and Last Week Tonight do pretty solid journalism.

Ofcourse Kavanaugh is innocent untill proven guilty, but somehow some people in this thread are assuming that she is lying.

That's what assuming he is innocent means. You can't assume that he's innocent AND that she's telling the truth, that's a contradiction. Until she demonstrates otherwise, it's assumed that she's lying.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It is very difficult to find any sources on unreported sexual assault. The 80% was an estimate made by the National Research Council.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...xual-assaults-greatly-underreported-/3648197/

Statistics on unreported sexual assaults are contained in your own links:

Reasons Victims Choose to Report—or Not
Of the sexual violence crimes reported to police from 2005-2010, the survivor reporting gave the following reasons for doing so:5

• 28% to protect the household or victim from further crimes by the offender
• 25% to stop the incident or prevent recurrence or escalation
• 21% to improve police surveillance or they believed they had a duty to do so
• 17% to catch/punish/prevent offender from reoffending
• 6% gave a different answer, or declined to cite one reason
• 3% did so to get help or recover loss

Of the sexual violence crimes not reported to police from 2005-2010, the victim gave the following reasons for not reporting:5

• 20% feared retaliation
• 13% believed the police would not do anything to help
• 13% believed it was a personal matter
• 8% reported to a different official
• 8% believed it was not important enough to report
• 7% did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble
• 2% believed the police could not do anything to help
• 30% gave another reason, or did not cite one reason

By the way, what do you think the significance is that, of the crimes reported, the incarceration rate for rape is about 2%, but also only a little over 3% for robbery and around 5% for assault and battery? In other words, the rate of incarceration for robbery offenses is not much higher in absolute terms than it is for rape offenses. Does this not indicate a systemic issue rather than a specific issue with rape convictions?

 

[PocketZeven]

To be fair, despite presenting it in an entertaining manner, John Oliver and Last Week Tonight do pretty solid journalism.



That's what assuming he is innocent means. You can't assume that he's innocent AND that she's telling the truth, that's a contradiction. Until she demonstrates otherwise, it's assumed that she's lying.

That is one of the reasons he won 3 emmies in a row.

I posted earlier there is a unlikely possibility of mistaken identity. That she believes it is him when perhaps it was someone with a similar appearance and similar name. In essence they would be both speaking the truth.

Statistics on unreported sexual assaults are contained in your own links:

Reasons Victims Choose to Report—or Not
Of the sexual violence crimes reported to police from 2005-2010, the survivor reporting gave the following reasons for doing so:5

• 28% to protect the household or victim from further crimes by the offender
• 25% to stop the incident or prevent recurrence or escalation
• 21% to improve police surveillance or they believed they had a duty to do so
• 17% to catch/punish/prevent offender from reoffending
• 6% gave a different answer, or declined to cite one reason
• 3% did so to get help or recover loss

Of the sexual violence crimes not reported to police from 2005-2010, the victim gave the following reasons for not reporting:5

• 20% feared retaliation
• 13% believed the police would not do anything to help
• 13% believed it was a personal matter
• 8% reported to a different official
• 8% believed it was not important enough to report
• 7% did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble
• 2% believed the police could not do anything to help
• 30% gave another reason, or did not cite one reason

By the way, what do you think the significance is that, of the crimes reported, the incarceration rate for rape is about 2%, but also only a little over 3% for robbery and around 5% for assault and battery? In other words, the rate of incarceration for robbery offenses is not much higher in absolute terms than it is for rape offenses. Does this not indicate a systemic issue rather than a specific issue with rape convictions?

Incarceration rate I found was 0.6% which source are you using? If you also calculate unreported sexual assault (80%) , that number drops even lower to 0.0012% or 0.004% if you use your number. There is a systemic issue crime conviction in general, but convictions on rapecrime really needs to be looked at even more. Looking at that number, it seems, a person does actually can get away with rape very easy.

edit: cleaned up post
edit2 :I misread the RAINN statistic. Out of 1000 rapes, 310 are reported to the police. So this particular source estimates 69% is unreported. The 0.6% conviction rate is for unreported and reported rape. @Johnnypenso was correct with a conviction rate of 2% of reported rape.

 

[McLaren]

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

Of 1000 rapes, 994 will walk free. And these are reported cases obviously.

Interesting, but from the looks of it, a lot of it has to do with 80% of the accusers not coming forward. That 20% I noted earlier bares some of the toll for why it's so low; you can't prosecute those who victims don't feel worth reporting or want to protect.

I'm a bit more concerned why of the 57 reports leading to arrest, only 11 of them make it to court. It appears once it hits that stage, the vast majority are sentenced.

If you also calculate unreported sexual assault (80%) , that number drops even lower to 0.0012% or 0.004% if you use your number.

I don't believe it does. Your source appears to take into account those who don't report. .6% are sentenced because out of the 1,000 rapes that happen, 690 rapes are not reported to begin with.

It would appear of the 310 victims that come forward, 2% have their assaulter sentenced.

 

[PocketZeven]

Interesting, but from the looks of it, a lot of it has to do with 80% of the accusers not coming forward. That 20% I noted earlier bares some of the toll for why it's so low; you can't prosecute those who victims don't feel worth reporting or want to protect.

I'm a bit more concerned why of the 57 reports leading to arrest, only 11 of them make it to court. It appears once it hits that stage, the vast majority are sentenced.

I think lack of evidence?

I don't believe it does. Your source appears to take into account those who don't report. .6% are sentenced because out of the 1,000 rapes that happen, 690 rapes are not reported to begin with.

It would appear of the 310 victims that come forward, 2% have their assaulter sentenced.

Yeah I noticed my mistake. I misread the statistic. I edited my post, just before or just after you posted your response.

 

[ryzno]

I think lack of evidence?

You got it. Most cases rely on DNA evidence. That's why it is important to report a rape/sexual assault, so they can perform a rape kit test. Also so any surveillance footage can be obtained.
Without one of the two it's pretty much a he said she said.

 

[PocketZeven]

You got it. Most cases rely on DNA evidence. That's why it is important to report a rape/sexual assault, so they can perform a rape kit test. Also so any surveillance footage can be obtained.
Without one of the two it's pretty much a he said she said.

It is really sad though. A guy just needs to make sure he isnt on camera, no witnesses, doesnt leave any ejaculate and bruises and he virtually can receive no consequence from it.