"Citizen Non-Cooperation and Police Non-Intervention as Causes of Justice Failure and Crime"

"Such inaction is not irrational but the result of strong incentives against citizen cooperation and against active police intervention."

A very interesting article by Penn law professor (and leading criminal law scholar) Paul Robinson, together with Jeffrey Seaman and Muhammad Sarahne; here's the bulk of the Table of Contents, which I think offers a good perspective on what the article covers:

II. Citizen Non-Cooperation

A. Witness Intimidation
1. Types of Witness Intimidation
2. Case Example: Latasha Shaw
3. The Nature and Extent of the Problem
4. Public Complaints
5. Reforms Attempting to Reduce Witness Intimidation
6. Recommendation: Protect Witness Identities in Cases of Likely Intimidation

B. The Stop Snitching Movement and Codes of Silence
1. Case Example: Israel Ramirez
2. The Nature and Extent of the Problem
3. Public Complaints
4. Reforms Addressing the Stop Snitching Movement
5. Recommendation

C. Cynicism about Criminal Justice Effectiveness
1. Case Example: Alec Cook
2. The Nature and Extent of the Problem
3. Reforms to Reduce Legal Cynicism
4. Recommendation

D. Community Upset Over Police Use of Force: The False Narrative Problem
1. Case Example: The Shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri
2. The Nature and Extent of the Problem
3. Pushing Back against Community Misperceptions Regarding Police Use of Force
4. Reforms Addressing Community Upset Over Police Use of Force
5. Recommendation

III. Police Non-Intervention

A. Anti-Police Rhetoric and Physical Attacks on Police
1. Case Example: Al Sharpton
2. The Nature and Extent of the Problem

B. De-Policing: Defunding Police and Police Exclusion Zones
1. Case Example: Police-Free Zone in Minneapolis
2. Case Example: De-Policing in Portland
3. The Nature and Extent of the Problem
4. Changing Views on De-Policing

C. Police Demoralization: Early Retirements, Increased Hiring Difficulties, Decreased Hiring Standards, and Understaffing
1. Case Example: Minneapolis Police Shortages and Demoralization
2. The Nature and Extent of the Problem

D. Voluntary Police Non-Intervention: The Ferguson Effect
1. Case Example: The Ferguson Effect in Baltimore
2. Case Example: Police Disengagement in Atlanta
3. The Nature and Extent of the Problem

E. Reforms to Reduce Police Non-Intervention

IV. Recommendation: Create a Police-Community Oversight Commission That Will Help Police Earn Credibility with the Community and That Will Itself Earn Credibility with the Police
A. Improving Police Credibility with the Community
B. The Commission Must Establish Its Own Credibility with the Police

And here's the Introduction:

It may surprise many that America's justice system fails to find or punish offenders for the vast majority of serious crimes. Failures of justice are the norm, not the exception. Most killers get away with murder. In 2020, there were 24,576 homicides in America, and police solved just 10,115 of those—41.1%. Even worse, usually less than half of these solved cases result in a homicide conviction. Escaping punishment for rape or assault is trivially easy. Of more than 920,000 aggravated assaults annually, only 8.3% lead to a conviction. Of 463,000 rapes and sexual assaults annually, 99.5% end in no felony conviction. Every year, the justice system allows hundreds of thousands of murderers, assaulters, and rapists to walk free. And this situation is only getting worse. The data suggest the national homicide clearance rate dropped by 22% between 1980 and 2020, with the clearance rate for other serious offenses dropping as well.

These low clearance and conviction rates are highly damaging to society…. Even more troubling, failures of justice disproportionately impact racial minorities and low-income communities, making the issue one of social as well as criminal justice. The recent decline in nationwide murder clearance rates is almost entirely due to failures to solve the killings of Black victims. Clearance rates for Black homicide victims have dropped by 20% over the past five decades, while clearance rates for white homicide victims have increased by 5%. A 2019 investigation on clearance rates in Chicago showed that homicides where the victim was White were solved 47% of the time, while homicides where the victim was Hispanic were solved 33% of the time, and homicides where the victim was Black were solved 22% of the time.

What is causing this increasing flood of justice failures and what can be done to stop it? While the crisis of unsolved crime has many causes, one oft-overlooked reason is that the most important actors in solving crime—community members and police—are increasingly not acting at all. Such inaction is not irrational but the result of strong incentives against citizen cooperation and against active police intervention. When citizens stand back and police stand down, the result is more failures of justice[]….

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

"Of 463,000 rapes and sexual assaults annually, 99.5% end in no felony conviction."

I seriously have to ask: While whether or not a murder has taken place is usually pretty clear, (You've got a dead body as evidence, after all!) whether a rape or sexual assault has actually happened is often very much less clear. More a matter of "he said, she said".

So, do we really KNOW that the clearance rate for rape and sexual assault is dreadfully, insanely low? Or is it just that the false accusation rate is extremely high?

We can't actually assume that acquittals represent a failure of the justice system. They may instead represent success.

[dwb68]

I hear you but even if half of those reported rapes are accurate, its still a dreadfully low clearance rate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, but consider the fundamental problem in rape cases: Only a vanishingly small fraction of the population will volunteer to have the crap beaten out of them, so you can pretty safely assume that, if you establish that person A rearranged person B's face, that an assault took place. Unless maybe it took place in a boxing ring.

But a pretty large fraction of the population will volunteer to have sex, often with people they barely know. So absent injury, you can't safely assume that proving sex took place proves that rape did.

Just establishing that Bob had sex with Carol, as hard as it may be to do, doesn't even get you halfway to proving a crime. It doesn't even establish who raped who, if both were intoxicated!

So it's quite natural that the clearance rate for rape wouldn't be ideal.

[Nige]

‘More a matter of “he said, she said”.’

Hence the importance of physical examinations and rape kits. However if you don’t bother, don’t have anyone trained to do either, make the process grueling and traumatic or just don’t have the equipment – sure, then it can boil down to he-said she-said.

‘Or is it just that the false accusation rate is extremely high?’

So with a miniscule chance of conviction, a process that can’t be easy even with the most sympathtic investigators, and a high chance that you will be accused of making a false accusation, which is a crime, women are either lining up to make false accusations that will harm nobody but themselves, or in the face of overwhelming odds, these women still hold out for some scrap of justice.

'They may instead represent success.'

They may, just in the worse possible way.

[Mr. Bumble]

So no rape kits were available for E Jean Carrol. Oh wait she never even reported a "rape".

[Nige]

With those figures the numbers of rapes and sexual assaults that go unreported at all because the cops don't give a shit must be horrifying.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, what I'm saying is that, if you can't prove that somebody is guilty of a rape, maybe you did a lousy job of proving it.

But, maybe, they were innocent! Why just jump to the conclusion that, if most people accused of rape are acquitted, or not even charged for lack of evidence, that they must be guilty people getting away with it?

Maybe we really do have an epidemic of false rape accusations, rather than 99.5% of rapists getting away with it. It's just as plausible an interpretation of the data, "Women never lie about rape!" ideology aside.

[dwb68]

Not a winning argument. Women are raped, and its extremely hard to prove. Except that in an era of text messages and 24/7/365 phones idk. And no, "but she was just lying there passed out drunk" is not a defense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More often than not, they were BOTH laying there passed out drunk.

[Nelson]

I would say, "You can't truly believe that, can you?", but considering the source ...

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think it's incorrect to say that in a lot of sexual assault cases (although probably not an outright majority) both the victim and the offender are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both.

I don't, of course, follow that premise to Dr. Ed's implied conclusion that this somehow exculpates or mitigates the culpability of the perpetrator.

[Brett Bellmore]

How do you establish who is the perpetrator, when you can't establish that there WAS a perpetrator?

Being drunk rules out consent, evidently, but if they're both drunk, who didn't really consent?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, well, part of the reason it can be hard to prove in a given case can be that it's not true. Proving things that aren't true is notoriously difficult.

Seriously, aside from ideology, what basis do we have for insisting that 99.5% of rape accusations not ending in convictions must be because the guilty are getting off Scot free? Why not consider that it may be because women are making a lot of false accusations?

Take this study, for example. Using the most stringent possible definition of a false accusation, that you could actually prove that no rape had occurred, and the accuser would have known it, they still came up with between 2 and 10% of rape accusations being outright false.

About half the remainder had been coded by the police as "unfounded", which is to say that while the police couldn't outright prove the accuser was lying, they had no basis for concluding that a rape actually had taken place, or they affirmatively could prove it hadn't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...they still came up with between 2 and 10% of rape accusations being outright false."

And the rest unknown. They didn't even try to determine how many were true. The study is just as consistent with a rate of 100% false accusations as it is a rate of 10% false accusations.

But many use that study and others like it to claim that it's been proven that false accusations are rare.

[Nige]

'They didn’t even try to determine how many were true.'

That's the cops. The cops didn't try to determine if they were true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That’s the cops. The cops didn’t try to determine if they were true."

No, it's the study authors. Please do try to keep up.

[Nige]

The study authors aren't investigators. But why would they assume people are lying in this survey, as opposed to any other survey?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The study authors aren’t investigators.

Sigh. The study's authors classified the accusation into four categories: "False report", "Case did not proceed", "Case proceeded", "Insufficient information". None of these classifications preclude the accusation from being false.

But why would they assume people are lying in this survey, as opposed to any other survey?

Huh? I'm not assuming anything.

[Nige]

I'm glad we cleared that up.

[Nige]

‘Why not consider that it may be because women are making a lot of false accusations?’

I wonder if there were any other crime that had such low conviction rates would the first conclusion be that the victims were making false accusations in such extraordinary numbers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Try "hate crimes".

[Nige]

No thanks, I'll leave them to you.

[I Callahan]

Why are you so damn childish? He gave you a perfect example of such a crime, and because you had nothing to defend your view, you spew that nonsense.

[Nige]

Did he? Rather, he demonstrated his own abreviated ideas about hate crimes, which are worthless.

[Nelson]

“they affirmatively could prove it hadn’t.”

And you believe that that fits into the “unfounded” category, not the false accusation category? That mindset goes a long way to explain why you keep pushing “women make false accusations all the time”. You truly believe that there are 2-10% false accusations AND that “unfounded” is synonymous with “affirmatively could prove it hadn’t happened”.

The consensus of multiple studies seems to be 2-8% false accusations. So how do you reconcile 92% true accusations with a .5% conviction rate without acknowledging that there is something broken in the justice system regarding rape? And that doesn’t even take into account the people who aren’t willing to report because of their distrust of law enforcement, fear of their rapist, the low success rate, the condemnation they will inevitably face, or dozens of other reasons.

I know that a lot of conservatives are dedicated to the idea that rape is not as bad as people claim. The truth is it’s worse, not better. Men aren’t mostly facing false accusations. He said/she said doesn’t mean the accusation is false, it’s overwhelmingly likely to be true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ And you believe that that fits into the “unfounded” category, not the false accusation category? That mindset goes a long way to explain why you keep pushing “women make false accusations all the time”. You truly believe that there are 2-10% false accusations AND that “unfounded” is synonymous with “affirmatively could prove it hadn’t happened”.”

Sounds like somebody didn’t read the linked study.

“ The consensus of multiple studies seems to be 2-8% false accusations.”

That’s what the linked study concludes, but as explained above, the data in that study doesn’t support that conclusion. And all the studies that find low rates of false accusations have similar problems.

In fact, we have no way of knowing how many accusations are false.

[Nelson]

"Sounds like somebody didn’t read the linked study."

And yet, I did. Here are some points to consider:

"To classify a case as a false allegation, a thorough investigation must yield evidence that a crime did not occur.". Maybe you think "affirmatively could prove it hadn’t happened” is different, but any reasonable person would see them as the same thing.

In addition, the study makes clear that there are often cases that are unfounded that are, intentionally or not, misfiled as a false accusation. In other words, the number of false accusations are overreported, not underreported.

Basically, the study lists all sorts of methods by which accusations are mischaracterized and misclassified by police and identifies several studies with methodological errors, all of which seem to erroneously increase the number of false accusations.

From the things that I found in a brief research effort, the consensus seems to be that the number of false allegations (as defined by the Uniform Crime Reports Handbook) is overreported by police departments, not underreported.

"In fact, we have no way of knowing how many accusations are false."

We have a pretty good idea, even if it isn't as precise as pi or the speed of light.

Your statement indicates that we can't assume women are telling the truth when making an accusation. In reality, the opposite has been shown over and over again.

The chance of a rape accusation being false is very, very small. In the vast majority of cases, women aren't lying. So assuming an accuser is telling the truth, besides being good policework, is the statistically supported approach, not assuming they are lying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

To classify a case as a false allegation, a thorough investigation must yield evidence that a crime did not occur.

And as I said, none of these studies makes any effort to prove that any of the claims are true, so the result is a floor, not a ceiling as you claim. The data in these studies is perfectly consistent with a 100% false reporting rate, which should give you a clue that something is wrong with the methodology.

We have a pretty good idea, even if it isn’t as precise as pi or the speed of light.

A figure of anywhere from 8-100% would be consistent with these studies. That's not precise.

It's unfortunate that social science people are so statistically innumerate that this stuff is allowed to persist.

Your statement indicates that we can’t assume women are telling the truth when making an accusation.

You can assume whatever you want. You can assume women are telling the truth until proven otherwise, you can assume women are lying until proven otherwise, or something in between. But you don't get to claim that your assumptions are empirically supported without data to support them.

[Nelson]

"And as I said, none of these studies makes any effort to prove that any of the claims are true"

That's true of any study on crime. Why would rape be treated any differently?

"A figure of anywhere from 8-100% would be consistent with these studies. That’s not precise."

That is not a true statement. By the definitions provided (from the Uniform Crime Reports Handbook), there is a waybto designate different accusations and their dispensation. The factors identified as leading to erronious classification overwhelmingly factor against the victim and lead to an increase, not a decrease, in police claiming a false accusation. The idea that it could be higher because it isn't precise is not supported by the preponderance of evidence, the idea that false reports are lower than reported is strongly supported.

Unless you are aware of some study that finds the factors and direction of error is somehow detrimental to the accused, not the victim, claiming that 8% is the floor, not the ceiling, is a completely illogical and evidence-free assumption to make.

"You can assume women are telling the truth until proven otherwise"

Which would result in a 92% (at worst) prevalaence of false reporting.

"you can assume women are lying until proven otherwise"

We'll call that the "Brett Bellmore approach".

"But you don’t get to claim that your assumptions are empirically supported without data to support them."

And yet, they are. You may not like the classifications thay law enforcement uses, but it's very clear what a false report is. 8%, maximum, os cases are reported as false reports. That includes, as cited, a significant element of misclassification *against* the victim, not in her favor.

Your argument seems to boil down to "the police classified it this way, but do we REALLY believe that unless someone else does another investigation? Can't we just assume that anything not classified as a false report might actually be one.

The answer is no. If you find errors in the reporting, by all means bring it up. But saying that using the official law enforcement designations on rape cases isn't actual data is not supportable. And pretending that the lean is in favor of the victim rather than against them is completely unsupportable.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That is not a true statement. By the definitions provided (from the Uniform Crime Reports Handbook), there is a way to designate different accusations and their dispensation.

Sigh. That's not the definition that you and others on this thread are using, as evidenced by the conclusions that you draw from a designation as false. For example, you inferred a 92% true reporting rate from the fact that the "false" reporting rate is 2-8%. The UCR definitions don't support such an inference.

So if you want to argue that "false" only means properly classified as false under reporting guidelines, and that rest of the allegations might not be accurate but shouldn't be called false, that's fine, but that doesn't get you to the conclusions that you want to get to.

[Nelson]

"For example, you inferred a 92% true reporting rate from the fact that the “false” reporting rate is 2-8%."

I did not. The most I have claimed is that 92% are not false reports, based on the definition of false reports.

"So if you want to argue that “false” only means properly classified as false under reporting guidelines"

Correct, because a false accusation is exactly that. If you can't prove it was false, you can't claim it was false.

I know a lot of cultural conservatives here like to assert something as true without evidence, then pretend it's not their responsibility to prove their assertion, but that's not how it works.

If you assert something, the onus is on you to prove it. The police investigate rape allegations. They determine if they are false allegations. If it is shown to be false, it is categorized as such.

There are often non-false allegations included in that category (that has been documented), which indicates that the rate of false accusations is high, not low.

The assumptions necessary to support your "8-100%" claim are not reasonable. If for no other reason since the trend is against victims, not for them, you would need a wholesale change in history to assume the count would be skewed towards the victims.

"but that doesn’t get you to the conclusions that you want to get to"

I don't want to get anywhere. The conclusion that the count is high, not low, is reasonable based on the classification system and the documented law enforcement bias in rape cases. The assumption that false reports are dominant (or even prevalent) isn't a reasonable one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I did not. The most I have claimed is that 92% are not false reports, based on the definition of false reports.

You said:

The consensus of multiple studies seems to be 2-8% false accusations. So how do you reconcile 92% true accusations with a .5% conviction rate without acknowledging that there is something broken in the justice system regarding rape?

Correct, because a false accusation is exactly that. If you can’t prove it was false, you can’t claim it was false.

No, but I can claim it might be false, which is all I have done. As I said, these studies allow for a false reporting rate between 8% and 100%.

[Nelson]

"You said:"

Fair. I wanted to avoid that falsity, but I didn't. You are correct.

"No, but I can claim it might be false, which is all I have done."

They definitely aren't all capable of being false accusations, unless you want to claim that 0% of rape accusations are true.

"As I said, these studies allow for a false reporting rate between 8% and 100%."

Again, not true unless 0% of rape accusations are true.

You are arguing that the default is that accusations are false. It is common in those who wish to marginalize rape and women who report rape, since it assumes the onus is on the woman (not the police) to prove that it is true before an investigation is justified.

The default should always be a person reporting a crime is making an honest report. If that isn't the case (and, with rape, there are way too many cops who choose to believe a woman might be lying without any evidence), the investigation is biased from the start.

Studies about crime aren't as loosie-goosie as you claim. They are studies of humans, so there will always be less accuracy than math-based subjects, but that doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make them unreliable.

Can you at least admit that the societal, cultural, and legal trend is strongly against a victim of rape? Or do you think that the accused rapist is, now, the more likely victim of bad assumptions?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You are arguing that the default is that accusations are false.

No, I'm arguing that the default is that we don't know if an allegation is true or false.

The default should always be a person reporting a crime is making an honest report.

This isn't an argument.

Can you at least admit that the societal, cultural, and legal trend is strongly against a victim of rape?

Matt Araiza got cut from the Bills over an allegation for which he was exonerated. But in general, no, I haven't seen evidence to support what you claim.

[Nelson]

"No, I’m arguing that the default is that we don’t know if an allegation is true or false."

But we do, for some. For the rest, you need a reason to insinuate the potential for falsity. Saying it is potentially a false allegation (which requires a specific finding of falsity, not just an uncertainty about truth) requires at least an indication that it is possible that it is a false accusation. There is nothing in the study that would support your assumption.

So, yes. You are assuming that every accusation has the potential to be a false accusation, which is impossible without more information. You don't have the data necessary to support your conclusion. That means that you are starting from an assumption of falsity, not neutrality.

"This isn’t an argument."

No, it is an observation about best practices in law enforcement. When cops are biased against victims without reason, justice suffers for their assumption of dishonesty.

"No, but I can claim it might be false"

Not unless you have more information than we do. A false accusation is a factual determination.

If there is no indication that an accusation has the potential to be false, it isn't potentially false. And you don't have any onformation, one way or the other, about the potential of falsity.

You're assuming a potential for falsity that isn't justified by available facts.

"Matt Araiza got cut from the Bills over an allegation for which he was exonerated."

That was a decision by the Bills, not law enforcement. Are you intentionally moving the goalposts (no pun intended)?

The fact that false accusations exist (which no one disputes) doesn't prove the potential for falsity exists in every case, nor that the net trend (in law enforcement, which is what we're talking about) is against the accused.

Are you claiming that there are more cases in which law enforcement bias trends against the accused? Historically that has not been the case, but if that has changed in recent years could you let me know where to find that info?

[TwelveInchPianist]

But we do, for some. For the rest, you need a reason to insinuate the potential for falsity. Saying it is potentially a false allegation (which requires a specific finding of falsity, not just an uncertainty about truth)

No, an accusation is potentially false if we are uncertain about it's truth.

Not unless you have more information than we do. A false accusation is a factual determination.

I can claim an accusation might be false if I don't know it's true.

That was a decision by the Bills, not law enforcement. Are you intentionally moving the goalposts (no pun intended)?

You're the one that fixed the goalposts, and you made them broader than just law enforcement.

[Nelson]

"No, an accusation is potentially false if we are uncertain about it’s truth."

That is literally, definitively, untrue. Unless the legal definition of a false accusation has changed ... *checks* ... nope. You're still completely wrong.

"I can claim an accusation might be false if I don’t know it’s true."

Not unless the definition of a false allegation changes. Or if you are comfortable casting doubt on any and all accusations with no basis. Which, it seems, you might be.

"You’re the one that fixed the goalposts, and you made them broader than just law enforcement."

I did not. I said that if you were going to go outside the actual definition, the reasonable direction to go would be fewer, not more, false allegations given the history of law enforcement and rape. But I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your claim that "not-false" is equivalent to "possibly false" is not true.

You not liking the way things are defined isn't a valud reason to ignore their meaning. If you don't like that a noun is called a noun instead of a verb, tough. The world doesn't rearrange itself due to your dissatisfaction. Same for "false allegation".

[TwelveInchPianist]

You not liking the way things are defined isn’t a valud reason to ignore their meaning.

Right back atcha. A false allegation, in most cases where people discuss them, is an allegation that isn't true. Again, will you acknowledge that there's no evidence that a high percentage of allegations are untrue?

[Nelson]

TIP, go down to the detailed reaponse to your post, below. I'm interested in your response.

[dwb68]

"between 2 and 10% of rape accusations being outright false."

...If thats true the ideal conviction rate is 90% (assuming the false case go to trial). Here the conviction rate is .5%. Effectively zero.

[TwelveInchPianist]

keep in mind that the 2-10% are allegations that have been proven to be false. The remainder in the study had not been proven to be true.

[Nelson]

Yes, indications are that the 2-8% figure is higher than the real figure, given law enforcement misclassifications.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. None of the studies provide any evidence that the rate is lower than that. As I said, a false reporting rate of 100% would be consistent with these studies.

[Nelson]

Only of you want to believe that. Police classifications aren't prefect and usually factor against the victim, not in their favor, but there is zero chance that it is much higher than reported and a high chance that false accusations are over-, not under-reported.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Police classifications aren’t prefect and usually factor against the victim, not in their favor, but there is zero chance that it is much higher than reported and a high chance that false accusations are over-, not under-reported."

Just an unsupported assertion.

[Nelson]

Perhaps. But way more likely than your assertion that it is the floor.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's how the study's designed. If you have a problem with the methodology, take it up with the authors.

[Nelson]

"If you have a problem with the methodology, take it up with the authors."

It isn't a methodology issue.

The definitions that law enforcement uses for false allegations isn't something that can be changed by the researchers. Law enforcement isn't going to go back and change all their classifications just because a researcher thinks they have a better system.

That isn't a methodological flaw on the authors' part. It's an unreasonable expectation on yours.

Look below for a detailed response to your post. We should consolidate there.

[Nige]

'Maybe we really do have an epidemic of false rape accusations,'

The only evidence for that is the fact that the police fail to get convictions for the vast majority of them. Which do you find more credible, the police are doing a shitty job or women think it's fun to lie about something like this, when the only actual consequences are likely to fall on them?

[Brett Bellmore]

Since I don't think women are automatically saints, yeah, I think it's quite plausible enough of them think it's fun to lie about something like this. Especially when, no, the actual consequences are almost certain NOT to fall on them. Prosecution for false rape accusations is incredibly rare, and it doesn't take a large fraction of women being willing to make false accusations to generate numbers like this.

[Mr. Bumble]

Prosecutions for false reports of any kind are incredibly rare.

[Nige]

We've seen how women get treated when they come forward about sexual assault and rape, and it often ain't pretty.

So if prosecution for false rape accusations are incredibly rare, doesn’t that mean false rape accusations are incredibly rare?

[Rossami]

re: " if prosecution for false rape accusations are incredibly rare, doesn’t that mean false rape accusations are incredibly rare?"

No more than saying that "if successful prosecution for rape is incredibly rare, it necessarily means that raped are incredibly rare".

Stop strawmanning the argument and look at what he's actually saying.

[Nige]

I mean, duh.

[I Callahan]

We’ve seen how women get treated when they come forward about sexual assault and rape, and it often ain’t pretty.

Especially if they're accusing a Democrat politician...

[Nige]

'Especially?'

[Nelson]

"Since I don’t think women are automatically saints, yeah, I think it’s quite plausible enough of them think it’s fun to lie about something like this."

You don't have to think that women are "automatically saints" to think they are likely telling the truth when they report.

You are making the opposite assumption: despite all evidence to the contrary, you are saying that the assumption shouldn't just be that women aren't telling the truth, but that women, writ large, are so reprehensible that they think "it’s fun to lie about something like this.".

What is wrong with you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You are making the opposite assumption: despite all evidence to the contrary..."

As explained above, there's very little evidence either way.

[Nelson]

Actuallybyhere is a good amount of evidence. It appears that when errors are made, they are by misclassifying a non-false accusation as a false accusation, not the other way around.

So the present estimates are overreporting false accusations, not underreporting them.

[I Callahan]

Did you read the same study as everyone else?

[Nelson]

Only of you want to believe that. Police classifications aren't prefect and usually factor against the victim, not in their favor, but there is zero chance that it is much higher than reported and a high chance that false accusations are over-, not under-reported.

The only way to reach a logical conclusion that false reports are prevalent would be to assume that all determinations of a false report are accurate (disputed in most studies), that the police designations other than false report could reasonably be false reports (also disputed in most studies), and that the trend in misclassification is against the victim, not for them (disputed, but also counter to the findings of virtually every examination of police response to rape accusations).

Classifications are clearly defined, but often misapppied. Where they are misapplied, they run against the victim, not in their favor. If you are in an environment where the available data and documented biases run against the victim, assuming that false reports are higher than documented requires a dedicated desire to believe that women are lying when they report.

It's like saying that a boat running against the current could go faster than one going with the current because we don't really know what the current is really doing.

It fails the smell test, just like any claim that false reports are rampant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

that the police designations other than false report could reasonably be false reports (also disputed in most studies),

No, that's not disputed. The linked study, for example, only classified reports as false that are proven to be false. Literally no one is claiming that police not classifying a report as false is proof that it's true.

It’s like saying that a boat running against the current could go faster than one going with the current because we don’t really know what the current is really doing.

Lol. No it's not. It's literally nothing like that.

[Nelson]

“The linked study, for example, only classified reports as false that are proven to be false.”

Yes, because that is what the definition of a false report is.

“Literally no one is claiming that police not classifying a report as false is proof that it’s true.”

Agreed. But people like Brett and you are claiming that any non-false accusation should actually be considered potentially-false. That is not true, nor is it in any way reasonable. There are not just false accusations and possibly-false accusations.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, because that is what the definition of a false report is."

That's the study's definition of a false report. In ordinary terminology a false accusation is an accusation that's not true.

"But people like Brett and you are claiming that any non-false accusation should actually be considered potentially-false."

Sigh. An allegation that can't be proven to be false should still be considered considered potentially false until it can be proven to be true, sure.

I suspect that the reason that such poor quality reasoning dominates fields like gender studies is that leftists are incapable of understanding things like statistics, data analysis, and basic reasoning.

[Nelson]

"In ordinary terminology a false accusation is an accusation that’s not true"

Do you mean in colloquial English? Because in law enforcement that is 100% false. A majority of cases aren't proven true, but also aren't proven false. They are absolutely not false reports just because they aren't proven true.

The default isn't "false until proven true".

"An allegation that can’t be proven to be false should still be considered considered potentially false until it can be proven to be true, sure."

That is literally not true in law enforcement. Things that are proven false are false, things that are proven true are true, and everything else in undetermined. Everything else isn't automatically assumed to be potentially false, nor potentially true. If you assume any non-false reports are potentially false, you are making a biased assumption against the victim..

2-8% are proven false. Another percentage are proven true. The remainder aren't potentially false unless you require proof to eliminate falsity, rather than proof to eliminat truthfulness. That is an inherent bias against an accuser, in favor of rapists.

"I suspect that the reason that such poor quality reasoning"

You mean like not understanding that a requirement to prove an accusation is true is inherently biased against the accuser? Yes, your reasoning is faulty on that.

This isn't binary. Many, many more cases fall outside of the provably false/provably true results. Requiring tjem to conform to a binary is deeply flawed reasoning.

"leftists are incapable of understanding things like statistics, data analysis, and basic reasoning"

I'm not a leftist, but I would point out that cultural conservatives display a much broader and deeper lack of basic reasoning than any other group.

When someone claims that a fertilized egg, which has a 27% chance of being born, should be treated as if it has a 100% chance, they are failing at math, reasoning, statistics, and data analysis all at once. True?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you mean in colloquial English?"

Yes. You know, the English you were using when you said that 92% of allegations were true.

"2-8% are proven false. Another percentage are proven true. The remainder aren’t potentially false unless you require proof to eliminate falsity, rather than proof to eliminate truthfulness. That is an inherent bias against an accuser, in favor of rapists."

Again, anything not proven true is potentially false.

[Nelson]

"Yes. You know, the English you were using when you said that 92% of allegations were true."

No, that wasn't colloquial English. Thay was me being imprecise in my word choice. Also known as being wrong.

And we aren't talking about colloquial definitions of a false accusation. A false accusation of rape has a specific, legal definition.

This entire discussion has been about false accusations as a legal matter, not the language used by people who don't think rape happens very much and usually is just remorse (like Brett).

"Again, anything not proven true is potentially false."

Not when a false accusation requires proof of falsity. If there's no indication that falsity is possible, there is no chance it could be a false accusation.

Since you have no idea if there is or isn't such an indication in the non-false accusations, you don't have the necessary data to make such a claim.

As you said earlier, "you don’t get to claim that your assumptions are empirically supported without data to support them". And the data doesn't support your assumptions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not when a false accusation requires proof of falsity. If there’s no indication that falsity is possible, there is no chance it could be a false accusation.

A false accusation doesn't require proof of falsity, except under the definition in the study. In the real world, an accusation can be false whether it's been proven false or not.

[Nelson]

"A false accusation doesn’t require proof of falsity, except under the definition in the study."

The definition was not created or "used by" the study. It is the definition used by law enforcement, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reports Handbook. The study isn't using its own definition.

You understand that, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That is literally, definitively, untrue. Unless the legal definition of a false accusation has changed … *checks* … nope. You’re still completely wrong.

Legal definition of a false accusation? What the hell is that?

You get that phrases can mean different things in different contexts, right? That's why the study clarifies that it uses the rather misleading definition of the IACP. But that's not the definition Brett was using when your responded to his comments, and that's not the way that the expression is defined generally.

Again, do you acknowledge that the study doesn't provide any evidence that a high percentage of rape accusations are true, or contradict the claim that a large percentage are untrue?

[Nelson]

"Legal definition of a false accusation? What the hell is that?"

It is literally the definition thay law enforcement uses to define a false allegation. It's something I have repeatedly referenced.

"You get that phrases can mean different things in different contexts, right?"

Not in this case. As I have pointed out. Repeatedly.

"But that’s not the definition Brett was using when your responded to his comments, and that’s not the way that the expression is defined generally."

It is referenced in Brett's linked study. So if Brett wasn't using the definition that law enforcement uses, as referenced in his own link, why not? It's pretty clearly defined in the study.

Is that how crimes and legal terms are defined? Generally? Because if you go to court with that approach, you're going to lose.

If a cop says, "Sure, there's a definition in our profession for what a false allegation is, but I went with the definition that Mike the Baker believes", how do you think that would go over in a court? Or even in an annual performance review?

"Again, do you acknowledge that the study doesn’t provide any evidence that a high percentage of rape accusations are true, or contradict the claim that a large percentage are untrue?"

I addressed this, in detail, below.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It appears that when errors are made, they are by misclassifying a non-false accusation as a false accusation, not the other way around."

How is the "not the other way around" portion of your claim supported? As noted earlier, the studies don't make any effort to classify allegations as true.

[Nelson]

"the studies don’t make any effort to classify allegations as true"

No one should expect them to. The police are responsible for investigating and classifying crimes. As is the case in every other study on crime.

Murder studies don't investigate murder cases to see if they are really murders before using the data in their studies.

Why do you insist that rape be treated differently than any other study on any other crime?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No one should expect them to."

OK, but then you don't get to claim that studies show that X percent of allegations are true.

[Nelson]

You can't be allowed to make conclusions based on available data? It's OK for every other type of crime, but not rape? Why?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You can’t be allowed to make conclusions based on available data?"

Sigh. No, you can't make conclusions based on unavailable data.

[Nelson]

"Sigh. No, you can’t make conclusions based on unavailable data."

Correct. You are making assumptions based on unavailable data, not me. There is no reason to assume that any of the remaining 92-98% of cases have the potential to be false accusations. We have no data about that potential at all. You are assuming a pissibility that is completely unsupported by data.

For all you know, none of the non-false cases have any potential to be found to be false. You literally don't know.

Unless you have something you haven't shared, your conclusion that "8-100% are potentially false" is a conclusion based on unavailable data. True?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Unless you have something you haven’t shared, your conclusion that “8-100% are potentially false” is a conclusion based on unavailable data. True?

Sigh. In the absence of data, any allegation is potentially false. The left claims to have data that shows that very few allegations are false, but when you look at the data, it's doesn't show that any allegations are false.

[Nelson]

"Sigh. In the absence of data, any allegation is potentially false."

Not true. A false allegation isn't an allegation that hasn't been proven true. It is an accusation that has been proven to be false.

Without data indicating that falsity is a possibility, claiming falsity is a possibility isn't supportable. Or logical. Or accurate.

"but when you look at the data, it’s doesn’t show that any allegations are false"

Actually, the study Brett linked shows 5.9% false allegations. And multiple other studies find similar rates.

Your argument is that the classification used by law enforcement is flawed and therefore the studies are flawed. But that's irrational.

What are the studies supposed to do, create a new classification system and have law enforcement reclassify all rapes based on that system?

Expecting a wholesale restructuring of law enforcement practices as a predicate for your acceptance is stright-up nuts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your argument is that the classification used by law enforcement is flawed and therefore the studies are flawed. But that’s irrational.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that that the study doesn't show how many accusations are false in the ordinary sense of the term.

Are you conceding that the data in the study give us very little indication of how many women making accusations have actually been raped? After all, just because it hasn't been proven that no crime occurred doesn't mean that we can assume that a crime did occur.

[Brett Bellmore]

" A false allegation isn’t an allegation that hasn’t been proven true. It is an accusation that has been proven to be false."

No, absolutely not. A false allegation is an allegation that isn't "true" where we're talking about whether the event actually happened in the real world.

Some allegations of things that didn't actually happen in the real world will be proven to be false. Others will not be proven false, but if a rape didn't actually happen in the real world, the allegation is false regardless of what can be proven.

You're reasoning as though there weren't an underlying reality here, actual events that allegations can be true or false in relation to.

[Nelson]

"No, absolutely not."

Yes, absolutely. It is specifically defined as such in Uniform Crime Reports Handbook. As in, that's the way law enforcement (and the legal system) defines it.

"A false allegation is an allegation that isn’t “true” where we’re talking about whether the event actually happened in the real world."

Well the you are also wrong using a logical, as opposed to legal, definition. You can't claim something is false without evidence of falsity. If you investigate and discover the reported event didn't happen, then and only then can you claim it's false. Otherwise it's, at most, undetermined.

"Others will not be proven false, but if a rape didn’t actually happen in the real world, the allegation is false regardless of what can be proven."

If it can be proven to be false, it is a false accusation. Agreed?

If it is proven to be true, it is a true allefation. Agreed?

If it cannot be proven either way, your assertion is that it should be called a false allegation? Is that what you're saying?

"You’re reasoning as though there weren’t an underlying reality here"

I'm not the one denying reality. In reality, "false accusation" had a clear legal definition. You are the one ignoring reality.

"actual events that allegations can be true or false in relation to."

Yes. False allegations are only those proved to be false. True allegations are only those proved to be true.

Allegations that aren't proved true are completely different than false allegations. They aren't even potentially false (nor, for that matter, potentially true), absent evidence that indicates one is a possibility.

What you are trying to do is what dishonest people do when a poll has more than two categories: claim anything that isn't the diametrically opposed position is the same as yours.

Both anti-abortionists (90% of people want abortion to be illegal! The 15% who want abortion illegal in all cases, the 33% that want abortion illegal in most cases, and the 42% who want abortion illegal in some cases) and the abortion-until-birth crowd (85% of people want abortion to be legal! The same middle 75%, plus the 10% who support abortion until live birth.) do that.

You are doing it with rape. Claiming the in-between categories as false allegations is exactly as dishonest as the abortion wingnuts. And even more disgusting.

TL;DR version: false means false, true means true, and everything in between is neither.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Otherwise it’s, at most, undetermined."

Sigh. You've finally got it. The vast majority of rape allegations are undetermined, which means that they might be true, or they might be untrue. Or, as most people would say, false.

[Nelson]

"The vast majority of rape allegations are undetermined"

In regards to false allegations? Not really. There is a standard to meet to claim a false allegation has been made. I responded to your post in detail below.

"Or, as most people would say, false."

There is a vast distance between the casual use of the phrase "false allegation" and the legal definition. One is irrelevant in the legal/law enforcement context. Guess which one?

Trying to slap a defined legal phrase (that's also a crime) on an entire group of people by claiming it's just how people talk is either really sloppy or really insidious.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which do you find more credible, the police are doing a shitty job or women think it’s fun to lie about something like this, when the only actual consequences are likely to fall on them?"

Keep in mind that the former assumption also requires you to assume that men think it's fun to commit violent felonies with the risk of extremely severe consequences.

[Nige]

But we have proof that men like to commit violent felonies in large numbers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And we also have proof that women lie. So what?

[Nige]

But there's no proof they're lying about this.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope, no proof either way.

[Nige]

So if there's no proof they're lying, might as well believe them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But then I have to believe that some guy is a rapist without proof.

If there's no proof either way, the rational thing to do is just accept the fact that we don't know if the allegation is true or not.

[Nige]

As with all allegations. But we know there are very few false rape and sexual assault allegations. The core of the problem here is the police not investigating these crimes, or investigating them so shoddily and making life so unleasant for victims, lots of women don't report them at all. Therefore, yeah, they cannot be proven or disproven in a court of law. That’s the problem here, not ‘oh look, a load of Schrodinger’s rape cases.’

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But we know there are very few false rape and sexual assault allegations."

Again, we don't know that at all. Gender Studies types like to say that, but they haven't provided any evidence of that. As explained above, the studies that claim to show that, don't.

[Nige]

We literally have the data on that, quoted above. You don't want to acknowledge it, fine, but it's there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We literally have the data on that, quoted above."

Yes, Brett linked to a study providing some data. Out of 136 allegations:

5.9% Classified as false after a thorough investigation showed that the assault did not occur, by a preponderance of the evidence.
44.9% Didn't proceed for further disciplinary action, either because of insufficient evidence, victim reluctance, or the allegation was unfounded.
33.5% Case proceeded for further action, such as a referral for prosecution, disciplinary action, or some other administrative action.
13.9% Insufficient information to assign a category.

In none of the allegations did the study provide any conclusion that any of the allegations were actually true, and other studies tend to have the same mythology and same problems.

So no, we don't have data showing that there are few false rape and sexual assault allegations.

[Nelson]

"In none of the allegations did the study provide any conclusion that any of the allegations were actually true"

And in none of the allegations did the study provide any conclusion that any of the allegations were actually false.

If there isn't data regarding the possibility of falsehood, you can't just assume it exists, correct?

In order to claim a potential of falsity, you need a basis for that claim. Otherwise you're just making things up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in none of the allegations did the study provide any conclusion that any of the allegations were actually false.

The study concluded that 5.9% of the allegations were false. Read the freakin' thing already.

If there isn’t data regarding the possibility of falsehood, you can’t just assume it exists, correct?

In order to claim a potential of falsity, you need a basis for that claim. Otherwise you’re just making things up.

I can assume that an allegation is potentially false if it's not proven to be true, and the study doesn't say anything about any allegation being proven to be true.

[Nelson]

"I can assume that an allegation is potentially false if it’s not proven to be true"

No, you can't. That isn't what a false allegation is. You don't get to change definitiions because you don't like them.

"the study doesn’t say anything about any allegation being proven to be true"

Which is completely irrelevant to a false allegation. No matter how badly you want it to be "anything that isn't proved true might be false", it isn't. A false allegation is a positive finding, not a negative finding of truth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, you can’t. That isn’t what a false allegation is. You don’t get to change definitiions because you don’t like them.

Nor do the authors of the study.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fine, forget about the definitions. Do you concede that the study provides no support for the claim that the vast majority of accusations are true, and cannot rule out the possibility that the vast majority of accusations are untrue?

[Nelson]

“Do you concede that the study provides no support for the claim that the vast majority of accusations are true?”

Agreed. 100%.

“and cannot rule out the possibility that the vast majority of accusations are untrue?”

That isn’t the opposite of your first question. Don’t move the goalposts.

The opposite of your first question is “”Do you concede that the study provides no support for the claim that the vast majority of accusations are false?”.

My answer to that is: No. It details the methodological difficulties in determining the rate of false accusations, but it provides good support for the claim that the majority of accusations are not false.

What about those that aren’t one or the other, which seems to be the majority of cases?

Just so we’re on the same page, the classification that contains false accusations is “Unfounded”. It contains two sub-categories, “False Accusation”, where an incident is investigated and proved to be false (like Kathleen Sorensen’s kidnapping accusation) and “Baseless”, which are investigated and determined not to be false, but also not to be a crime. “For example, a victim reports an incident that, while truthfully recounted, does not meet … the legal definition of a sexual assault.”. Basically a false allegation is only an allegation of an event that never occurred, not one that happened but wasn’t actually a crime, or happened but lacks details that would cross the line into illegality. Being wrong is not a false accusation.

Other examples of things that are identified as not being false accusations, but also aren’t exculpatory, are:

1) “A case in which the victim decides not to cooperate with investigators.”

In this case, I would say “the study provides no support for the claim that” it is either potentially-false or potentially-true. Without any information, no potential can be claimed either way. Fair?

2) “A case in which investigators decide that there is insufficient evidence to proceed toward a prosecution.”

“The study provides no support for the claim that” it is potentially-false, since it was investigated and found not-false (or credible, whichever term you prefer). Fair?

3) “A case in which the victim appears to make inconsistent statements, or even lies about certain aspects of the incident” (like drug or alcohol use). So not lying about the incident, but lying about details.

This one seems to fit between the “not cooperating” and “insufficient evidence” cases in terms of support. “The study provides no support for the claim that” it is potentially-true or potentially-false. I would argue that because almost no one has a perfect memory, inconsistent statements wouldn’t push it either way. But any intentional, substantive lie would support a claim of potentially-false, due to credibility. Fair?

“A case in which a victim makes a delayed report of the incident or in which a victim was extremely intoxicated.”

This seems similar to the “insufficient evidence” scenario, since delayed reporting is common with sexual assault. “The study provides no support for the claim that” it is either potentially-false or potentially-true. Fair?

I used the language from your initial question (“the study provides no support for the claim that”) as the standard for all scenarios to keep a neutral foundation.

Finally there are the cases that investigators determine have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial but are pled out, go to trial and end in a hung jury, or go to trial and result in conviction. Can we agree that none of those are false allegatioms?

The only remaining legal scenario that I can think of is being acquitted. I tried to find out if, legally, that would make it a false allegation. From what I found acquittal only means “not guilty”. It doesn’t mean innocent or falsely accused. So that would also provide no support for the claim of potentially-false, since there was sufficient evidence to get to trial. Fair?

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Do you concede that the study provides no support for the claim that the vast majority of accusations are true?”

Agreed. 100%.

OK then. That's the same thing as saying that the study doesn't show that false accusations are rare, using the normal definition of false accusation. Sorry you don't like the terminology.

[Nelson]

"That’s the same thing as saying that the study doesn’t show that false accusations are rare,"

It isn't the same thing at all. The available data shows the exact opposite, that false accusations, as defined in criminal law enforcement and prosecution, are extremely rare.

It's probably also the definition for civil law, but I don't know for sure. What's certain is your terminology is wrong.

Which is probably why you avoided the detailed response I posted and doubled down on your "the legal definition doesn't matter, only my definition matters" strategy.

"using the normal definition of false accusation"

The normal definition of a crime is the definition used by law enforcement and prosecutors. Any other definition is called "wrong".

"Sorry you don’t like the terminology."

I'm great with the terminology used by law enforcement and the legal system. Your petulant refusal to accept it doesn't make it change in the slightest.

[Nelson]

If you want a practical example of what a false accusation is: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/mom-fluencer-found-guilty-after-falsely-accusing-couple/story?id=98976283

As shown, a false accusation is an accusation about an event that didn't happen and was proved not to have happened.

I know it's ridiculous to use the legal definition of a crime instead of yours, but the legal system is silly like that.

[amyR88]

Hey Brett Bellmore... Did you rape somebody buddy???... You seem awfully hard pressed to convince us in the comments that WOMEN LIE ABOUT RAPE... uh huh.... maybe learn what consent is... If a woman is passed out, and you have sex with her while unconscious... That's RAPE... and yes, it can be proven through rape kits, etc etc. I personally know 2 women who were raped this way, one was drugged on an online date and taken to a place unconscious... but both decided not to prosecute after police told them it would be "very tough" situation... I can't remember exactly, it was years ago, but basically police told my friend no point in pressing charges.... and she just got the morning after pill and a shot for possible STDs after they did the rape kit... Oh right, but they ARE LYING.... So many women lying... going to the police and getting humiliating exams... That is humilation, and not one a sane woman would willingly go through.... I think Brett's comment is about Brett... and the rapists he pals around with (or he is a rapist) and just wants to live in his delusional world where men are never rapists...

[I Callahan]

Let's not get into high dudgeon mode. Everything you typed can be believed, and Brett's point be believable as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Man, did you ever get that one backwards. I mean, literally, categorically, "was actually phobic about approaching women on account of having been assaulted by one in elementary school" backwards.

I got over it eventually, and actually started dating about the time I turned 40... I'm now happily married at 64, but you may rest assured, I'm not a rapist.

[Brett Bellmore]

But rape kits don't prove rape happened. They prove sex happened. Since voluntary sex is kind of a thing, you have to additionally prove it was involuntary.

I mean, say you pick up a hitchhiker, and drop them off 10 miles down the road, and a week later accuse them of forcing you to give them a ride. Only you don't have a dash cam, or really any proof at all of coercion.

Would you find it shocking if the guy couldn't be convicted on your word alone?

[Nige]

It's evidence, though. Can't get a conviction if you dont even have the basic evidence.

[I Callahan]

What is it evidence OF?

[Nelson]

Sex. And combined with a statement of non-consentual sex, you have a reasonable foundation for a rape investigation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, establishing that sex happened establishes one of the factual predicates of rape, and an allegation of the other factual predicate gives you a basis for an investigation.

My point is that since sex frequently happens voluntarily, even between strangers, just establishing that sex happened only gets you to the possibility of rape, it doesn't really do much to establish the likelihood, barring further evidence.

And allegations are NOT strong evidence. They're barely evidence at all.

[Nelson]

"And allegations are NOT strong evidence."

I agree.

"They’re barely evidence at all."

Whoa there, partner! They are absolutely evidence. How strong depends entirely on the elements of the case.

There is no basis to claim they are, inherently, "barely evidence".

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Hence the importance of physical examinations and rape kits. "

"and a high chance that you will be accused of making a false accusation, which is a crime, women are either lining up to make false accusations that will harm nobody but themselves"

Bullshyte!

Women are *never* charged, not even Gail Chrystal Magnum was charged for this And those boys weren't harmed?

[Nige]

One reason for that, of course, is that it's prevalence is so incredibly low.

[mulched]

After you assumed your conclusion, your argument became a lot easier.

[Nige]

How often is it actually proven to have occurred?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn't this exactly the same logic from Brett Bellmore that started this conversation?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually. My logic is that you can't assume people who weren't convicted were guilty, so that the failure to convict must be a result of the justice system failing.

That is one of the assumptions behind the 99.5% number, after all. That every acquittal is the justice system failing.

Sure, guilty people get acquitted. Innocent people get accused, too. We lack hard numbers on the percentage of each.

[Nige]

That's not the assumption. The assumption is that the police aren't investigating rape cases, and those they are are done so shoddily and and so traumatically for vctims that other women don't report theirs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"One reason for that, of course, is that it’s prevalence is so incredibly low."

There's no evidence that it's prevalence is incredibly low.

And even among known false accusers: UVA's Jackie was never charged, nor the woman who claimed that she was locked in a shipping container in Iraq.

[Nige]

So what are the actual numbers?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No idea. How would you even know something like that?

[Nige]

So we have evidence that rape happens a lot, and we have evidence false accusations happen extremely rarely. Extrapolate from that most of these claims are true and very few of them are false.

[TwelveInchPianist]

We don't have evidence that false accusations happen extremely rarely. We have very little evidence either way.

And sure, there's some evidence that rape happens a lot (the surveys) and other evidence that it doesn't happen so much (the low conviction rate).

[Nige]

We do, because the ony incidences of them we know about are extremely rare.

The low conviction rate is evidence that rapes don't happen a lot? That seems like a conclusion based on a whole load of assumptions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We do, because the ony incidences of them we know about are extremely rare."

Nope. We don't know if the vast majority of allegations are true or false. We know that a rare few are true, and a rare few are false, but for most we don't know either way.

[Nige]

We don't, but we do know that false accusations are rare, which implies most of them are probably true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We don’t, but we do know that false accusations are rare, which implies most of them are probably true."

Sigh. Allegations are rarely proven to be false. But that doesn't show that most allegations are probably true, any more than the fact that fact that convictions are rare implies that most allegations are probably false.

[Nige]

Alegations rarely being proven false is literally data that false allegations are rare.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Allegations rarely being proven false is literally data that false allegations are rare.”

Allegations are also rarely proven true. Which means that we don't know whether most allegations are true or not.

[Absaroka]

“Allegations rarely being proven false is literally data that false allegations are rare.”

Maybe it will help to rephrase this as a more abstract problem.

I put 4 lemon and 5 lime jellybeans in a jar, and then add 91 other jellybeans to the jar, how many of the 100 jellybeans in the jar are lemon? With that information, all you know is that there are somewhere between 4 to 95 lemon and 5 to 96 lime jellybeans. That's the point TiP is making.

A slightly different problem is this: you have a jar containing 100 jelly beans, and *randomly pick* (that part is important!!!!!) 9 jellybeans and get 4 lemon and 5 lime ones, then you could make statistical guesses about the relative frequency. But
a)no one is picking random rape accusations from a jar and deciding whether they are true or false, so this analogy isn't appropriate and
b)with low single digit samples, your error bars are going to be large even if you were randomly sampling

A passionate belief that most of the beans in the jar are lemon just isn't evidence that the jar in fact holds mostly lemon jellybeans.

[David Nieporent]

Women are *never* charged, not even Gail Chrystal Magnum was charged for this And those boys weren’t harmed?

That's impressive. Three words, you couldn't get them in the right order and spelled two of them wrong.

[I Callahan]

Do better, Dave. His point is valid.

[Nelson]

"Women are *never* charged"

They should be, if they make a false accusation. That doesn't mean that a woman reporting a rape should be assumed to be lying because a completely unconnected person in a completely unconnected case lied. Agreed?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So with a miniscule chance of conviction, a process that can’t be easy even with the most sympathtic investigators, and a high chance that you will be accused of making a false accusation, which is a crime, women are either lining up to make false accusations that will harm nobody but themselves, or in the face of overwhelming odds, these women still hold out for some scrap of justice."

The numerator here comes survey, so no, your scenario is not correct.

[Nige]

We've seen so many people coming forward in so many areas about institutional child abuse, harassment and rape, often years after the fact, the idea that there are even more people out there in similar situations is hardly unlikely.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We’ve seen so many people coming forward in so many areas about institutional child abuse, harassment and rape, often years after the fact..."

Yeah, a whole bunch of people came forward about ritual abuse in day care centers during the '80's, for example.

[Nige]

A whole bunch of people are currently claiming the Democrats are part of a global elite who engage in ritual Satanic abuse but Trump will expose them and bring them to justice. But we know the difference between those and real cases of abuse and rape, don't we?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? We often don't know the difference between real and false cases of abuse and rape. That's why we have trials and stuff.

[Nige]

We have more than that, I would hope.

[not guilty]

Whether or not a murder has taken place is often not "pretty clear" (and FWIW there need not be a dead body in evidence). The accused's killing of another person is only one element of the offense. What grade of homicide has been committed is often litigated. Where evidence of accident or justification is admitted, those theories must be negated beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Voize]

Where evidence of accident or justification is admitted, those theories must be negated beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll accept accident, as it is negated by proving state of mind as an element of the crime so must be refuted beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think it is not correct however as a blanket statement about affirmative defenses like justification or excuse that don't contradict an element of the crime. They may only need be proved by a preponderance, although this can vary due to statute or caselaw between jurisdictions and defenses. Wisconsin, for example, requires disproof of all affirmative defenses beyond a reasonable doubt (Moes v. State 91 Wis.2d 756 (1979)) as a matter of state law, but SCOTUS held in Patterson v. New York (1977) that the Due Process clause does not require this result.

[ducksalad]

I’m calling BS on that 99.5%.

Followed the footnote link in the article. The source (www.rainn.org) has a different number: Out of 1000 sexual assaults, 310 are reported, 28 result in convictions, and 25 result in incarceration. That is 97.5%, not 99.5%. That’s a factor of 5 difference in conviction rate.

The authors of the law article either misquoted their own source, or the source changed their numbers drastically.

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

It’s also worth pointing out that (a) estimating unreported crimes is very difficult, and (b) in many states a common method for dealing with (alleged) sex offenders is pre-trial detention that concludes with the person agreeing to be placed on the sex offender registry in exchange for the trial being “deferred” indefinitely.

The claimed number, 0.5% of 463,000, is 2300, and yet there are approximately 780,000 people currently in sex offender registries. Even subtracting out a good fraction of registrants who did something other than assault, one can see that it would take centuries to build up to 780,000….but offenders don’t live for centuries and lists haven’t been around that long.

Something fishy here.

[CommentMonkey]

It's worse than that. The sources cited indicate 2 out of 3 sexual assaults are not reported, so they are relying entirely on survey responses for those. The 463,634 figure is a five year average of survey responses contained in the DOJ's criminal victimization report published in September 2020 (cited in footnote 1 of the RAINN report, which is cited by the authors in their footnote 7). The five annual sexual assault reports that make up the average: 431,840, 298,410, 393,980, 734,630, and 459,310. This ought to be a red flag. Fewer than 300,000 sexual assaults in 2016 and 734,630 in 2018? No way. And averaging bad data doesn't make it reliable.

Also, the expansive definition of "sexual assault" provided to survey respondents suggests that, even assuming the survey responses to be reliable, some indeterminate proportion of the incidents would not rise to the felony level even if they had been reported (most weren't) and supported by sufficient evidence. So it is absurd to suggest, as the authors do, that "the system" fails rape victims 99.5 percent of the time.

This isn't to argue with the the authors' underlying point about the need for improvements. But the data they use to get an emotional reaction from the reader is garbage.

[Brett Bellmore]

You get up to 99.5% by including supposed rapes that aren't even reported to the police.

[ducksalad]

No, both I and the misquoted source are specifically including unreported rapes. Again, from the source the authors citied:

Out of 1000 sexual assault baseline
300 are reported to the police
28 result in convictions

[Nelson]

"That is 97.5%, not 99.5%. That’s a factor of 5 difference."

So a 2.5% conviction rate is totally OK? Or are you saying that it's terrible, just not as terrible as was claimed?

[ducksalad]

What I’m really saying is they’re innumerate. Which is fine, many people are, but if that’s the case just make your subjective argument – rape is bad and we’re not doing enough – without slinging around numbers to give the false appearance of being data driven.

How bad is 2.5%? The number is not 2.5%. Even the strongest anti-violence advocate can’t expect the police to arrest someone when no crime has been reported to them, and something less than a third are reported. Some large fraction of those arrested are “handled” by pre-trial detention followed by the sex offender registry, which isn’t a conviction but can hardly be called doing nothing. So the percentage of reported assaults that result in something that looks and smells like punishment is higher, maybe higher than 10% just from the numbers posted (28 convictions + N detetion and registry out of 300 reported).

Is 10% good enough? It doesn’t satisfy one’s desire for justice but as others have pointed out it’s inherently hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why presumption of innocence and high standards are proof are not super popular topics for campus anti-rape advocates.

[Nelson]

"can’t expect the police to arrest someone when no crime has been reported to them"

Agreed. That is one of the concerns about sexual assault; the low success rate, the onus being on the victim to prove they were assaulted before the police will even investigate, the Brett-type people who start by assuming the woman is lying, and the traumatic experience of sexual assault all work together to chill rates of reporting. It's definitely a major problem.

"Some large fraction of those arrested are “handled” by pre-trial detention followed by the sex offender registry, which isn’t a conviction but can hardly be called doing nothing."

I agree that it is punishment, of a sort, but it's like a murderer getting time served and a negligent homicide conviction. Grossly insufficient, but it is a criminal conviction.

"maybe higher than 10% just from the numbers posted"

That would address the conviction of cases brought, but in the (somewhat) separate issue of a belief in high rates of false accusations. 10% is still pretty poor, but it is definitely better than .5% or 2.5%.

"Which is why presumption of innocence and high standards are proof are not super popular topics for campus anti-rape advocates."

Oh, don't get me started on the ability of universities to keep their rapes hidden from the public. My opinion is that crimes on campus need to be investigated by real police, not campus police or administrators with a vested interest in hiding crimes from parents and prospective students.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Or is it just that the false accusation rate is extremely high?"

IIUC these aren't even accusations. It's people responding to a survey.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. We see this fallacious argument a lot: Method A of estimating a statistic is way higher than Method B, so Method B must be way off! Clearly there is another possibility.

But these numbers, along with the fallacious studies about false accusations reference above, are accepted without question in the gender studies community.

This should give us some idea of how seriously we should take these fields as branches of scholarship.

[HackJackerson]

Actually, given their specific focus on "felony conviction" and "homicide conviction" they may be playing word games to fluff the numbers. Discounting plea deals, manslaughter and misdemeanor convictions as failures of justice will go a long way towards making things seem worse than they are.

[Nelson]

That's a fair point. Precise language can be used to obfuscate as well as elucidate.

[Toranth]

Well, to start with, the US NCVS, which includes estimates of non-reported crimes, only estimated 320,000 rapes or sexual assaults, in 2020. The 463,000 estimate comes from activist organization RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Curiously enough, RAINN claims to use the NCVS as their data source, but uses an unexplained methodology and other unlisted data sources to compile their final 'data'.

So, take a look at what is considered 'rape or sexual assault' in the NCVS.

Classification of rape and sexual assault in the National Crime Victimization Survey

Measure Element of sexual violence

Completed rape
Type of attack = rape

Type of injury = rape

Attempted rape
Type of attack = attempted rape

Type of injury = attempted rape

Threatened rape
Type of threat = verbal threat of rape with weapon

Type of attempted attack/threat = verbal threat of rape

Sexual assault
Type of attack = sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape

Type of injury = sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape

Type of attempted attack/threat = unwanted sexual contact with force

Type of attempted attack/threat = unwanted sexual contact without force

Type of attempted attack/threat = verbal threat of sexual assault other than rape

Just in case someone wants to complain that the table isn't accurate of the results, here are the instructions:

The survey participant is classified as a victim of rape or sexual assault if they respond affirmatively to one of these three questions [...] the offender THREATEN[ED] you with harm in any way?

Also

Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime

So the number being used includes a wide variety of behaviors, including non-criminal acts, as part of "rape or sexual assault". Without a more detailed breakdown, which is not provided, it becomes difficult to understand if there is a problem with reported rapes going without convictions, if women are not reporting being groped on the NYC subways, or if there is an epidemic of not-true threats being used in normal argument without violence.

[Mr. Bumble]

"When citizens stand back and police stand down, the result is more failures of justices…."
But is such a victory for social justice.

[Krychek_2]

I don't support defunding the police, but neither do I trust them. If I were a witness to a murder, I would cooperate with the police unless I had a good reason not to. All that said, citizen non-cooperation with the police is in fact a direct consequence of police violence (especially against minorities), police racism, and police harassment.

I assume you to be a white male. If I am right about that, then chances are that your interactions with the police have either been positive or neutral, and that they haven't given you a reason to fear or distrust them. That is not the experience of most minorities and poor people. They don't see the police as being on their side because their interactions with the police are mostly negative.

Think of it this way: I'm a 70ish white guy. If I get stopped for speeding, I may be annoyed that I'm getting a ticket, but I have no reasonable fear that I might get beaten or shot. If I'm a 20 year old black male, every time I get pulled over, being beaten or shot is a non-negligible possibility. So of course they don't cooperate with the police. You want minority cooperation with the police, maybe the police should work on building trust in minority communities.

[Brett Bellmore]

And yet, the statistics actually show that, for any given interaction with the police, whites are actually slightly MORE likely to get shot than blacks. It's just that, thanks to the much, much higher black crime rate, blacks are much more likely to have such encounters.

[Nige]

Except we see here that the cops don't bother to solve many crimes involving black people. So cops overpolice random black people who haven't committed any crimes but don't bother to go after actual criminals.

[Brett Bellmore]

For murder and assault, of course, there's another factor: Though media accounts usually obscure this, criminological research reveals that most murder victims are themselves criminals.

Criminals associate with other criminals, so it would be reasonable to assume that not only are the majority of murder victims criminals, and essentially all the perpetrators, but a large fraction of the potential witnesses, as well.

It is hardly shocking that, when criminals kill or assault other criminals, in the presence of criminals, nobody involved cares to assist the police.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given the relative crime rates among various race/ethnic groups, this would also explain the disparity in clearance rates, of course.

Ultimately, if you really want to reduce the murder rate substantially, the answer is not catching murderers. It's reducing the size of the criminal underclass who are responsible for most murders.

[Krychek_2]

I don't disagree with that, but a lot of the programs specifically designed to reduce poverty and provide economic opportunity in distressed areas have had their funding slashed by Republicans. You want to reduce the amount of crime, try starting there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, just because a program is "designed to" do something, doesn't mean it actually DOES do it.

You pay people enough to stay in a hopeless situation that they don't get out of it, that doesn't magically make them act as though the situation weren't hopeless.

We shouldn't pay people to stay in ghettos, we should assist them in leaving ghettos.

[Nige]

Or, hear me out, maybe ghettos shouldn't be ghettos.

Just because a Republican says a program doesn't do what it's designed to do doesn't mean the program doesn't do what it's designed to do.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, actual experience shows that a program doesn't do what it was designed to do.

[Nige]

'Actual experience' having nothing to do with Republicans cutting programs that help poor people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Such as?

[Nige]

They're planning on cutting social security, Medicaid and food stamps, aren't they?

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite?

[Magister]

Forgot Biden's most recent state of the union address already?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/09/fact-sheet-congressional-republicans-many-proposals-to-cut-social-security-and-medicare-and-increase-prescription-drug-prices-and-health-care-premiums/
That's about Social Security and Medicare. Medicaid and food stamp cuts are generally put forward as requirements to seek work, which was shown in Arkansas not to increase employment and to cut off people who were actually eligible.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden's claims fail as a cite. Provide proposed legislation or shut up.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he asked for a cite on Republicans planning on cutting Social Security and Medicaid. Not a cite on Democrats claiming they were planning to.

[Magister]

The link I gave contains links to Republicans planning exactly that. The cite asked for was in response to the statement "[Republicans are] planning on cutting social security, Medicaid and food stamps".

You want legislation? "H.R.2811 - Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023" contains the increased work requirements; as I explained, these do not increase employment and are simply cuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I didn't follow up all the links, but the ones I did follow were going straight to more left-wing sources making the claim with cherry picked quotes.

To be sure, that's how the left interpret a lot of right-wing proposals. I don't suppose you'd agree with how the right interprets a lot of left-wing proposals, either.

[Magister]

I provided proposed legislation and it looks like Bumble finally showed some sense and decided to retreat.

Yes, Brett, if you deride every source that disagrees with you as left wing and refuse to look at it, then you will never hear the evidence that disagrees with you. Downside, you end up looking worse than flat earthers.

Wouldn't your preferred insane right-wing sources have been all over it if the White House put out links to actual falsehoods? For one example, the link about Mike Lee is indeed from MSNBC, but it has video of Lee saying "One thing that you probably haven’t ever heard from a politician: it will be my objective to phase out Social Security. To pull it out by the roots, to get rid of it." How is that a cherry picked quote? Are you going to suggest that that video of Senator Lee is fake? Point me at Breitbart, OAN, Gateway Pundit or whoever is willing to say that; I will look at your links, if only to get a good laugh.

There was a huge uproar with Biden saying only that some Republicans want Social Security and Medicare to sunset, with Marjorie Taylor Greene calling him a liar, and you and Bumble honestly don't remember how that played out? Spoiler: it did not go well for Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

"maybe ghettos shouldn’t be ghettos."

I put it to you that we don't actually know or have enough control over economics to make ghettos economically successful. What we do have the capacity to do is send people after the jobs, instead of financially encouraging them to stay where the jobs aren't.

In other words, I think ghost towns are vastly superior to ghettos, and that IS an option we can pursue, if we ignore the interest of local politicians in not having their population up and leave.

[Krychek_2]

In Sweden, poverty is illegal and there are no ghettos. I'm not enough of a socialist to endorse Swedish methods, but it does show that we could not have ghettos if we has the political will to fix them. We just don't. We've made the policy decision not to do what would be required to fix them once and for all.

Now, maybe our system is better than theirs for other reasons, and my purpose is not to launch that discussion. But assuming that our system is better than theirs for other reasons, we have to take the bad side effects it produces. Ghettos produce crime; period, full stop. Some of those problems spill over into other areas. And blaming the local politicians is disingenuous; local politicians have ghettos because upstream politicians have decided not to implement policies that would shut them down.

The same dynamic exists in large sections of the West where there are real, genuine ghost towns in large numbers. There are rural areas where it just isn't profitable to support a town, and a lot of towns that used to be there have basically died out. No one notices because its a smaller scale and a larger area, but the dynamic is the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it's not the same dynamic, because those towns DID empty out, rather than people remaining there in hopeless poverty.

Because they weren't being paid to remain there, they had no choice but to leave, and you got a ghost town. You get ghettos from a different dynamic, when the local economy collapses, but somehow outside money is used to enable people to stay there anyway, only in poverty.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not sure many ghettos ever had viable economies to begin with, and I'm also not sure that if you're the sole family still living in Sheepdip, Wyoming that you couldn't find some government program or other that would allow you to stay. Plus, ghettos existed long before welfare and social security; Charles Dickens wrote about them over a century ago.

Unless, like Sweden, you have the political will to actually abolish poverty, you're always going to have poor people, many of whom are essentially unemployable, and they've got to live somewhere. That somewhere is not going to be Hyannis or Beverly Hills. The people who have the skills to get out usually do.

[Toranth]

In Sweden, poverty is illegal and there are no ghettos.

I'm not going to address anything but this.
It's just wrong.

Poverty is not illegal - there is no crime you'd be charged with for being poor.
Poverty is also not non-existent: According to the Swedish government, the poverty rate in Sweden (including all the government support) was 7% in 2020. The early 2022 estimates are showing 14%.
As for 'ghettos', you're going to have to provide a precise definition if you want to make a real point. If you just mean "lower income neighborhoods with higher crime rates", then they sure as hell do exist. A simple check shows they tend to be out of the city centers, is all. I found 1990s articles with people proposing to improve the "immigrant ghettos", and almost identical articles from 2018. Swedish newspapers regularly use the term in their English articles to refer to certain neighborhoods, usually in reference to the gang warfare occurring between poor foreigners.
Comparing Brottsförebyggande rådet crime data to town income shows plenty of regions where lower income and higher crime both exist.
And of all things, a reddit post had a bunch of Swedes listing areas they consider ghettos in their cities.

So, by the published data, the statements of residents and politicians, and common usage of the language, both poverty and ghettos (high crime poor neighborhoods) exist in Sweden.

[Nige]

Nah, I don't think people shoud be written off and abandoned on that scale, thanks.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think people should be written off, I think some of the places they live should be.

Like I said, I advocate helping people escape hopeless situations, rather than paying them to remain trapped in them.

[Nige]

But that's nonsense, a place is just a place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right. So you should be able to have a port city in Arizona? Don't spout nonsense, places aren't interchangeable.

Look, cities arise where they do because real world conditions enable profitable economic activity in that place. If things change so that economic activity is no longer profitable in that place, cities lose their justification for being there. The fact that people are already there doesn't change that.

[Nige]

Places aren't interchangeable, so don't send people off to Arizona just because you think it's easier than actually fixing what's wrong with the part of the city they already live in.

[Ben_]

"...a lot of the programs specifically designed to reduce poverty and provide economic opportunity..."

If you cared you could pay for that stuff yourself.

But realistically, if anyone cared enough to put his own money into something, he wouldn't hire expensive bureaucrats to fill out paperwork so only a penny or two on the dollar is actually helpful.

[Nige]

I would rather every single cent of the military budget be put onto those sorts of projects, and health care. Also, all the fossil fuel subsidies, while you're at it.

[dwb68]

Sort of: Criminal underclass enforces contracts* and resolves disputes the old fashioned way, with a gun. Drug cartels for example don’t exactly rely on antitrust law.

If you want to reduce the murder rate, you have to encourage criminal orgs into the legal system to resolve disputes civilly, in court. For the most part that means legalizing many now-criminal activities.

*largely verbal contracts at that, because to write it down would be evidence of criminal activity.

[EscherEnigma]

For the most part that means legalizing many now-criminal activities.

Doesn't really work. Look at the history of the American Mob and other prohibition-era criminal orgs, and what you see is that while they got started with Prohibition, they didn't end with it. Instead they pivotted.

So while many "users" may change to legal alternatives once the vice is legalized, the "providers" will just take their organization, infrastructure, and people, and find a new endeavor. And since they're all hardened criminals at that point, it's not going to be a legal one.

Which is to say... abolish drug law on its own merits, but don't go into it thinking that you'll put a stop to drug cartels. They'll find a new venture, and you probably won't like it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, you can't just re-legalize (And it IS re-legalizing, and important to remember that.) one drug, and expect the black market to go away. You have to re-legalize all of them, or at least one or two choices in each category. A couple downers, a couple uppers, a couple hallucinogens.... Just re-legalizing pot isn't going to do anything.

The crime gangs don't have unlimited options for new crimes to move into, remember. Supplying the black market in something there's no demand for isn't going to get them much money, and they have a lot of overhead. Deny them enough profitable markets and they will go away just because crime isn't as profitable as legal markets.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2023-04-28.html#07b

[Ben_]

That's a useful thing to understand if you don't want to be a crime victim.

Also useful for parents. Keeping your kids away from the bad people is almost as important as keeping them from starving.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, exactly. For instance, most domestic violence is perpetrated by people with records of prior violence. If you've established that somebody has a propensity for violence, don't stupidly assume that they won't be violent with you just because they love you. Violent people are violent towards EVERYBODY around them. Poor impulse control means that reasons for exerting that control are largely irrelevant.

[Nelson]

Google "blame the victim". Read about it. Become a better person.

[Toranth]

It's entirely possible for more than one person to make bad decisions, you know.

If I store my fortune on a table outside my house, when someone steals it, they are to blame. I am also to blame.

Stop pretending that all people in all situations are 100% good or bad. Acknowledging reality and learning to cope with it will help you become a better person.

[dwb68]

Technology could/should be used to combat this, for example less reliance on eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, police departments are excruciatingly slow technology adopters.

[Nige]

Hang on. Overall crime rates are dropping - albeit with a recent uptick. Cops have massive budgets but are actually functionally 50% useless and thousands of crimes go unpunished. But incarceration rates are horrifically high. What, are most convictions of non-violent drug offences, shoplifting and driving while black?

Oh, and there's the answer to anyone who says 'what about black-on-black crime.' The reason there's so much of it relatively speaking is because the police don't give a fuck.

[Mr. Bumble]

Explain how "the police don't give a fuck" when they arrest the same person dozens of times only to find them being released without punishment.

[Nige]

They should probably stop fucking up the arrest and the evidence, or stop arresting innocent people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit!

[Nige]

Didn't you hear what they did to the Jan 6th crowd and some guy who picketed an abortion clinic and Roger Stone? They're out of control!

[SRG]

Tell it to Earl Sampson:

https://colorlines.com/article/black-man-repeatedly-arrested-and-jailed-trespassing-his-workplace/

[Absaroka]

That sounds really bad. But it's a little weird. I followed a link from your site to the archived Miami Herald story. The city in question, Miami Gardens, is predominantly black, and has a black police chief. The quotes from the police chief seem to be defending his department - they don't seem to be 'Yep, I have some rogue officers, and I'm going to get rid of them'.

So one thought here is 'who am I to tell a predominantly black community how to run their police force'. I mean, it sure sounds bad, but I'm sitting across the country, with exactly zero local knowledge of the local situation.

What would you have the rest of us do to change the policing that the residents of Miami Gardens have voted to have?

[Ben_]

I think you're just supposed to emote and then congratulate yourself. Declare yourself one of The Good People for your enlightened emoting. Then forget about it.

Maybe later show some others the same story so they'll see you're one of The Good People. Maybe get kudos from them. Mission accomplished.

[Nige]

The A in ACAB stands for 'All.'

[Ben_]

You can Google "jungle justice" to see what happens without them: "alleged" thieves get doused with gasoline and burned to death in the street. Or beaten to death by a crowd of people.

[Nelson]

"Explain how “the police don’t give a fuck” when they arrest the same person dozens of times only to find them being released without punishment."

Tell me, Bumble. Do you believe that this is the norm, or an outlier? Said another way, do you truly believe that violent criminals are regularly released without punishment?

And if you do think it's commonplace, is it because they beat the rap in court or do you think they are just released without charges?

[Ed Grinberg]

Why are you trying to gaslight us? We don't have to "believe" these things -- they get reported regularly (though probably not in the media you follow).

[Nelson]

Anecdote as conclusion, eh? Who's gaslighting, Ed?

Let's assume you might be right. How many times had that scenario happened? And was it the result of a failed prosecution?

How many times has a violent criminal been repeatedly released without being charged?

[Ben_]

You should ask some police. They'll tell you it's mostly the same small group of people over and over and over.

[Nelson]

So someone told you? And you have objective evidence that supports your "this one cop I know" source?

[Ben_]

Where’s your source?

Leftists don’t need to cite sources so no one needs to cite sources.

Go ahead and believe stories you just made up five minutes ago. That’s what you were always going to do anyway, regardless of anything.

[Nelson]

"Where’s your source?"

Where's my source for what? I was pointing out that unsourced, unsubstantiated claims about what "some police" say is, at best, anecdote.

Usually it's putting your words in someone else's mouth. Without objective, attributed references it's all noise, no signal.

"Go ahead and believe stories you just made up five minutes ago."

Which story is that? Because I didn't actually make any claims, I just pointed out that spewing polemic without support makes you look weak. The fact that he didn't respond to my questions about the details of his claims speaks volumes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Overall crime rates are dropping – albeit with a recent uptick. ... But incarceration rates are horrifically high."

Maybe because incarceration rates are high? Maybe there's a finite supply of criminals, and you can reduce crime rates by locking them up?

[Nige]

It'd be the first time in history a repressive carceral system actually worked.

[Mr. Bumble]

See El Salvador.

[Nige]

Should they have used the El Salvador model on the Jan 6th crowd?

[Mr. Bumble]

They have.

[Nige]

Is it working?

[I Callahan]

Is anyone storming the House and Senate anymore?

[Nige]

Trump's tried to call for civil war two or three times since, with no luck, so maybe something's working?

[I Callahan]

That's an utterly insane view. If people are in prison, they can't do crimes. Of course it works. Every single time.

[Nelson]

There's a boatload of assumptions in your post. Staring with the assumption that those incarcerated are actually guilty. As well as assuming that the reason that they are incarcerated was a crime that makes a difference to society if it's prosecuted.

Having more people in jail for prostitution and drug possession is arguably a waste of money and court resources without making communities any safer. But it does funnel large amounts of public money into private prisons, so some people are perfectly happy.

[Nige]

My view is that if people do crimes or have crimes committed against them, while in prison, athen go on to do crimes again when they get out, then the prison system is not working, except to make profits for private prisons and occasionally provide cheap labour.

[Michael Ejercito]

My longtime usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote this about Chicago twelve years ago.

https://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/08/police-supt-mccarthy-legacy-of-racism-plagues-todays-police-officers.html?cid=6a00d83451b4ba69e2014e8ad3de79970d#comment-6a00d83451b4ba69e2014e8ad3de79970d

The truth is that the rank and file of the Chicago Police Department has operated beyond the rule of law for so long that they simply will not tolerate ANYONE who even hints at reining them in. This is an institutional problem of long standing... such long standing that it was an old story when my late grandmother was a trainee ambulance driver for WWI.

Will this ever change? It's doubtful. Who were the victims of Jon Burge's torture ring? Blacks. Who elected and reelected for 20+ years as mayor, the man who was Cook County State's Attorney during the height of the reign of terror? Blacks. It's like French Jews voting for Klaus Barbie as Mayor of Lyon.

As far as I can see, Chicago is the way it is because the people are content to have it so. And that includes having a police department inside of which a home invasion and kidnapping ring could operate for YEARS without anybody seeing ANYTHING.

[Nige]

That's odd. I constantly see Chicago being used here as a byword for corrupt elections. So, no truth in that at all?

[John F. Carr]

I've read too many stories about calls to 911 where the caller goes to jail. Police do a warrant check on the caller, or enough police do that it's a legitimate fear. Police have the legal right to do that, like they have the legal right to charge a teenage rape victim with underage drinking.

[shawn_dude]

Huh... so maybe there should be laws that prioritize the crimes police engage with and a focus on making citizens feel safe reporting such crimes without repercussions. That would increase resources for things like violent crime and theft and deprioritize "victimless" crimes like pot-smoking, overdue parking tickets, and questionable immigration status.

I wonder what we could call those laws?

[EscherEnigma]

I think they forgot a few sections under "Police Non-Intervention". If I can make a few suggestions:

"Serve and Protect is a Slogan, Not Policy"
"Culture of Ignoring Bad Apples, AKA An Officer that Reports a Criminal Fellow Officer Will Be Punished More then the Criminal Fellow Officer Will Be"
"Cops and Cameras: From Rodney King to Smart Phones and Body Cameras, how Police React to All Recordings With Hostility"
"Police Hate Accountability: Every Effort Must Be Fought"
and of course...
"Hey, Remember When the FBI Wrote a Pretty Detailed Report About the Prevalence of White Supremacists in Police Departments and the Response Was Just a Big Ol' Raspberry?"

That said? I think it's hilarious to try and point to BLM, Ferguson, and recent de-funding efforts. All of that is from the last ten years. The problem goes back decades before that. That stuff is all symptoms of the problem. Maybe the symptoms are also accelerents, but treating them as causes is going to lead you to wrong conclusions, without question.

[Ben_]

"I think it’s hilarious to try and point to BLM, Ferguson, and recent de-funding efforts. All of that is from the last ten years."

Maybe because people don't think they can undo history. And they're interested in doing something to improve things today rather than pointing fingers about stuff that happened in the distant past.

[EscherEnigma]

And they’re interested in doing something to improve things today rather than pointing fingers about stuff that happened in the distant past.

If your starting point of "doing something" is to ignore history and pretend that recent events are responsible for systemic long-term problems, it's basically guaranteed that your solutions will be nothing of the sort.

So no. This is "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" 101.

[Ben_]

People who have nothing to offer except complaints about the distant past consistently say that same bullshit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another mass shooting, with authorities investigating the "disaffected right-wing white supremacist" angle, and this white, male, right-wing blog responds by publishing a Newsweek-Federalist Society take on how minority groups cause problems by not trusting and cooperating with police.

Carry on, clingers.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hmmm... Mauricio Garcia sure sounds like a "minority group" member...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He sounds like a typical Volokh Conspiracy fan. Disaffected, socially awkward. Gun nut. Downscale, half-educated right-winger. Disdain for modernity and the American mainstream. Culture war casualty.

Anyone know the screen name that clinger used at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[ronin1975]

New police use of force laws are sweeping the country. The “reasonableness” test is being replaced with “necessary “ without explaining who, or when “necessary “ is determined. The laws come with a 10 year prison sentence, and set up a labyrinth of review boards. The new laws basically encourage police to walk away from most situations. They have killed proactive policing without having to defund it. It’s already becoming obvious, but there is a whirlwind coming.

[Nige]

'The new laws basically encourage police to walk away from most situations.'

Good. Most of the time they makes things worse.

[dactylographer]

In the opening quote from the book the author states “In 2020, there were 24,576 homicides in America.” FBI data states there were 9630 homicides, 10440 incidents, reported by 10381 agencies. Understanding that there attention in toto 18,000 law enforcement agencies, and these stats only indicate for about 10,000. However, several years ago the FBI changed UCR from a requirement every agency report every offense listed by the FBI to a new system not requiring universal reporting and instead inserting statistical estimation of the total. Further, the agencies not reporting will be small agencies (based upon FBI 2018 census, the latest published, 70% of agencies employ less than 25 officers). Many, likely most, of those agencies would have no homicides to report.

[Toranth]

The article's cited numbers for all of the crimes they mention do not match, or even end up close to, the numbers reported by various US government entities or even their own cited source of their source: The US National Crime Victimization Survey.

The source admits to including some 'other data sources' but do not list any, nor explain the mixing.

Because the data cited off the top is fundamentally wrong, I would be hesitant to trust any of the data listed, nor would I trust any of the author's analysis of this faulty data.