Part III: Bazelon Gets it Wrong on False Rape Claims
In addition to the various shortcomings of Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore's article in Slate that I've discussed in Parts I and II, they miss an important concept in trying to arrive at an incidence rate for false rape claims. Read it here (Slate, 10/1/09).
A reader of GlennSacks.com who is knowledgeable about false rape claims pointed out to me that, whatever a study may conclude about the incidence of false claims, that can only be the floor, the lowest rate. Why? Consider a hypothetical study. It defines false rape claims in a particular way. In the Kanin study, for example, to qualify as false, a claim had to be actually recanted by the complainant. In the McDowell study, it had to be recanted and the recantation had to be vetted by a three-person panel and ruled to have been done free of influence or duress.
So in any such study, some claims plainly qualify as false and others plainly qualify as true. But some percentage of claims do neither. Therefore, some claims may be patently false, but the claimant sticks to her story and refuses to recant. In both the Kanin and McDowell studies, her claim would not be included among the false ones. Therefore, Kanin found 41% of claims to be false, but the actual number is necessarily higher than that.
This built-in understating of false claims is a topic Bazelon and Larimore never broach.
Once they move beyond the statisitical incidence of false rape claims, their article improves markedly, but still not as much as I'd like. Calling false rape claims "an absolute nightmare for men caught in their net," the two writers obviously have some regard for the plight of the falsely accused. One proof of that is this quotation of a man who was falsely accused:
My girlfriend was raped several years ago. I was falsely accused of rape less than a year ago. I contacted her (I had known her before her incident) because I was desperate for someone to talk to who would understand what I was going through. To my great relief, it turned out that we understood each other very well. From the initial stages of suicidal thoughts and not being able to function to the long-term fear, mistrust, and guilt that are facts of our lives, it turns out that her experience of being raped and mine of being falsely accused of rape were very similar. … One important difference, though, is that when she was violated, she received a great deal of help (medical, legal, psychological). Apart from family and friends, I was on my own. My legal and psychological problems had to be dealt with by me at a time when I couldn't eat, sleep, or think (except, of course, about killing myself).
That's a poignant story and it reveals an important aspect of the problem - the assumption by law enforcement, courts and the medical profession that, once a man is out from under the threat of prosecution, his life returns to normal. Needless to say, it doesn't.
But it's interesting that Bazelon and Larimore choose to present a falsely accused man who apparently suffered little or nothing beyond psychological injury from his ordeal. To say the least, there can be more to it than that.
Consider the case of Stephen Vaughn of New York about which I've written recently. He spent a year in jail, lost his house, his job and his child, all due to a false claim of rape by his wife Rebecca, who has so far suffered no ill consequences for her outrageous and malicious act. So, for a man falsely accused of rape, psychological problems may be the least of his worries, but you'd never guess it from reading Bazelon and Larimore.
They also deal with the problems law enforcement encounters from false claimants. The prosecutor they quote says that frankly police encounter false claims routinely and that colors their view of every rape claimant. He says that female officers are just as likely to take a "rolling eyes" approach to a rape claimant as are male officers. Bazelon and Larimore quote with approval his statement that "putting a real stigma" on false rape claimants might make it easier for police to accept the truth of real claims.
To say the least, that's refreshing to hear. The usual refrain is that, in ways never explained, stigmatizing false claims would discourage real ones.
One last topic Bazelon and Larimore fail to cover and that surely plays a part in false rape allegations is the ease with which a case can be made. Simply put, rape is the one crime for which a conviction can be obtained with no evidence to corroborate the complainant's testimony.
Consider the obvious: If I go to the police and say "My neighbor John Smith stole my car," one thing they'll want to do is locate the car. If it's in Smith's driveway, they'll charge him. If it's in mine, they won't. If it's with a fence who says John Smith brought it to him, they'll charge him. But if I say he stole my car and he says he didn't, the chances of Smith's being charged are slim and none. That's because there's nothing to corroborate my allegation.
But that's not true in rape cases. A woman who alleges rape can do so years after the fact and have the man charged, tried and convicted in the absence of any medical evidence, DNA evidence or witness testimony (apart from hers), and over the denials of the accused. A prima facie case of rape can be made out of nothing more than one person's statement, and punishment of any sort for false accusations is slight at its most severe.
And finally there's the fact that false rape claims are done for a reason; they're made as a means to an end. Kanin found that most false claims are done for one of three major reasons, to provide the accuser an alibi, for revenge and to get attention. They're also done to gain the upper hand in divorce and custody proceedings, as Stephen Vaughn and many others can tell you.
So the combination of no requirement of corroborating evidence, no real punishment for false allegations and real motivations to falsely cry 'rape,' mean that the problem of false rape claims is real and enduring. It will only be reduced when law enforcement, courts and society start to take it seriously.
Too bad Bazelon and Larimore passed up their opportunity to do just that.
|
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
