Doing the right thing?

[Zontar]

See, the problem is that just because it's the only study does not mean that it's somehow the most accurate portrayal of reality. In fact, a study that's deeply flawed is likely to do more harm and spread more misinformation than no study at all. If you want to argue that a problem is bigger than people claim it is, relying on such a thing hamstrings every attempt you make because they'll all have the horrible foundation of a worthless study.

You do make a valid point there, though it is sad there's really nothing of substance to use other then news paper articles in regards to this topic that hold anything one could all substance, and given the sad state of journalism where we as a society trust our politicians more that's saying something.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's a serious accusation, sure, but that's quite an exaggeration. Even a conviction is hardly a guarantee of that, this isn't someone being taken to court, this is someone saying that they are a rapist.

Yeah, the notion that it ends careers is up there in terms of the notion that false rape allegations are a significant concern. Neither are particularly based in reality.

 

[Jux]

Given how it's literally the only study on the matter to go on, I'm afraid not.

Really? The only study? Are you sure you want to say silly things like that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

I think you'll find quite a large list of reports and studies about the prevalence of false rape accusations here. Try Lisak, 2010, which has a methodology better suited for actually determining whether a reported rape was done so falsely.

How is it not?

Because it's a red herring and a distraction from the topic at hand, I thought I made that pretty clear.

The supposed danger women face was used as justification for allowing the open association of anyone without repercussion without the need of evidence for a crime which isn't nearly as widespread as people think it is by a group which is of the half of the population that's actually safer then the other half. My point was if men acted the way some are proposing women should act in the same situation we'd have a witch hunt on our hands.

Not when it comes to rape they're not safer. I don't know any men that have contingency plans for when they go on first dates, or ever give a second thought to whether their drink might be drugged when they're at a bar, or if a woman walking behind them on a dark street is getting ready to pull them in an alley, rape and kill them. On the other hand, these are all very common fears pretty much all women I know have. Is it truly your position that these women are irrationally afraid of these things? Or that they're all lying about their fears? Hell, over just this weekend, I know three women that were likely GHB'd at bars or parties. Fortunately none of them were raped, as they had friends there to watch out for each other.

Also, PZ Myers has been known to run smear campaigns against people he doesn't like so the "victims" might not even exist, he could have made this all up.

I've heard this before, can I get some sources on this?

EDIT:
I looked this up.
This was from 2013.
Nothing ever came of it, nobody came out publicly to confirm the accusations (evidence that PZ Myers made it up).
Shermer even gave him a cease and desist letter to stop him from spreading this.

Considering that it was given to him by a person that wished to remain anonymous, I don't think that the fact no one came forward is any sort of credible evidence that 'he made it up'.

@MarsAtlas: Myers post is hyperlinked in the OP, third sentence, in the word 'this'. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I can't believe some of these responses that basically amount to "I'd call the guy out as a rapist, because a woman would never lie about that, and even if it is a lie, what's the harm?". It's born of an angry mentality that's perfectly willing to harm innocent people in the zeal to "nail some scumbags" so "women can feel safe at night", and that's the sort of mob-justice motivation that criminal justice systems are designed to prevent- we let judges and juries decide guilt/innocence and punishment, not "the crowd".

 

[DEAD34345]

-snip-

As much as we don't want to think about false allegations happening since rape is a crime often swept under the rug, they do happen.

They are also exceedingly rare.

How do you know that though?

I've heard that said many times before, but as far as I can tell that statement is completely unprovable and untestable. Lots of rape cases go to court, and lots of those that do end up with "not guilty" verdicts due to the crime being unprovable. It may be that a high proportion of these are false allegations, or it may be that the false allegations are exceedingly rare, but of course that is as unprovable either way as the crime itself.

The amount of accusations that are officially declared false (with charges against the accuser) is indeed very low, but the amount of rape trials that end up with a guilty verdict is also very low. The truth is that it's just hard to get any evidence to prove anything in these cases, so as far as I can tell it's impossible to get any good statistics at all.

Do you know anything I don't?

OT: It's a difficult situation, and I wouldn't really blame anyone for taking either choice. All you can do is make a best guess based on how likely you think the accusation is, and there doesn't seem to be enough information to even figure out what the chances are. If I was in the situation, I guess it'd end up as a totally arbitrary judgement call. Who do I trust more, the accuser or the accused?

Edit: And I guess if the accuser was anonymous, I'd have to trust the accused by default? I surely can't trust any random anonymous message accusing people of serious crimes, can I? The whole situation is shitty, and I'd still feel horrible about it either way though.

 

[Jux]

This is why we have police, and not mobs of people trying to "Do the right thing."

A very neat, ideal sentiment, but this isn't even about mobs of people trying to enact vigilante justice. It's about what one person would do if presented with an allegation from someone that wanted to remain anonymous. I think it's a far stretch to compare putting that out in the open to warn women about a potential sexual predator to the nebulous ' mobs of people trying to "Do the right thing."', which could cover a whole range of vigilante actions.

 

[Thaluikhain]

-snip-

As much as we don't want to think about false allegations happening since rape is a crime often swept under the rug, they do happen.

They are also exceedingly rare.

How do you know that though?

I've heard that said many times before, but as far as I can tell that statement is completely unprovable and untestable. Lots of rape cases go to court, and lots of those that do end up with "not guilty" verdicts due to the crime being unprovable. It may be that a high proportion of these are false allegations, or it may be that the false allegations are exceedingly rare, but of course that is as unprovable either way as the crime itself.

The amount of accusations that are officially declared false (with charges against the accuser) is indeed very low, but the amount of rape trials that end up with a guilty verdict is also very low. The truth is that it's just hard to get any evidence to prove anything in these cases, so as far as I can tell it's impossible to get any good statistics at all.

Do you know anything I don't?

True, the exact number of false allegations would be impossible to determine, but there's little reward in a rape allegation. Everyone knows it puts a lot of pressure on the person making the allegation, and there's little chance of it going anywhere. Now, sure, that wouldn't stop everyone from doing it, but, IMHO, it lends weight (admittedly not certainty) to the idea that it's rare.

There are exceptions, of course. False rape allegations against, say, black men in the US have a much higher chance of working, are much more common. On the whole, I still believe they are very rare.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I can't believe some of these responses that basically amount to "I'd call the guy out as a rapist, because a woman would never lie about that, and even if it is a lie, what's the harm?". It's born of an angry mentality that's perfectly willing to harm innocent people in the zeal to "nail some scumbags" so "women can feel safe at night", and that's the sort of mob-justice motivation that criminal justice systems are designed to prevent- we let judges and juries decide guilt/innocence and punishment, not "the crowd".

this.

as much as my blood boils at the thought of rapists and pedophiles out there, I also can't agree with this mentality where it's okay to hand wave the false accusations, because it is definitely reminiscent of the mob mentality of witch hunts.

Not a rape allegation exactly, but I did have a local false allegation case happen a few years back, and if people just accepted her word of mouth, then there would have been one hell of a witch hunt for 3 guys of her choosing at that point.

(I can provide a link if people want proof)

OT: my thoughts are obvious at this point, I would've console the person and told them I would be there with them if they took it to the authorities, but I don't think I would've openly accused the person for a stranger, because at that point I'm putting my reputation on the line based on a leap of faith with no evidence.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

This sort of abuse is horrible, and I can fully understand wanting to protect other people from potential rapists. That being said, I wouldn't spread the news unless I had first hand evidence that it happened. A woman who was raped? By all means, she has every right to call the offending person a rapist. She knows what happened. The person who wrote this story doesn't though. Although I suppose it'd come down at least somewhat to how much trust he has in his friend.

It might not be enough information for us to judge the case, or for the police, but by all means I wouldn't blame the victim for spreading the word and trying to protect people.

Huh, I came in here with a lot more hashed out opinion. I guess my final answer comes down to "How much do I trust my friend?". If I trust them enough that I wouldn't dream of them throwing a false rape charge at someone then I'd stand by them until I was given reason not to

 

[Fox12]

Would I spread life ruining rumors based upon the accusations of an anonymous source?

No, I wouldn't. I would try to console the individual, and see if they would press charges (which, admittedly, is a difficult thing for a rape victim to do). At the very least I would look into counseling. I would also contact the police and administration.

 

[Loonyyy]

This is why we have police, and not mobs of people trying to "Do the right thing."

You should reread the relevant posts.

Someone came forward to PZ (Because PZ is involved with organisers of skeptical/atheist groups and conventions, and is a big figure in those communites). They did not want to go to the police, they thought Shermer would go after them, and they didn't think that the police would be able to do anything (It had happened 3 years ago).

There's a question of harm reduction here, if you think someone has a pattern of abuse, you don't want to let people go unwarned, and you don't want to participate in helping them find more victims, which would be the case if PZ in this case, continued with the convention and organising without doing anything. Now, I don't know about Shermer. Nothing came of it, and I don't know who's right or wrong. But the fact of the matter is that people do do this. Some people do predate on others. People like say, Bill Cosby. Someone in a social circle of mine is avoided by several of the women in that sphere because he took sexual advantage of a drunk woman. Some people do behave this way, and the law isn't always the best way to deal with it, but that does raise a very strong ethical concern, which has a lot of discussion value.

This is a situation where he couldn't go to the police, and it does raise an ethical concern, which is exactly what the thread's meant to be about-what do you do in that situation. You cannot simply amend the situation and pretend it is a perfect world to shrug it off with a one line answer.

But your conscience seems to be clear, and it seems that the answer is "Do nothing".

 

[Nailzzz]

I think it's a bit odd to claim to be a skeptic, yet take an accusation at face value with no evidence. Last I checked that is exactly the opposite of skepticism. I believe that falls under faith. If your operating by faith, your a terrible skeptic.

 

[1981]

This was from 2013.
Nothing ever came of it, nobody came out publicly to confirm the accusations (evidence that PZ Myers made it up).
Shermer even gave him a cease and desist letter to stop him from spreading this.

So the blog post really didn't do much else than possibly warn people of him? I'm still not sure if publishing his name was necessary. There's anecdotal evidence that tales of big bad wolves are equally effective.