A person who misinterprets everything you say

Wrongly accused, wrongly suspected?

Klopfers Web »Articles» Columns »Wrongly Accused, Wrongly Suspected?

I was asked the following question at "Ask the rabbit":


What do you think of the Seith / Kelly / Lovett study? Did you deal with it?

And what do you think of the poster?

Since this answer will be relatively long, I have decided to answer it here.

First of all, about the poster: I don't understand certain design decisions.

All males on the poster are meant to represent all rapes. First of all, it is always a bit of reading coffee grounds to want to quantify unrecorded digits, there is a reason why they are unrecorded digits. While I believe there is a significant number of unreported cases in rape, I just don't think the association would accept a lower number if there was a newer study that names a correspondingly lower number of unreported cases.

I am confused that apparently rape and rapist are mixed up if I interpret that correctly. At least the number of unreported cases relates to the number of rapes in the year, the number of reports and convictions apparently to the rapists. But if a husband rapes his wife 100 times a year and is sentenced in a trial, will he be counted as a rapist or 100 rapists for the graphic? Apparently the graphic does not assume multiple perpetrators. It is possible that I misunderstand something, but even that would not speak for the quality of this graphic.

The 3 males who were wrongly accused according to the numbers are included twice (because they are already included in the list above), but also belong to the 1000 males who are supposed to symbolize all rape even though they have not done anything? It's a design decision that I can't understand.

But now to the big sticking point: the false accusations. The graph claims (referring to this study - heaven knows why they name three authors first, but then only two) that there are only 3 percent false claims.

This study lists how many rape charges are pursued, how far, at what stages they are hired, and how many of them lead to a conviction. And the table for Germany actually claims that there were only 3 percent false suspicions. But is that also true?

In order to be able to answer that, one should first have a look at this study, which was carried out by the Bavarian State Office of Criminal Investigation and which contains a large section on the subject of “pretenses or false suspicions”. (Ironically, Lovett and Kelly's study also references this study at one point, but apparently they didn't read that far or didn't understand the implications.)

In the study, detectives state that, based on their experience, they have the feeling that, on average, about a third of the reports of sexual assault or rape are wrong or rather wrong. (By the way, female detectives are more skeptical than their male colleagues.)

In this study, however, it is also said: The officers usually only file reports of false suspicion or pretense of a criminal offense if they either have extremely convincing evidence or the person has made a confession. In principle, you have to be either particularly bold or particularly stupid to catch such an ad. It is also clear to the police that they must proceed cautiously with such allegations, precisely because no real victim should be afraid to go to the police.

But now it is like this: If the investigation or a procedure is discontinued due to false suspicion, then that is an initial suspicion of a criminal offense, so it should result in a report of false suspicion.

But there are all sorts of constellations in which this would not make sense. I'm just constructing a few cases of false accusations here, but they cannot be prosecuted as false suspicions.

case 1

Julia comes to her parents sobbing and confesses: She is pregnant! The parents are shocked and pissed off. Papa wants to know how it came about. Julia is afraid of anger and says that a boy raped her at the summer camp. The parents immediately pack Julia in the car and drive to the police to file a complaint. During the interviews, Julia quickly becomes entangled in contradictions and it becomes clear that there was no rape. A complaint for false suspicion would make no sense. Little did the advertiser parents know that the claim was false. And the daughter cannot be proven that she intended to prosecute her. The investigation is discontinued due to a lack of suspicion, lack of evidence or because the suspect cannot be identified.

Case 2

Susi wakes up naked in a strange apartment with an enormous headache. Her vagina hurts, a strange man is lying next to her and she can't remember what happened last night, except that she was at a party in this apartment. She runs to the police and reports the guy. No semen was found in her vagina during the investigation. During the questioning of the witnesses, a visitor to the party pulls a cell phone with a video out of his pocket, on which Susi can be seen dancing naked on the table, drunk and then trying to get two bananas into her cunt at the same time while the crowd was yelling to get stuck. One witness also said that at some point she stumbled into the room of the suspected roommate, who had gone to sleep earlier, and then couldn't get out. Since she was under the influence of alcohol and did not knowingly lied about the rape, the case against the roommate was dropped for lack of suspicion.

Case 3

Lolo Bebett is pissed off! Her Stefón just filed for divorce because he wanted to be with this slut Ann Marie! He should regret that! Lolo files charges of multiple rape. However, the police found out very quickly: Not only did Lolo Bebett not have any injuries that would suggest rape, at one of the times mentioned Stefón was also on an exercise by the Foreign Legion. So the cops call Lolo back and tell her: “Do you really want to stick with the fact that he raped you? Do you really want to pull this off? "
a) Lolo looks poisonous and says nothing more from now on. The proceedings are discontinued because of the lack of cooperation on the part of the victim.
b) Lolo looks poisonous and withdraws the ad.

All of these cases are false accusations, but they are not included in the statistics as false suspicions because other reasons for recruitment are given.

And now let's take a look at what the breakdown for the rape reports in Germany is in the study by Lovett and Kelly.

We actually see only three percent for false suspicions. But 20 percent of the reports are put on file because there is no evidence of sexual assault. If you know the above-mentioned constellations and reasons why many false accusations are not recorded as false suspicions, you don't need a lot of imagination to imagine that some false accusations are also among these 20 percent, or among the 11 percent in which the victim says nothing more, or among the 14 percent who lack evidence.

Mind you: I don't mean to say that behind every setting because of e.g. B. lack of cooperation of the victim is a false accusation. You can no longer determine whether the alleged victim has stopped saying anything because he lied and doesn't want to get deeper into it or because the rapist threatened to break his bones if he continues to say something.

In short: the number of false accusations cannot be read from the number of false suspicions. The numbers don't give that at all. But one thing can be seen from the above 3 percent: A victim of sexual violence does not have to worry that he or she might end up on the other side of the dock because of false suspicion, and shouldn't let that deter them from going to the police.

And to get back to the poster: I also find it a bit dishonest if, on the one hand, you accept a number of unreported cases in the case of rape and paint it on your poster, but at the same time pretend that the judiciary recognizes and treats all false allegations, as if there were an unreported number excluded.

Did you like it? Then tell your friends about it!