The woman never lies about rape?

[Emily Lake]

Reality is almost certainly more than 10% lie. If you don't screw up the story it's a pretty easy lie to get away with, thus having a considerable majority being caught doesn't make sense.

Based on what, exactly? Because at the moment, I'm inclined to infer that it's based on you assuming that women are liars and nothing else at all. So basically, it's based on your own gender bias.

- - - Updated - - -

Not knowing the exact value doesn't mean we can't narrow it down somewhat. It would be unreasonable to think all the lies were caught, thus there must be more lies than the false rate.

Great, but you have yet to provide any credible support for you false rate statistic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not knowing the exact value doesn't mean we can't narrow it down somewhat. It would be unreasonable to think all the lies were caught, thus there must be more lies than the false rate.

One would have to have some credible backing on the false positive and false negative rate (such as statistical studies) to understand this better. For now, I find it very interesting that you are completely blind to one but not the other. I have to wonder how this can be. Is it ideological or some other bias? Is it ignorance of math and logic? Is it lack of creativity and visualization?

I can certainly help just a little bit with helping you to visualize this better. So, Loren, since women are liars it means some of them will lie up an alibi for some man they like who is accused of wrongdoing. His crime then may go into the unsubstantiated column, but it's actually the opposite case from your claim--the victim was telling the truth but everyone starts thinking she's a liar. This is just meant to be a single example so that you can understand the larger framework at work here that it can go either way.

Based on your previous responses to me, though, I know you will reject it out of hand, for one of those reasons above. I can't tell which reason but if I were you, I would be embarrassed to a very obvious blind-side. How do you think you can get better at this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which means proper police investigation of a crime will include questioning whether things actually played out as described. Thus in a rape case without obvious use of force they are going to ask her questions about the rape to try to break her story.

Does that actually make sense to you? They're going to "try to break her story"? You're going into this with the assumption that she's lying, and that the first priority of the police should be to try to prove that she's lying.

Do you apply that same standard to other crimes? If you call the police and report that someone stole your car, do you expect that they should assume that you're lying, and that their first priority should be trying to prove that you're lying about having had your car stolen? You've creates a scenario where the first obligation of the police is to treat the victim as a suspect until they can prove that they're actually a victim.

Or does this particular approach only apply to rape?

Yes, it applies to all crimes. It's just most of the time there's very little story to question so police investigation of whether the crime is real or not isn't obvious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not knowing the exact value doesn't mean we can't narrow it down somewhat. It would be unreasonable to think all the lies were caught, thus there must be more lies than the false rate.

One would have to have some credible backing on the false positive and false negative rate (such as statistical studies) to understand this better. For now, I find it very interesting that you are completely blind to one but not the other. I have to wonder how this can be. Is it ideological or some other bias? Is it ignorance of math and logic? Is it lack of creativity and visualization?

I can certainly help just a little bit with helping you to visualize this better. So, Loren, since women are liars it means some of them will lie up an alibi for some man they like who is accused of wrongdoing. His crime then may go into the unsubstantiated column, but it's actually the opposite case from your claim--the victim was telling the truth but everyone starts thinking she's a liar. This is just meant to be a single example so that you can understand the larger framework at work here that it can go either way.

Based on your previous responses to me, though, I know you will reject it out of hand, for one of those reasons above. I can't tell which reason but if I were you, I would be embarrassed to a very obvious blind-side. How do you think you can get better at this?

You're assuming we know the true state of any given report.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not knowing the exact value doesn't mean we can't narrow it down somewhat. It would be unreasonable to think all the lies were caught, thus there must be more lies than the false rate.

One would have to have some credible backing on the false positive and false negative rate (such as statistical studies) to understand this better. For now, I find it very interesting that you are completely blind to one but not the other. I have to wonder how this can be. Is it ideological or some other bias? Is it ignorance of math and logic? Is it lack of creativity and visualization?

I can certainly help just a little bit with helping you to visualize this better. So, Loren, since women are liars it means some of them will lie up an alibi for some man they like who is accused of wrongdoing. His crime then may go into the unsubstantiated column, but it's actually the opposite case from your claim--the victim was telling the truth but everyone starts thinking she's a liar. This is just meant to be a single example so that you can understand the larger framework at work here that it can go either way.

Based on your previous responses to me, though, I know you will reject it out of hand, for one of those reasons above. I can't tell which reason but if I were you, I would be embarrassed to a very obvious blind-side. How do you think you can get better at this?

You're assuming we know the true state of any given report.

No, I'm not assuming anything at all. You are assuming errors only go one way because you have a blind spot.

 

[Arctish]

Which means proper police investigation of a crime will include questioning whether things actually played out as described. Thus in a rape case without obvious use of force they are going to ask her questions about the rape to try to break her story.

Does that actually make sense to you? They're going to "try to break her story"? You're going into this with the assumption that she's lying, and that the first priority of the police should be to try to prove that she's lying.

Do you apply that same standard to other crimes? If you call the police and report that someone stole your car, do you expect that they should assume that you're lying, and that their first priority should be trying to prove that you're lying about having had your car stolen? You've creates a scenario where the first obligation of the police is to treat the victim as a suspect until they can prove that they're actually a victim.

Or does this particular approach only apply to rape?

Yes, it applies to all crimes. It's just most of the time there's very little story to question so police investigation of whether the crime is real or not isn't obvious.

Which has nothing to do with trying to 'break' the story of someone reporting a rape.

Remember Marie? Remember what happened when the police decided to 'break' her story because they thought Marie's foster mother knew more about how rape victims react to trauma than the people who wrote the department policies? She was charged with a crime. She was publicly vilified as one of those women who make false rape claims. You know, the kind you think lie about rape but don't often get caught.

The police did not do a proper investigation of Marie's report. As a result, an innocent woman suffered a horrible injustice and a serial rapist wasn't identified until a different cop (a woman) did a proper job of investigating a reported rape.