In the wake of the Brett Kavanaugh circus show hearing, Trump made the comment that it’s open season on men in this country, that any woman with an axe to grind can ruin someone’s career with a single false accusation. In an era of #metoo and believe women, is it true that men are vulnerable to a wave of false accusations?
First of all, let’s dispense with the irony that it’s Trump as the one saying this. He’s been accused of plenty, not falsely, and admitted on tape to sexual assault (or as he asserts “locker room talk.”) He also falsely claimed that Kavanaugh has been “proven innocent,” a ludicrous statement. He can claim that he and Kavanaugh have been harmed by false accusations, but they hold two of the most powerful positions in the world. It clearly hasn’t held them back much.
I’m more concerned when I hear conservatives I care about, ward and family members, wringing their hands about the overblown threat of false accusations. It’s a particular issue in our Mormon congregations because some guidelines men follow are similar to the Pence rule, designed to prevent those perfidious women from make a false claim that will ruin their lives. One woman in my ward lamented in her testimony that the drunk girl in Steubenville could ruin the future of those boys. I was shocked to hear such a thing from a fellow church member. Some among us are simply more concerned with the futures of boys and men which they assume affect everyone or have higher potential whereas the futures of girls and women matter less because bad things only happen to bad girls who deserve it.
Here are the main reasons that worrying about false accusations is straining at a gnat (false accusations) while swallowing a camel (actual sexual assault):
- Very few rapes are even reported. An estimated 90% of rapes go unreported.
- False accusations are very rare; only 2-8% of all accusations are false.
- Accusations in general, both false and real, very seldom result in any noteworthy consequences to the accused. There’s a much higher risk of being falsely accused of murder and then imprisoned (which is also very rare) than there is of being falsely accused of rape.
- False accusations are easily discovered and follow predictable patterns. Police detectives are generally very skilled at identifying false accusers.
Here are the characteristics that often accompany a false accusation:
- The person making the accusation frequently comes from a chaotic background, a family with criminal ties, or has a personal history of making bizarre accusations.
“[A]lmost invariably, adult false accusers who persist in pursuing charges have a previous history of bizarre fabrications or criminal fraud. Indeed, they’re often criminals whose family and friends are also criminals; broken people trapped in chaotic lives.” [link here]
Clearly, though, people with a chaotic life may also be targeted and or groomed by someone wanting to perpetrate a sexual crime. But there are more characteristics that accompany false claims.
- The overwhelming majority of false sexual assault claims don’t name a perpetrator or perpetrators.
- False accusation stories tend to be dramatic, lurid stories. They often involve bizarre forms of cruelty, and details that are actually fairly easily to disprove. Because the accuser is trying to ensure their false story is not dismissed, they often create an exaggerated level of cruelty that is harder to ignore.
- The most common false accusations are made by teenagers who are trying to get out of trouble or to avoid blame for actions their parents don’t approve. In some of these cases, the parent is quite clearly coaching their child to ensure they tell the right story, the story the parent approves. Reasons for this type of false accusation range from pregnancy to missed curfew, and in 50% of these cases, the parent is the one bringing the complaint to the police department with a reluctant teen deliberately keeping the details vague.
- About 10% of false claims are people trying to get access to medication or health care, including psychiatric medication.
- When adults make false accusations, it is much less common, and often related to a criminal background or in some cases, a factitious disorder (similar to Munchausen) that causes the person to fabricate dramatic stories to draw attention and sympathy. It’s not at all common for an adult to make a false accusation years later about something that happened when they were a teen. (Link here. Also from this article:)
“Note that no study points to mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder being associated with false reports of rape. This distinction is crucially important, since having mental illness is strongly correlated with being a victims of rape.”
While false accusers tend to have these characteristics in common, actual accusers have relatively nothing in common. They run the gamut demographically, coming from all social classes, religions, sexual orientations, and age groups. Another article points out that while false accusers have many common traits (as listed above), they have generally four different motives:
- Personal gain. They may lie about being raped on government property, hoping for a settlement, or otherwise hoping to manipulate the justice system (e.g. prisoner seeking a reduced sentence or a different cell assignment).
- Revenge. Interestingly this is not usually a scorned lover. It is more commonly revenge for economic motives such as a drug exchange gone awry or an agreement for goods in exchange for sex.
- Mental illness, specifically factitious disorder as described above. In these cases, the absence of physical evidence combined with changing details (to seek greater attention) makes them easily detected as false.
- The need for an alibi. The reasons teens might lie are listed above. For adults, it may be to cover up an infidelity.
In light of these things, when I see memes on Facebook saying that mothers need to teach their sons not to talk to a girl without their lawyer present, it’s frustrating. There are real, tangible consequences when women are seen as liars attempting to entrap and accuse men, and when men are seen as hapless victims of vindictive women.
- Do you think Mormons are more likely to fear false accusations?
- Are Mormon men more vulnerable to false accusations because of our strict chastity guidelines (teens), and the social situations missionaries are in, enacting with the public, including encountering unpredictable people?
- Does the fear of false accusations justify our guidelines preventing missionaries from entering homes?
- Are these facts about false accusations helpful in allaying the fears so many conservatives have expressed?
Discuss.
I believe people, including Mormons, greatly underestimate the number of sexual assaults that occur, which causes them to have irrational fears and beliefs that false accusations are not uncommon.
However, I strongly believe sexual abuse is way under reported.
Here is my story which happened more than 40 yrs ago.
I grew up with 3 sisters in a middle class suburb of SLC. One day my mom took me and my older sister to a somewhat upscale ski shop to look at parkas. I was probably 5/6 yrs old and my sister 2 yrs older. A male clerk at the store was assisting my mom—getting the coats down and then putting them on us. As my mom looked on—once we got the coat on—as we faced our mom so she could look at us, the man was kneeling behind us ( in the middle of the store) ostensibly tugging on the back of the coat but in reality he was groping our private parts.
Would there be any physical evidence of this assault had we immediately reported it to authorities?
If Dr. Ford had immediately reported her assault would there be any evidence to confirm her claims?
I doubt it. And that is one reason why assault often goes unreported. Another reason is because the victim feels ashamed and scummy. They may even blame themselves.
However, I do think missionaries need to be careful. Ive been acquainted with women who had mental health issues who could/would/might make false accusations.
Are these facts about false accusations helpful in allaying the fears so many conservatives have expressed?
No. I don’t think conservatives care about or are persuaded by facts. Are there any fact checking sources they trust and rely on? I haven’t heard of any.
When a crime is not immediately reported, evidence starts to disappear. With no evidence, there can be no conviction. That is fair.
J’accuse! Oh, no, may it never be that one person’s accusation will be enough for conviction — let there always be a need for corroborating evidence.
When a crime is immediately reported, investigators might be able to find corroborating evidence. With no evidence, there can be no conviction. That is fair.
I’d like to make a few observations:
1. The fact that it’s Trump defending Kavanaugh really hurts Kavanaugh’s reputation.
2. False rape allegations are rare enough that we have to take every allegation seriously. However, taking it seriously means investigating it and finding evidence to corroborate (as Ronan Farrow has suggested, but not always taken to heart). Basic due process principles require something other than an accusation on its own, such as being able to place the alleged perpetrator in the right time and place. We shouldn’t over-correct: see David French’s latest piece in National Review.
3. Speaking of David French, in the conservative circles I run in (National Review readers), most recognize that many assault accusers are not lying, and don’t think that Ford was lying. That’s not the same as telling the truth. Memory is a notoriously flimsy thing. See, for example, the June 18, 2000 New York Times article “I Was Certain, But I Was Wrong.”
4. The main Vox article here does a disservice to the wider point. The Vox article is not written by an expert who has actually conducted studies or had experience in law enforcement. It’s someone who has read a lot on the topic.
5. The 2-10% (the figure that I have seen more common than 2-8%) figure represents cases that have been affirmatively proven false. While many assaults go unreported, there is some other number above 2-10% that represent false accusations that were not proven false, but were not convicted. Beyond that, there is some even smaller number of convictions that represent false accusations. Because of the nature of the thing, we simply do not know what those numbers are, although they are almost certainly also low. However, all that makes the following statement totally unsubstantiated: “False accusations are easily discovered and follow predictable patterns. Police detectives are generally very skilled at detecting false accusers.”
6. While not excusing those on the right who dismiss claims because they are politically inconvenient, we currently see many on the left doing the same thing. Keith Ellison still holds his position on the DNC and he’s still on the ballot, running for office. While there has been some reevaluation of Billl Clinton, he’s still stumping for high profile candidates. This is not strictly a left/right thing.
7. In the Mormon context, the thing that immediately strikes me is that McKenna Denson appears to fit many of the patterns described here. There are bizarre and outrageous elements to her story. She has a history of false accusations. She has a chaotic life background. She is currently suing for money damages. I don’t know what actually happened, other than Bishop was guilty of some misconduct that would have gotten him released and likely disfellowshipped had it been discovered at the time, and I do think her claim should have been taken more seriously in the past. But it would be irresponsible not to note the pattern here.
Links to the two articles I mentioned (not sure how the system filters out links, so I didn’t want to include them in my comment).
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/a-terrible-college-case-shows-the-high-cost-of-believe-women/
For institutions and powerful individuals, it is much easier to “deny, deny, deny” than to acknowledge the likelihood of an accusation being true, and then either do nothing (and have to explain why nothing is being done) or else do something (which they obviously do not want to do). Denial is a good strategy when the costs are minimal and no superior authority can force accountability.
It should also be noted that the US criminal justice system places a high value on avoiding false criminal convictions, that is, making it hard for the government to put people in jail. Thus the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and they have the right to appointed counsel, and they cannot be forced to testify against themselves, etc. Better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person goes to jail, as the saying goes. It might also be rendered: better that ten credible accusations fail to convict than that one false accusation send a person to prison. The gist of the OP (that false accusations are rare, so all accusations should be presumed to be accurate and the burden to rebut the presumably accurate charge falls on the accused, even if the event happened decades ago) amounts to a significant shift in the system which would put more perpetrators in jail but also more innocent parties as well. Tough choices. But we don’t really want to make it easier for the government to put people in jail.
Dsc
“most recognize that many assault accusers are not lying……That’s not the same as telling the truth.”
Important point:
Identifying a suspect/perpetrator who is a total stranger to you is different and can have high error rates compared to identifying someone you know.
The sad fact is sexual assault is, in many cases hard to prove, which discourages victims from coming forward. Yet even when we have a perp on audio tape bragging about it, we refuse to believe the victims.
(From what I’ve read, Ellison is being investigated, not exonerated).
We have the bizarre and sad case of Dr Beck and her “recovered memories” about her famous and respected father.
Lois,
The Minnesota DFL attorney stated re Ellison, “An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred.” That comment was particularly ironic the day it was made, as it was in the middle of the Kavanaugh circus.
Misidentification, false recovered memories, or any number of other difficulties with memory are exacerbated over the course of time. It’s true that misidentification is less common when the person is well-known to the accuser, but that doesn’t account for all of the other cruel tricks our memories play on us.
Aren’t you conflating several issues here? It seems we have to distinguish between types of crime, false accusations, mistaken identifications due to nature of memory, confusion over events in the past due to nature of memory, and difference between false accusations where one knows the assailant and where one doesn’t. If we don’t keep these clear it seems we can muddle things a fair bit. Throw in the problematic nature of coached or recovered memories (an issue in the current lawsuit over Pres. Nelson’s daughter) and things get even more confusing. We should also note that race plays a huge role in all this with blacks often being the victims of mistaken identification at a much higher rate than whites. (Don’t know if that’s true for other minorities but I’d assume so)
The reason false accusations are so rare is because women have not been believed. Why accuse falsely when nobody will believe you anyway? However, as #believeWomen catches on, the number of false accusations will climb dramatically. It’s simple economics. When the incentive is there, people will do it.
But I’m not saying that false accusations will become a problem on par with sexual assault. I think men will continue to be more incentivized to assault women than women will be to falsely accuse them.
For all the hand-wringing conservatives, I think they should realize that this cultural shift will provide far more protection to their daughters than risk for their sons, and a side benefit should be a reduction in the hook-up culture.
The difficulty with allegations of sexual assault that isn’t typically found elsewhere is that, whether there is an actual conviction or not, in the mind of the “public” you are often perceived as being guilty. Kavanagh is an easy illustration of that point. He has been neither charged nor convicted but in the minds of many he is guilty. And in fact even if he was charged and found not guilty many would still see him as guilty. The same is generally not true of murder (unless your name is OJ Simpson) or theft or other such crimes. In addition even if not charged or convicted the accusation stays with you in the circles in which you generally travel. Another easy illustration is the duke lacrosse team allegation. If you happen to meet one of the men from the duke lacrosse team and are aware of that fact what do you think your first thought would be? Therefore in terms of risk analysis, while the probability of being falsely accused may not be high, the consequences if it does happen can be so significant that it may be warranted to take reasonable steps to ensure that it cannot happen.
With respect to missionaries I am not so convinced that the concern is about false accusations but rather that something consensual might happen and not necessarily at the instigation of the woman.
I mean, he got confirmed and is going to sit on the Supreme Court anyway, soooo, I’m not sure that his life is exactly ruined.
Clark: these are excellent points.
Ojisan: Kavanaugh is seen as guilty because he was less credible than his accuser. Even so, what consequences has he really had? She ended up in therapy. He is a supreme court justice.
DSC: Yes, McKenna Dennison is an example of an accuser that looks suspicious in light of these patterns. From what I have heard, there were many who were suspicious of her story as a stand alone, so they sought corroborating evidence (e.g. other victims who could attest to the MTC sex dungeon). IIRC, there was one other woman who came forward about Joseph Bishop’s “second office” and inappropriate behavior. But Dennison definitely sought publicity and remuneration and her story was the front-runner as a result.
I keep thinking at some point sanity is going to wake up and we will course correct, but I am starting to worry we are so divided we can’t see the middle ground. I hear so many saying, “guilty until proven innocent.” That is for a court of law, not for a job interview for one of the most important jobs in this country. Everybody knows why it was rushed. Just some need to justify why the elephant was in a hurry (a tilt both to Jonathan Haidt AND the GOP’s mascot).
I think Mormons tend to carry a persecution complex around and this does play into nudging them to feel vulnerable to false accusations.
I think with missionaries they often need black and white rules. I think the fact that an 80+ year old grandmother living by herself has to have the missionaries eat on the back porch in the blistering heat is crazy. But I come up a bit short on what recommendation I would suggest that keeps consensual hormones in check and the nosy neighbors gossip in check also. But the current rule seems to go beyond “peculiar” and more into bizarro territory.
I do feel that being accused and proof not being found to substantiate the allegations is not the same as having your name cleared. For many, once accused you may not have to get a scarlet P tattooed on your chest, but it could hang over your name for a very long time – even the rest of your life. That of course isn’t limited to females accusing males of sexual improprieties. There are other accusations that are unprovable.
I am aware that there are occasions where false accusations do occur. I know of one that the accused felt like he, “knew how these things work out.” He killed himself a few days after being accused and afterwards the high schooler that accused him admitted they were just getting back at him. But in that case I don’t think the accused allowed the process to work.
Angela C: The consequence is that for the rest of his life he will be carrying around this accusation and it will there every time he meets someone even though he has never been charged or convicted. I suspect this is not an issue for you because, in your mind, based on your assessment of relative credibility, you think he is guilty and therefore has gotten off lightly. This view, to my mind simply illustrates the point I was making about the unusual consequences of these types of allegations and the reasonableness of taking steps to avoid the possibility of them happening.
Kullervo: If he did not engage in the conduct she has accused him of then having to live with those allegations being in the forefront of everyone’s mind could very well have a significant negative impact on his life. He has to know that every time his name comes up that is what people are going to be thinking about. Perhaps you wouldn’t see that as being particularly difficult to deal with but for most individuals who had not committed those acts I would think it would be difficult mentally and emotionally. As with Angela C., I expect that in your mind he is guilty and therefore a negative impact on an innocent mind would not be a cross he has to bear because is not innocent of the charges.
Ojisan, I understand your points, but the main reason I tend to believe Blasey Ford over Kavanaugh is because he so clearly misrepresented so many things in his testimony it throws his whole credibility into question. Nothing Blasey Ford said made me feel that way — her whole testimony seemed credible. Doesn’t mean she’s not a liar. She might very well be. But Kavanaugh is. He made one disingenuous statement after another. Doesn’t mean he’s a rapist, or attempted rapist, but if I have to believe one of them, I’d have to go with her. Thus, he’s stuck with the cloud over his head. If it weren’t for his own testimony, I don’t think his reputation would have been so damaged.
On the other hand, I can substantiate Ojisan’s point of view in that I know of two false accusations. One was sexual harassment, not assault, and in the end she withdrew her claim (it was part of a termination lawsuit, and the accusation appeared to be a negotiation tactic). The other case was more complicated, in that the accused was going through legal proceedings for an assault he actually committed (not rape, but bad enough), and because of his position, there was liability insurance money at stake. Consequently, other women stepped up and accused him as well. If he had not confessed (out of his shame and desire to repent), his first accuser would probably not have been believed. However, he adamantly denied that he had assaulted the other two women, and I believe him. His attorney insisted he plea to all three, because the other two women didn’t want to punish him, they just wanted the money, and if he didn’t plea and was convicted his sentence would severe.
Happy Hubby,
The accused didn’t allow the process to work? Perhaps he knew exactly how these things turn out, and that the process would fail him (after all, he was a man). Was there any punishment for his [false] accuser?
” I tend to believe Blasey Ford over Kavanaugh is because he so clearly misrepresented so many things in his testimony it throws his whole credibility into question”
Exactly. When I first heard about Ford’s accusations about Kavanaugh I wondered how much weight should we give something that happened in high school, assuming it wasn’t part of a pattern of behavior? Though not in favor of another right-winged nominee to the Supreme Court, I hoped Kavanaugh would demonstrate the high standard of honesty, forthrightness and temperament that we should expect from a Supreme Court Judge–or any judge for that matter. He could’ve acknowledged he did a fair amount of partying and drinking (as documented in his yearbook and by his close high school friend, Mark Judge) to excess( including possible blackouts). He could’ve claimed he didn’t remember assaulting any women whether drunk or not. But rather than answering the questions he dodged, evaded, attacked, contradicted himself. In the end, he raised more questions about his own credibility and fitness.
And, Blasey-Ford didn’t escape consequences for coming forward. She has had to move out of her home and now fears for her life.
Wait. So this post is limited to false accusations of sexual assault? Or other types of false accusations, too? Here’s my two cents:
1) The missionary “witness” rule is absurd. I was the designated “ward member” to an appointment last week with the missionaries at the home of a “single sister investigator.” She had two teenagers at home. The missionaries were in a trio. And yet, per mission rules, I had to be there too. Having four men descend on her living room to teach an introductory lesson was intimidating and ineffectual.
2) Men–because of physical size, or cultural forces–are seen in Mormonism as potentially aggressive threats. The original two-deep primary teacher policy applied to men only. Mormon men are expected to follow the “Pence rule”. And yet, Sam Young was disciplined for pointing out that bishops are exempt from common-sense abuse-protection policies. Gack!
3) All of this is colored by the fact that I’ve been a victim of false (non-sexual) accusations. A boy in Teacher Quorum went to the bishop and accused me of literally throwing him out the window in quorum meeting. His parents backed him up. The bishop did a full investigation and fortunately, the other advisor and all of the boys could attest to the fact that nothing even remotely similar to that had ever occurred. There were zero consequences for the family bearing false witness.
4) The only way for the Church to get out ahead of the abuse allegations is to (a) make it clear that protecting the victim is more important than protecting the institution of the church; and (b) When a sex abuser is found in a position of church leadership, the one who issued the calling be held accountable for the mistake.
Also, because of the stigma attached to premarital sex, I’ve heard anecdotally that some encounters that were consensual at the time are later reported to be non-consensual due to parental pressure or other cultural factors. I have no hard data to back this assertion, but it does seem that Mormon purity culture creates an additional incentive to report consensual encounters as coerced.
The Other Clark
Sam Young was disciplined for organized opposition to the Church and advocating that people not join the Church, even after changes were made that addressed his concern (suggesting that the interview issue was simply cover for his more generalized opposition).
The Other Clark: Yes, as I was writing this up, it occurred to me that there are a few “vulnerable” areas due to Mormon culture: 1) our youth may feel more inclined to hide their chastity violations than their non-religious peers by making a false accusation (although generally, these are less likely to name a perpetrator according to the articles because they just want to be off the hook, not to get someone else in trouble unless they are also motivated by revenge (a girl saying “you did this to me!” because she’s now pregnant, while he has no consequences)), 2) Mormon missionaries are indeed encountering troubled individuals on a regular basis, and they are an easy target and appear to be backed by a deep pocketed organization, 3) a teen could falsely accuse a bishop or teacher at church to get out of having to go to church if they thought their parent would go for it. I mean, that’s going to some great lengths to avoid church, but maybe. I think it’s more likely as you said to be a non-sexual false accusation (or perhaps a more basic one of meanness or bullying).
For Jews and Christians (including Latter-day Saints), the insufficiency of one witness should be well-established: for example, Deut.. 17:6 and 19:15, and 2 Cor. 13:1.
It’s not a matter of whether the one witness is honest — the principle is that one witness is insufficient to prove guilt. Another witness, or other corroborating evidence, is needful to prove guilt.
So in a matter with one witness, I might really believe the witness while still withholding judgment on the accused.
Ojisan: ” The consequence is that for the rest of his life he will be carrying around this accusation and it will there every time he meets someone even though he has never been charged or convicted. I suspect this is not an issue for you because, in your mind, based on your assessment of relative credibility, you think he is guilty and therefore has gotten off lightly.” No, I don’t necessarily believe he’s guilty. I do think it’s more LIKELY that he’s guilty of inappropriate sexual behavior than that he is totally innocent–but it’s because of his terrible testimony that was full of self-protecting white lies. I’ve said elsewhere that if he had even admitted guilt, it might not have been disqualifying depending on what he said, how he explained things, and his demeanor. It’s plausible to me that he and his friend thought it was funny to corner a girl they assumed was drunk and pliable and when she turned out to be more lucid than they thought, or because she said NO, they left her alone. From her testimony, Mark Judge wasn’t into it.
What made Kavanaugh unfit for the appointment IMO was his lying about terms like Devils Triangle, boofing, and Renate alumnus combined with his anger, deflection, and gross partisanship in his testimony. I’d like to think a SCOTUS can be impartial and can maintain composure. Apparently not. Clarence Thomas came across better that this guy. Speaking of which, do you really think there have been any truly lasting consequences to Clarence Thomas or to Bill Clinton or to Trump? Nothing that has happened to any of them is on par with how their actions impacted the women unlucky enough to encounter them. Even though Blasey Ford wasn’t ultimately raped, she was terrified at 15. Being overpowered physically by someone intent on mischief (or worse) is not something easily forgotten.
Interesting and informative podcast related to this topic:
https://whyy.org/episodes/trauma-memory-and-healing/
I know that false accusations are rare, and I support the idea that there are very few.
The most famous false accusation of recent involved the Duke Lacrosse team. It involved a drunken strip show paid for by the Duke Lacrosse team. The strippers were clearly targeted with some awful racist language. The accuser came from a chaotic background, and clearly she was mistreated at the event. If she was raped, it seems that she clearly misidentified her attackers. People not at the party were jailed, Clearly there was prosecutorial misconduct. The DA was disbarred over the investigation.
It was a very sad situation all around. ESPN 30 for 30 had a great special on it. It was on Netflix, but I think it costs $4 to watch on Youtube now.
False accusations are rare, but they can happen.
I have had people in my immediate and extended families, and good friends, who have been victims of sexual assault. Their narratives were tragic, infuriating, plausible, and compelling. I have also had members of my family and friends damaged by false accusations, on different issues. I myself was once accused, publicly and in front of other co-workers, and falsely so, of stealing, by a co-worker, from an office fund for employees’ snacks and soft drinks. Fortunately for me, the accusation fell apart under the weight of its own stupidity; the person who made the accusation had a well-deserved reputation for running off at the mouth with poorly- thought-through statements. One might reply that this was a trivial issue in the relative scheme of things—but I vividly remember it, 14 years after it happened.
I Have become aware of the feelings of disbelieved abuse, victims, from the experiences of my family members and friends, and I am aware also of the feelings of those falsely accused—friends and family members who were wrongly accused of much more serious things than the minor incident I experienced.
On one hand, a dear cousin of mine worked for years as a volunteer in a shelter for battered women, and told me many sad stories of women going back into relationships with their abusers, after repeat cases of abuse from the same man.
So, we have situations in which people suffer assault, and either are afraid to report it, or are disbelieved if they do report it, or feel that it is their lot in life to accept that abuse. In my opinion, these are the vast majority of cases.
And we also have situations in which people are falsely accused—Christ being the most obvious example! And. As I get older, I become painfully more self-aware of how I myself fail to treat others as I should.
But I am leery of people who try to assign percentages to either category, because the vast majority of people (including, at times, myself) whether on the left or the right, are intellectually biased in marshaling facts and statistics to support their case, and they have a distressing tendency to ignore facts and statistics that might weaken their case. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!” I include myself in this negative assessment.
A nation-wide, Church-wide, and culture-wide discussion, conducted in civil and non-pejorative tones, needs to be conducted, which realizes the complexity of each situation, and the fallibility of trying to reduce people and situations into nice, neatly-made constructs. Human beings are very complex, each of us with a mixture of good and evil. In my opinion, a good person will treat 17 people well and only 3 poorly; a bad person will treat 17 people poorly and only 3 well.most of us fall somewhere in between. Hence the need for the Atonement.
Such a necessary discussion will be better achieved when one can achieve an awareness of the weaknesses in their own beliefs, and the strengths in the opinions of those whom they disagree with.
The use of “irrational” and “wringing of hands” in the original opinion post was, in my opinion, condescending and pejorative. The opinion post also conflated conservatism with wrongful thinking. Fine, if the writer is merely writing to strengthen their own already-held opinion. But such wording does not help engage in conversation those with whom one disagrees. Nor does it advance genuine dialogue needed to heal our society of the evils of abuse. I felt the vibrations of an echo chamber, in the post. The post does not, in my opinion, help us toward what should be our goal—to treat each person with whom we act, in a Christ-like manner.
MH, I fat-fingered a down-vote, but intended an up-vote.
A thing to consider is that people who have been falsely accused of a crime talk about freely in a way that sexual assault victims do not. It benefits those who have been falsely accused to get out ahead of the story, so to speak, so they bring it up freely. People who have been sexually assaulted very rarely benefit personally from bringing up their past.
There is NO requirement that the testimony of a complaining witness in a sexaual assault trial be corroborated, nor indeed, in any criminal trial except for accomplice testimony. T The requirement for corroboration in sexual assault cases , if any, reifies the view that women’s testimony should be considered less reliable than her assailant, and that she is” less” than the assailant whose testimony would not require corroboration.
Vajra2,
You may need to clarify your comment. Strictly speaking, corroborating testimony isn’t a requirement of the Justice system, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt is, and if it is simply the accuser’s weird against the accused’s, I don’t see how you get there.
ji: ”I fat-fingered a down-vote, but intended an up-vote.”
You can correct your vote mistake by repeatedly tapping on the correct vote.
More of my story…
I was so young when I was abused I didn’t know it was wrong. But it felt confusing, icky and weird and every time I saw that store (which was often because it was located in a shopping area we frequently visited) I felt a deep sense of fear and dread. I can’t remember anything about the perp. becauseb a) his back was turned to me or he was behind me most of the time, b) I didn’t want to look at him. I felt afraid and ashamed. I don’t think my mom ever knew. I never talked to her about it.
I didn’t really talk to anyone about it, or recognize it for what it was until I was in my 20’s, and I didn’t find out my sister was also abused that day until I was in my 40’s.
On my recent visit to UT I drove past my old house and the place where the store was located. It is gone now, the shopping area has changed significantly.
We must be vigilant and alert as parents and grandparents. Sadly, we must teach our children that even seemingly “good” people can do bad things. And that they are not responsible for the bad actions of others.
Angela C:
“Nothing that has happened to any of them is on par with how their actions impacted the women unlucky enough to encounter them. Even though Blasey Ford wasn’t ultimately raped, she was terrified at 15. Being overpowered physically by someone intent on mischief (or worse) is not something easily forgotten.”
It would appear to me that this statement would imply that you do think Thomas, Clinton and Kavanagh were guilty of what they were accused otherwise this statement would not be true. That is, if they did not do anything and the accusations were false then their actions could not have impacted the women because they never happened.
As for Clarence Thomas, I do think the accusations continue to negatively impact his life because the accusations continue to haunt him even years later. That is what people think of when they hear the name of Clarence Thomas. If he was innocent of the actions of which he was accused those false accusations continue to be a negative impact on his life simply because of the continued association with him.
As for Clinton I believe he was guilty on all counts and probably a whole lot more and think he should have been punished much more severely than he was. Accordingly if his life has been negatively impacted it is deserved.
However the point of my post was not to debate the guilt or innocence or credibility of Kavanagh because an analysis of credibility is a subjective exercise. Rather I merely wanted to point out that such accusations if false can continue to follow you for the rest of your life once they are made and therefore it is reasonable to take steps to avoid the possibility of them happening in the first place.
In Aus the figures are 1 in 6 wemon will be sexually assaulted by 16 and 1 in 6 after 16 .
So lets say fot the US 1 in 5 women are likely to be assaulted in their life 30,000,000
10% are likely to be reported 3 million
False are 2% are 15000 or 8% are 60,000
But this is over a lifetime so divide those by 70
So at 2% that is 214/ year and at 8% 856 in the whole of USA
SO 450,000 WOMEN AND 40,000 MENARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED EACH YEAR.
AND THE CONSERVATIVES WANT THE SYMPATHY TO GO TO THE LESS THAN 856 THAT MIGHT BE FALSELELLY ACCUSED.
DSC, there’s no need for clarification. If I say you robbed me at gunpoint, when I testify my testimony that you are the robber is sufficient. if believed. No other corroboration is required. Let us say my description of you to the police is that you are a Black man, wearing jeans and a hoodie who is 6′ tall. Let us say that upon cross-examination, I as defense counsel, ask you if you were certain that the robber was 6′ feet tall and you say yes. Then I ask the defendant to stand , which demonstrates that is far shorter than 6′. The prosecution on rebuttal then asks the witness if she is certain that the defendant is the person who robbed her. And she says, “I would remember that face anywhere.”
During the defense case, I present evidence that the neighborhood in which the robbery occurred is 67% African-American, that there were 750 pairs of jeans and 547 hoodies sold in the neighborhood, matching the description given by the witness.
Despite the lack of corroboration, you are convicted. nb beyond a reasonable doubt is the required standard of proof.
This scenario takes place in literally hundreds of U.S. courtrooms every day.
The relation between men and women has become somewhat complex. At Sunstone in preparation for a panel discussion, a male humorist allegedly made inappropriate comments and offered pot to a female co-panelists. At the end of the panel, he joked she was high.
Eventually she outed him on her popular blog. He was suspended from the sltrib for 3 months. I wonder if this sort of harassment isn’t better handled on a person-to-person basis. What was gained by making the problem public?
Roger Hansen: relations between creepy men and women have always been strained. Women suffered in silence. That women are now speaking up means that men need to knock it off finally. If we are going to be equal, then men should quit their terrible entitled behavior toward women.
The situation with the Trib that you mention surprised me greatly. That the Trib would actually give a damn that their favorite son was actually a jerk who behaved very creepily with someone he should have respected, that they would take it so seriously to take action, well that’s a new day. That would not have happened two years ago. My whole life I’ve never seen men held accountable like they are now. And you know what? That makes life for me as a woman so much better, and it only inconveniences the entitled self-important creeps, not the guys who were already great guys.
Vajra2
No, it doesn’t. The more common injustice is that someone might be jailed pending trial and will plead guilty just to get out. Jury convictions based on a single testimony are extraordinarily rare.
If it’s the accuser’s word against the accused, one of them is not telling the truth. The fact finder (i.e. the jury in a US criminal trial) can decide that one of the two is credible and the other is not.
Understand that, in our justice system, direct testimonial evidence is the primary form of evidence, privileged over other forms. You can’t even admit other kinds of evidence without laying a foundation through testimony.
(Also, some of my comments have been getting lost in the moderation hole, I think.)
The Tribune incident also surprised me. But the whole thing made me a bit uncomfortable in the way it was handled by the accuser. I agree with you, Roger. It should have been handled person-to-person at that very moment. So many of us (male and female) think of how we should of reacted. This is no different. Hindsight is always better.
When the columnist first made his “high priced hooker comment”, it should have been nipped. To wait for an extended period of time (days, not hours) (after ending the event with his picture, no less) and then write a long blog about it seems wrong. Maybe we are becoming stronger as females in that “suffering in silence” is no longer necessary. Good, great, wonderful! Confront it head on! Deal with it at the moment! Do something when it happens. Not months or years later. I know that it is not always possible, but when it is, do it! “Creepy guys” and all.
Susan Brown, I hope you are saying this because you are an assertive, thinking woman who would know what to say and execute it beautifully in the moment.
If you are, let me first say I am in awe of women like you. I love fiesty women who don’t hesitate to speak up for themselves and don’t take any guff.
I am an awkward introvert who gets stressed out even knowing how to respond to bland, benign small talk. The moments where I have been caught off guard by an obnoxious or aggressive man have left me completely paralyzed in the moment. Later I replay these exchanges in my mind over and over again ( even more than I do with regular, everyday interactions,) wishing I had acted differently. It’s just not in my temperament to come up with the brave, witty retort to put anyone in their place. So are women like me who won’t ( or can’t?) learn to be assertive, brave, quick- thinking masters of verbal sparring in the moment just out of luck? Do we have any recourse when we are targeted?
DSC, the existence of pretrial negotiations does not disprove the fact pattern that I described.;t hat milk chocolate exists doesn’t disprove the existence of dark chocolate.. You might have to ask yourself why you are invested in your belief in your version of criminal practice.
Vajra2,
Sure, that doesn’t disprove it, but you haven’t proved your view of the system either. I’m telling you that in my years of experience in the legal system, what you described is something I have rarely, if ever, seen.
Dsc, I’m telling you that in my years of experience in the legal system, what I described is something I have often seen. Your statements about corroboration and reasonable doubt do not seem to have a statutory basis nor do they conform to jury instructions in most jurisdictions. As for he said/she said, while even the use of the phrase seems to be disparaging of women”s testimony, it is up to the jury to determine credibility; juries do this every day.
I have not been personally involved in very many criminal trials, but one of them was absolutely a matter of the complainant’s word against the defendant’s word, and the judge (it was a bench trial, no jury) said essentially “you two are telling me different stories, so one of you is not telling the truth, which means I have to decide whom to believe, and, frankly, I find the complainant considerably more credible, so I am finding the defendant guilty.”
I know the thread has died down but a few comments.
Geoff, I think that misrepresents the conservative view. There’s a big difference between a memory from than 30 years ago that no one can confirm and sexual assault where there’s evidence. What made the Kavanaugh situation unique was the utter lack of any evidence along with both figures appearing to be making misleading statements in a context where there were other obviously false charges. I also think the sexual assault statistics have to be taken cautiously as often what the surveys count as sexual assault are broad. The oft quoted US figure includes unwanted groping in which case I’ve been assaulted numerous times. Which is not to say such things aren’t bad – they clearly are. Just that I think it diminishes the experience of those who’ve had more traumatic situations. There’s often equivocation in these discussions.
Mormon Heretic, one can accept that false accusations are uncommon while still thinking that evidence is necessary. Even if, as general studies (including assault by strangers) are around 5% that’s an awful lot of false accusations. Further by undermining the very idea of false accusations one ends up with the situation where people are less likely to believe real accusations since there are no checks and balances.
Angela, without weighing in on Kavanaugh’s believability I think that by the end of the week despite media skepticism devils triangle and boofing were both found to be truthful. At the same time evidence came out about several of Fords comments that were false. I don’t think that necessarily means we should trust one or the other but I do think it matters that the people Ford said would confirm her statements wouldn’t. (Which of course isn’t the same as disbelieving them – just that they had no knowledge) It also matters that Ford wouldn’t release the therapist notes and her testimony conflicts with the notes that were partially released to the press. But it’s also true that Kavanaugh while admitting to drinking downplayed it. I think the left mislead on what he said but then so too did the right.
I’m not sure though we should use Kavanaugh as a guide for how we judge potentially false accusations. It was a very unusual situation with huge motivations to stop Kavanaugh and huge motivations to stop his accusations. That’s rarely the case. That said, motivations for providing false testimony do matter. I think those get downplayed too much. As I’ve mentioned before when there are serious consequences for an action, there are huge incentives to blame the action on other people. That doesn’t exist in most cases. But it means how we look at cases where there are such incentives ought be different.
“that any woman with an axe to grind can ruin someone’s career with a single false accusation. In an era of #metoo and believe women, is it true that men are vulnerable to a wave of false accusations?”
Yes, but it is neither new nor confined to women making accusations against men. Bearing false witness is serious business and it is such a dirty bomb it often damages the person that hurls it.
Waves of faddish behaviors roll through society. In the early 1990’s if I remember right it was men sent to prison in California based on “recovered memories” through hypnotism. Also at that time the US Navy, of which I was then an active duty member of some standing, had established a series of “zero tolerance” policies starting with zero tolerance in the 1980’s for drug abuse. No second chance. By the 1990’s it was sexual harassment and the rules were clear; an accusation is all that was required. It was #BelieveWomen Version 1, the Beta Test. No proof needed and what constituted sexual harassment was defined moment by moment and now apparently so is sexual assault.
Along came VAWA Note that there is no VAMA. Violence Against Women Act automatically doubled any statutory penalty if the victim was a woman and the perpetrator a man. Furthermore, the law forbids admission into evidence of any priors that might be relevant including provocation. in other words if you provoke me to anger and I so much as say something negative to you, doom on me! Fortunately I am very slow to anger. For a month the HR director tried to get me to laugh at a sexist or racist joke. I just concentrated on work.
The consequence of these things means that some people (me) are extremely cautious about any kind of relationship. It’s extremely dangerous.
Now for the snarky answers, the entertainment you’ve been waiting for:
“Very few rapes are even reported. An estimated 90% of rapes go unreported.”
We depend on clairvoyance to get that 90 percent. As well, you might be amazed at what now is considered “rape”.
“False accusations are very rare; only 2-8% of all accusations are false.”
Which presumes a degree of insight into what is true and what is false that has not been demonstrated.
“Accusations in general, both false and real, very seldom result in any noteworthy consequences to the accused.”
Your mileage might vary. Mine certainly has.
“Police detectives are generally very skilled at identifying false accusers.”
It is not their job to let anyone go. If an accusation is made, the law is generally pretty clear that the accused must be arrested. It will be up to a court of law to determine innocence. What’s in your wallet?
“The most common false accusations are made by teenagers who are trying to get out of trouble or to avoid blame for actions their parents don’t approve.”
yeah, like sex and drugs. Been at the short end of that false accusation. Good documentation and early lawyering up kept spouse and me out of jail but it was a bit expensive and because people in church took sides (generally believing her, not even asking me) when the whole thing blew up now you have a bunch of people that don’t want to look us in the eyes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-case-is-even-weaker-than-that-1538433190?emailToken=d76bc13278e1efe0fde00b68d4edc066UFsznKhOwAwTg8EERUakUEJDY9Gc3w4BGU/OPZCeDTvotUUNVrpSMOinr4F1PIx2tkuNXxCFcOWHC+yoksqWBA%3D%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share
“Do you think Mormons are more likely to fear false accusations?”
I have no information to suggest this.
“Are Mormon men more vulnerable to false accusations because of our strict chastity guidelines (teens), and the social situations missionaries are in,”
No information here either.
“Does the fear of false accusations justify our guidelines preventing missionaries from entering homes?”
Seems reasonable. I didn’t know there was such a rule but it will certainly prevent some kinds of mischief and it isn’t all sexual. Visitors can be accused of theft, for instance.
“Are these facts about false accusations helpful in allaying the fears so many conservatives have expressed?”
You have made claims. Whether they are factual has not been established and cannot be so established in an online forum.
I forgot the comments that go with my earlier link which is a comprehensive list of Dr. Ford’s inconsistent story. Evidence matters. Hopefully WSJ does not require subscription to get to the link.
Men and women are not similarly situated.
Statistics on partner violence make it clear that relationships are extremely dangerous for women, not for men.
That’s… not the law at all.
Prosecutors have nearly unlimited discretion to pursue or not to pursue any given case.
You have a Constitutional right to an attorney. Public defenders tend to be overworked, but are often staggeringly competent (it’s a highly sought-after public service job).
Kullervo writes “Men and women are not similarly situated.”
Some are, some aren’t.
“Statistics on partner violence make it clear that relationships are extremely dangerous for women, not for men.”
I suppose you know the adage about statistics. In my house extremely dangerous was my stepmother; unstable and violent. Proverbs 21:9 comes to mind.
“That’s… not the law at all.”
Your mileage varies. “People are arrested on charges of child abuse every day in the United States. … law enforcement officers do not hesitate to take action when there is a possibility of preventing harm to a child. This willingness to error on the side of protecting kids is laudable. Unfortunately, though, it results in a number of child abuse cases that are simply without merit.” https://www.hg.org/child-abuse.html
“Prosecutors have nearly unlimited discretion to pursue or not to pursue any given case.”
Indeed; and what governs that discretion? The personal experiences of that prosecutor who chose that career perhaps as a way to obtain vengeance on a class of person she believes deserves it. The Navy Lieutenant that I have in mind as the example had been punished as a child by having her face pushed down into a toilet by her father (if I remember the details correctly). Consequently she was zealous in prosecuting certain kinds of assault and assumed guilt.
You have a Constitutional right to an attorney.”
Under certain circumstances. Seems to be the 6th amendment. To what does it apply? Poor people facing criminal cases that can result in imprisonment. For everything else you provide your own attorney.
Google makes possible the Court of Public Opinion. One day i googled a former best friend and to my amazement, up pops a news article that he was arrested for unlawful sexual contact. Whether he was actually guilty of it the story does not report.
Consider our words right here on this blog. If I were to name you and accuse you of something, this very comment will pop up on a Google search that you have been accused of something. As we see, many people believe an accusation with no evidence required, and for others, no amount of evidence will change their minds.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-mean-girls-apos-falsely-183443864.html
Here’s a sad story — a male high school student was charged with assault by five “mean” girls at his high school — he lost his job and was jailed — now some of the girls admit it was all false, just meanness on their part. Of course, the girls will face no criminal penalties for their crimes, but they destroyed this male teenager’s present and future life.