Does anyone dispute the fact that the 'false allegations of rape are common' myth is dangerous?

[Savannahmann]

30. I never said that the discussion was unwelcome, nor unwarranted.

I said that the statistical conclusion was flawed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4239713

If someone wanted to go by convictions, then it could be argued that 27% of those charged with Rape or Domestic abuse were falsely accused. I am going to presume that you would properly object to that conclusion.

The problem is in attempting to quantify the average numbers of something based upon the statistical evidence. You can't say that only .6% were false when that was all that was prosecuted by the CPS for false allegations any more than you can say that 27% were false based upon the conviction rate.

So my experience? Fine, in my experience 100% of the allegations are false. I worked in a warehouse on the night shift many years ago. I worked with four other guys, the one in charge, and then three other workers. We were broken into teams of two, and we set up the orders to be loaded the next morning onto trucks. We'd line the orders up near the door for the outgoing trucks in other words. One of my co-workers was positively identified by the victim as committing a rape. He was arrested, charged, and arraigned for the crime. The four of us had to go to the District Attorney and sign statements that on the night of the attack, he was in the warehouse working. He was my partner that night, so yes I am absolutely sure he was there that night. Again, he was positively identified by the victim.

Now, I could say that 100% of the rape claims were false based upon my limited experience. Yet, that would be a lie, and I eschew lies. What did I suggest was the best way to judge this situation? I said that it appeared that each case was evaluated by the jury on it's own merits. Each case should be judged based upon its own merits. The one I have personal knowledge of was dropped when the four other workers were willing to swear that the accused had an alibi. Even then the police told us that they thought we were all lying. In other words, they wanted to believe the woman, because now the case was in the crapper. There is literally no way you can operate off of a victim identification when she's already positively identified the wrong man.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php

I could suggest other sites, and I would. But what is the point of that one I have linked to? They use DNA evidence to exonerate people falsely convicted. I would personally like to see DNA evidence in every case possible, and in Rape cases that is very likely to be possible. I believe it would prevent the false convictions, and increase the likelihood of a conviction for the guilty. The links you provided said that convictions had risen to 73%, and one must assume that is because of increased use of science based evidence.

I don't believe that my position on this subject, nor the study you linked to, is in anyway hateful towards women, nor is it unreasonable to point out the painfully obvious flaws in the report. What I believe I am advocating is a case by case approach with as much scientific evidence as possible for those cases. I want to make as sure as humanly possible, more sure if possible, that no innocent man or woman goes to prison. I also want to see the guilty punished, and the public protected from that guilty person doing anything like this again. But my desire for that second outcome does not permit me to accept a flawed study with an obviously erroneous conclusion.

Perhaps you can tell me if my position is unreasonable. I am always willing to listen, and consider.