Actually Louise I made no such implicit statement, but instead confirmed that the number given by meikle are from the Department of Justice. I also went on to state that the Uniform Crime Report records those arrested. In order to obtain an arrest warrant, there needs to be sufficient evidence. Police do not simply drive out to arrest people based on an unconfirmed statement. They have to have arrest warrants which means a judge has to look at the evidence. Both the numbers, as I mentioned, are from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These are considered the two primary resources for criminologists. Sufficient evidence
for an arrest is not final evidence and at that early a stage in investigation, the evidence is going to be much weaker than what is actually needed to bring a case to conclusion and have anyone sent to jail. Especially with a crime that often takes place at somebody's home, or in a hotel room, or in the open at night, with no exterior witnesses, and where both filers and suspects can have many reasons to hide awkward facts or to invent circumstances, and are strongly engaged emotionally.
So instead of jumping up and down with unsupported references about 88,000 women lying, one can do a quick search for what is called False Accusation percentage. At face value this number is 8%. So 8% of the accusations given by the Department of Justice (note not the FBI because those are actual arrests) are considered to be false. Yet, digging a little more one can find that an intensive study was done that reduced the number to 3% false reporting. The reason behind the more in depth investigation is that false reporting is not a universal rule and the requirements to be considered a false report change from district to district. For the record the average rate of false reporting among other crimes is 2%.
The statistics on the amouint of "false rape accusations" was obviously provided from police data level, even if they were processed higher up by some commission. It doesn't take into account how things look on courtroom level: by the implied "true accusations" or veracious filings for rape, it has to mean such reports filed with the police and considered true by someone at the police, perhaps some of it in conjunction with an attorney. The vital point is that the scrutiny provided in the court room clearly doesn't come into question before those numbers are singled out as the 'true accusations'.
No one has quoted or linked anything so far that shows what the police actually labeled those figures in their statistics. If the police, ior the Department of Justice, seriously said, this is the true accusations we have here, then they would have gone in advance of courts or
defied the courts (if the statistics were compiled after the cases had gone to court and many of them had been rejected; of course many never went to court at all). But thenm, the summing up of those 92% as "true accusations" could hwell have been made by someone lese, interested in boosting the apparent number of rapes that don't get a fair hearing. Anyway, if those statsoitic were supposed to show the number of truly occurrring rapes, or even give a rough idea, that's a logical error.
Yes, to claim that a given rape has actually taken place, in a sense that makes it useful within statistics, there has to be a positive court decision behind it. Except in some cases where somebody says he/she was raped by a total stranger, and the fact of assault is borne out by medical examination soon afterwards, but the victim has no idea at all who it was. But those cases could oinly be a small fraction.
"instead of jumping up and down with unsupported references about 88,000 women lying..." - you are very clearly trying to push it on me that either I have to accept those statistics or else I must be claiming that a very large number of already assured rapes didn't take place and that every one of those 88.000 women are lying. A clumsy attempt at rethorical blackmail. No, there can be many reasons why a case wasn't taken to court or was pulled back. The woman, or the attorney, may have come to realize that what they thought was rape didn't fit what the law demarcates as rape
, and so they found it impossible to go on, or wee not allowed to go on by the judge, by the rules of the court. This kind of thing happens, and with the word rape being used in a vague way it's likely to be happening more and more.
Rapes that occur and rapes that are convicted are two different statistics.
Well, you're doing just what she did, putting an equals sign between the number of "actual rapes" /i.e. factually true rapes/ and the number filed to the police. This is illogical, at least if you want any kind of reliable numbers to make statistics from.