Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

  
Home | Sex Offender Registry | Megan's Law | Forums (Message Boards) | News Archive
AMBER Alert | Law Enforcement Agencies | Directory of Sites | Polls | Library | Glossary | More Resources                             Login | About Us

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp14000+
orolan4000+
Navigatr12500+
Silvert...2500+
1dadof52500+
Valerie2000+
steve1500+
victori...1000+
myoung1000+
rabbitr...750+
HPierce750+
poetsdr...750+
Renunci...750+
lj750+
fallenone500+
DoTheCr...500+
marta500+
momhelp...500+
prozac500+
rebel51500+
PVulcan250+
anti250+
rodsmith250+
LockEmUp250+
Quest250+
artie250+
KK250+
LostTime250+
TGoodman250+
amberleaf250+
deadmom...250+
brennus100+
scarlett100+
mousein...100+
thepar100+
assumpt...100+
lildrafire100+
JakeLF100+
MrTruth100+
june5100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
buttwaxer
chooch
genospice
hud123
kawaski
kelstress
unknowable

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): Kanin's study vindicated

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 117971
Kanin's study vindicated


Posted by x_HPierce on Oct 09, 2003 04:22 PM | Also by x_HPierce
Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:
First of all thanks to Steve for emailing me the Kanin study. I believe marta obtained the information and sent it to Steve. If that is the case then thanks to marta as well.

Marta authored a thread not too long ago that attempted to expose Mr. Kanin’s study as a sham. I had only seen three abstracts from the study but felt three separate yet agreeing accounts of Mr. Kanin’s study did not appear to be a sham.

Armed with the study I’ll now go back and address marta’s issues with the study.

Marta says:

>>>>
Mr. Eugene Kanin, professor at Purdue University, can officially be discarded as evidence supporting a 41% false rape allegation frequency, not only because his sample size is miniscule…..>>>>

Lets discuss the miniscule sample issue. His study was from a midwest town (pop. 70,000), that had an excellent methodology of handling crimes. In fact the police agency forbids police officers in using their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint might be. Marta’s statement is not accurate. Mr. Kanin’s study was over a NINE YEAR PERIOD. I too would question a single town had it been conducted over a single year. After all, you can find spikes in any city (high or low) that could make a case either way. That was not the case in this study. The AVERAGE over the 9 year period was 41% of all rape allegations were false. The next year Mr. Kanin gained access to two midwestern universities. The findings were from the prior THREE years (not a single year). He found that almost half (50%) of all rape claims from these two universities over the past three years were false allegations. So no, the sampling wasn’t miniscule. In fact it was broad (spanning almost a decade) and included three separate locations. I would have preferred to see studies included outside the midwest but that only implies that midwesterners lie more than east coast or west coast people.

Marta’s other objection is that half the rape claims weren’t valid.
Marta says:
>>>
…, but because only half of the women in his study who fabricated a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific person (last sentence, 6th paragraph of the 'Findings' section in the study). Now last time I checked, there has to be a person at the end of the allegation finger for anyone to actually stand accused, much less suffer the horrible fate of men accused of rape.
>>>

Marta is under the false assumption that if a woman doesn’t point a finger at someone, it isn’t a false rape allegation. That maybe her OPINION but in reality any rape report filed with a police department is considered a false rape allegation if it is found to be false. That’s all. This study was based solely on FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS.

Lets look at that 6th paragraph in Mr. Kanin’s findings.

It says:
>>>
Of the 45 cases of false charges, over one-half (56%, n=27) served the complaint’s need to provide a plausible explanation for some suddenly foreseen, unfortunate, consequence of a consensual encounter, usually sexual, with a male acquaintance. An assailant is identified in approximately one half of these cases.
>>>

The finding in the above was one of Mr. Kanin’s explanations as to why women file false rape reports (alibi function)

So marta’s percentage only illustrates that half the women who admitted filing a false rape report actually identified an attacker to provide an alibi.

What marta didn’t share was that all the above false rape allegations were declared false only because the complainant admitted they were false (page 2, third paragraph).

This isn’t a study about false rape claims proved false in court. This study deals exclusively with FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS: The intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape had occurred (page 1, Introduction, first paragraph).

I suspected that the three abstracts I had read could not have left out a significant piece of information that would nullify its validity. I was right. Marta’s evaluation of Kanin’s study was erroneous.

Since his findings are valid, methodology sound and unbiased, I will be correct in stating that FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS ARE FREQUENT in any future post.

H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Thread


117971, x_HPierce, Oct 09, 2003 04:22 PM [Kanin's study vindicated]
      118011, x_Rachel, Oct 10, 2003 04:17 AM [Take a closer look]
            118051, x_HPierce, Oct 10, 2003 05:54 PM [Not at all Rachel]
                  118123, x_Rachel, Oct 13, 2003 07:53 AM [Try a little humble pie H.P.]
      118025, x_marta, Oct 10, 2003 12:06 PM [Kanin disagrees with you!]
            118050, x_HPierce, Oct 10, 2003 05:50 PM [wrong again marta]
                  118146, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:00 AM [Re: wrong again marta]
      118044, x_marta, Oct 10, 2003 04:26 PM [Oh, and by the way. . .]
            118132, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 09:28 AM [Knock it off.. you lost!!]
                  118163, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:33 PM [Re: Knock it off.. you lost!!]
      118181, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 07:28 PM [I'm such an idiot!]
Forum Home | Top of Thread
Tell a Friend about this page.
Copyright 1998-2007 SexCriminals.com and Befriend | About Site | Credits | Contact Us