| theprof00 said: I haven't actually done the math out for what the case will be going forward, given that cases have gone down. Especially with all the controversy nowadays, it would be harder to pinpoint accurate numbers. Interestingly enough I think the drop in the 2000s is likely due to cellphone and smart phone proliferation . I don't know exactly what the figure will be in the future, but I think it's pretty clear that 1-5, at the very least have previously been sexual ly assaulted in some way. Anyway, even if we reference the serial victimization (lol I am beyond tired of this at this point) taking 20% off my initial figure of 4.7% is still higher than 4% and doesn't include population size or higher incidence numbers. Do you think it's fair to say 20% is a number we xan agree on? Or no. If no, why. |
I don't think we can really form a number, honestly. I think we would need a lot more data, broken down in a lot more ways to actually get something that is accurate, so if you do want to say a number, you should throw a few asterisks at it to make that clear (and make sure you really lay out what the number means).
That said, here are some numbers I think sound accurate:
If you are trying to say the lifetime victimization of someone who is born today, I think, considering current crime trends, the number would probably be closer to 1 in 10 (this is how these figures should be discussed imo).
If you are trying to say the lifetime victimization of someone who is alive today, to date, I think the number would be closer to 1 in 7 or 8.
If you are trying to say the lifetime victimization of someone who is alive today, including future victimizations, I think the number would be closer to 1 in 5 or 6.
