| theprof00 said: What is with the "including future victimizations"? |
Basically, what your math tells you is "how many victimizations occurred over the last 81 years" (by assuming a constant victimization rate, which I'm fine with). Then, it seems you take this number and try to say "all of those victimizations happened to people who are currently alive".
If you are using crimes from the past x amount of years, you don't know if the victims are still alive or not. Because of that, you would theoretically need to include everyone who has been alive over that period, increasing the population sample, which I did before, although that gives you the "percentage of people who have lived over the last 81 years who have been victimized over the last 81 years" (more or less), which isn't what you are trying to say.
In order to say how many victims are alive today, you have to remove everyone who has died between the time their original victimization took place (which is present in your data set) and the present in order to say how many victims are currently alive (which is clearly not possible with the current data)
The problems comes when you try to apply yearly data to "lifetime" data, which is unprovided by the BJS. I understand that the 1990 data doesn't include crimes happening in 2016, but a victim from 1990 may not be alive in 2016, so you can't include them as part of the "lifetime" total you are using for people alive today.
As for my 1 to 10 figure, I didn't mean to imply we should use that number going forwards. I think we should do research that looks into the actual lifetime prevalence, so we don't have to use a ghetto number. What I meant, is that we should talk about "lifetime victims" by year of birth, not the year they were alive. This allows much better computation and comparison of trends. For example, if using a "all people who are alive" standard, you deal with people who are 100 years old, who may have been victimized 90 years ago, which doesn't say much about the present, but does say something about 90 years ago. On the other hand, we also have people who were born yesterday, who also don't tell us much about current trends. Because of that, the data gets confounded, so using a "by birthdate" system would clear things up a lot.
Also, as I posted in an earlier edit (which I posted a little late so you probably missed it), BJS does include penetration with objects in its rape statistics. Also, its very worth noting that the BJS statistics are not rape statistics, but instead rape and sexual assault. Just because they don't include something under the definition of "rape" doesn't mean that it was excluded from these calculations. While its not always 100% clear what is included, the questionaire does clearly include coersion and unwanted sex, and the design of the survey is fairly personal so it wouldn't at all surprise me if many of the things that you are saying are not included were actually part of this survey and included under the "sexual assault" blanket, which is very broad.
I did just notice that they actually do provide data on what percentage of "Rape and Sexual Assault" was "Completed Rape" though. 30%. So if you were looking at the "lifetime completed rape" statistics for all women who are alive today (assuming your average victimization rate remains constant), including future victimizations, the percentage would be about 5.5% (using the BJS definition of rape, not the expanded definition). However, even if you want to use the more full definition, a full 18% of their "Rape and Sexual Assault" numbers were verbal threats, which I personally would consider to be a completely separate crime.
