SpokenTruth said:
potato_hamster said:
So a rate between 2% and 10% are demonstrably false. What's the conviction rate? According to RAINN, it's about 1%. For the other 80-95% of cases that aren't demonstrably false or in a sense, "demonstrably true" as that is what a conviction should show, we actually do not know if the alleged sexual assault actually happened. But here you are assuming that in every case an alleged sexual assault is that isn't demonstrably false is true.
And how is this for a way to spin the numbers? Of the cases where we have extreme amounts of confidence over whether the sexual assault did occur, according to your own numbers, it's twice to ten times more likely the accusation is false.
Just food for thought.
|
Are you aware of the sexual assault case backlog? Conviction rates are low because rape kits are insanely backlogged. The US Department of Justice says there are over 400,000 untested rape kits. Hard to convict if you don't even bother.
There is some food for thought for you.
|
I know about the rape kit backlog, but again, you're acting like in all of those cases, we should treat them as if sexual assault legitimately occured, and that conviction rates would be higher if they were processed. That's an assumption. I'm simply speaking of the cases where we know the definitive answer.
