Videos regarding claims of rape/sexual abuse, the media & biases

[MJresearcher]

This isn't specifically about MJ but he is mentioned and was used as at least partial inspiration in the first video regarding a Simpsons episode that dealt with scandals. The first video takes a look at how claims are treated and spoken about by the media and the public. The second talks about how statistics can and have been twisted and speaks about biases from both sides of the argument.

[video]http://www.zippcast.com/video/e814520dc29acd852c0[/video]

 

[FullLipsDotNose]

I'm a statistician and I can tell you that most of the time people get statistics completely wrong.

One thing is to nicely organise numbers and other data, another thing is dissecting what they mean. Just because two things happen to have exactly the same curve doesn't mean they are related to each other (AKA correlation doesn't imply causation).

PS: I accidentally liked your post; in fact, I find the video disgusting.

 

[MJresearcher]

I liked what he had to say about people jumping to conclusions too quickly and his critique of the way the media handles claims about high profile people. There's a lot that needs to change. I'm not good with numbers and I'm not trained in how to interpret them so I tend to leave that side of things alone.

 

[LindavG]

Just to put some things in perspective:

Source: https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

 

[MJresearcher]

There aren't many peer reviewed studies that have been done on the prevalence of false reports and the ones we do have consist of small sample sizes and the numbers are conflicting. Realistically I don't think we're ever likely to obtain an accurate number due to the fact that it's very difficult to both prove or disprove a claim.

 

[LindavG]

There aren't many peer reviewed studies that have been done on the prevalence of false reports and the ones we do have consist of small sample sizes and the numbers are conflicting. Realistically I don't think we're ever likely to obtain an accurate number due to the fact that it's very difficult to both prove or disprove a claim.

But all the studies that have been done show that allegations for which there is reasonable evidence to suggest they are false (like in MJ's case) are very rare, between 2% and 10% of all allegations. And it's even more rare for someone to be convicted based on a false accusation, tragic as it is when that happens. To pretend like it's a common occurance for women (let's be realistic here) or children to lie about being raped is actually quite dangerous because a victim of rape often has no hard evidence for what happened, all they have to rely on is their word. It's not like in the movies where the rapist is obviously sinister and deranged, there are tons of eye witnesses around who saw something fishy going on or the victim somehow manages to record the rape. I'm not sure what "evidence" people expect victims of rape to put forward before they will believe them. If the alleged rapist denies any wrongdoing, is that enough to call it he said/she said and move on?

I understand why Michael Jackson fans are particularly sensitive to victims of false allegations but I'm just asking you to be careful of what you are promoting here.

 

[barbee0715]

Rape is a heinous crime against the vulnerable and should always be reported and investigated. Always.
But there's a lot to be said about keeping both the victim and the accused anonymous. False allegations may be rare, but they do exist, and the raging witch hunts I've seen are inexcusable. Whether the accused did it or not, their lives are pretty much over.

Trying and convicting people outside a court of law and only in the court of public opinion should not happen.

 

[LindavG]

Rape is a heinous crime against the vulnerable and should always be reported and investigated. Always.

To be honest, if I were a victim of rape myself I'm not sure if I would have the courage to report it to police. Apart from the possible shame or fear I might feel, I can't imagine anything worse than having to convince others that I'm not lying about what was done to me; that I'm not a gold digger or attention seeker but that I simply want justice. And if you keep in mind that less than 10% of all reported rapes ever lead to a conviction, is that really worth it?

That's why it bothers me that well-intentioned people contribute to perpetuating this myth that false rape allegations are rampant and we can never trust the accusers on their word (when it's often all they have). Clear extortion cases like Michael's are extremely rare and we shouldn't use that as our measuring stick when we talk about the credibility of rape allegations in general. I'm frankly surprised that so many people on this board don't agree with me on this.

But there's a lot to be said about keeping both the victim and the accused anonymous. False allegations may be rare, but they do exist, and the raging witch hunts I've seen are inexcusable. Whether the accused did it or not, their lives are pretty much over.

Trying and convicting people outside a court of law and only in the court of public opinion should not happen.

Unfortunately, when it comes to celebrities the witch hunts are almost inevitable although I agree they are abhorrent. In many countries (at least in Europe) it's actually illegal to publish the full name of the accuser or the accused in any crime to protect their identity and that of their family members. I noticed as well that on UK websites the comment sections for articles on ongoing legal cases within the UK were disabled, even for trashy tabloids like the Daily Mail.

 

[MJresearcher]

But all the studies that have been done show that allegations for which there is reasonable evidence to suggest they are false (like in MJ's case) are very rare, between 2% and 10% of all allegations. And it's even more rare for someone to be convicted based on a false accusation, tragic as it is when that happens. To pretend like it's a common occurance for women (let's be realistic here) or children to lie about being raped is actually quite dangerous because a victim of rape often has no hard evidence for what happened, all they have to rely on is their word. It's not like in the movies where the rapist is obviously sinister and deranged, there are tons of eye witnesses around who saw something fishy going on or the victim somehow manages to record the rape. I'm not sure what "evidence" people expect victims of rape to put forward before they will believe them. If the alleged rapist denies any wrongdoing, is that enough to call it he said/she said and move on?

I understand why Michael Jackson fans are particularly sensitive to victims of false allegations but I'm just asking you to be careful of what you are promoting here.

But all the studies that have been done show that allegations for which there is reasonable evidence to suggest they are false (like in MJ's case) are very rare, between 2% and 10% of all allegations. And it's even more rare for someone to be convicted based on a false accusation, tragic as it is when that happens. To pretend like it's a common occurance for women (let's be realistic here) or children to lie about being raped is actually quite dangerous because a victim of rape often has no hard evidence for what happened, all they have to rely on is their word. It's not like in the movies where the rapist is obviously sinister and deranged, there are tons of eye witnesses around who saw something fishy going on or the victim somehow manages to record the rape. I'm not sure what "evidence" people expect victims of rape to put forward before they will believe them. If the alleged rapist denies any wrongdoing, is that enough to call it he said/she said and move on?

I understand why Michael Jackson fans are particularly sensitive to victims of false allegations but I'm just asking you to be careful of what you are promoting here.

Again, the sample sizes are very small and that's why the studies have differed in that one says only 2 percent and another says it could be up to 10 percent. Not once did I ever say that claims of this nature are commonly false, my issue with the studies is the fact that it's extremely difficult to get numbers that are accurate because the sample size used and because often the accuser cannot prove their claim (which is extremely sad and difficult for genuine victims) and also because it's next to impossible for the accused to prove a negative. The numbers of false claims could be higher or maybe lower than what the few studies have shown, since we can't prove which cases are and are not genuine most of the time I don't think it's possible to get anything more than approximate numbers, it does not logically follow that factually evaluating numbers and acknowledging the possibility of them maybe not being quite correct means that a person is saying that claims must be commonly false. Again, not what I was saying at all.

A common problem I've noticed is that because so many victims don't come forward and false claims don't happen much many people have developed an aversion to discussing or even accepting the possibility of false claims, particularly in feminist circles. I'm a feminist but I can bias happening in the movement. It's noble and fantastic that people are publicly supporting victims and speaking out about how they can be treated by authorities but many times I've seen people demonstrate the same behaviour they condemn; they get angry when people automatically consider a claim to be false but then they hear of a claim and often automatically assume it to be true and assume the accused to be guilty. I think what I'm seeing is people trying to compensate for victims not being believed because it's happened so many times but it's been taken a step too far, the accused is assumed guilty before they've stepped foot in a court room and that's just as dangerous and wrong as assuming the accuser is a liar with nothing to back it up. It seems that people often utilize black and white thinking with this issue combined with conformation bias and high levels of emotion.

Every and any person who makes a claim of rape or other kind of sexual abuse deserves to be taken seriously and there should be thorough investigation into the matter. My position of claims I hear about is that I don't know what the truth is yet and I want as much evidence as I can get before deciding what I think about it. Realistically, much of the time we won't get enough evidence either way and in that case my opinion on it will be that I don't know what happened. I would not treat the accuser as though they are a liar but I also would not treat the accused as though they are guilty. Although that position is fair from a perspective of logic and evidence, it's often met with hostility by victims advocates. Going too far either way on either side of the issue is undesirable and the proof of that is all the hurt rape victims and also all the falsely accused victims who have both had their lives severely impacted by opinions and actions of those taking things too far one way or the other. A genuine rape victim's life can be made hell by people saying they're a liar and Michael's life was made hell by people who assumed he was guilty.

Try conversing with victim's advocates or others who are passionate about rape victims and you'll have a very difficult time trying to speak with them about Michael. You'll be accused of victims blaming even when that's not what you did and they'll say people like you are the reason victims don't come forward. It doesn't matter that we have decent evidence and reason not to believe the claims against him, many of them simply do not want to hear it. Finding a middle ground with this whole subject can be extremely difficult. Personally, I think that when an accusation of this nature is reported and taken to trial, the public shouldn't be made aware of it until a verdict has been given, especially in high profile cases. That way, in the case of genuine victims, they don't have to put up with months of hearing about people's opinions or speculation from talking heads in the media and for the falsely accused, they won't have to put up with months of the same with media that is quick to decide their guilt. Without all the opinions flying around during the course of an investigation or trial I think that could make it easier for victims to come forward knowing they won't have to put up with as much from the public.

 

[LindavG]

A common problem I've noticed is that because so many victims don't come forward and false claims don't happen much many people have developed an aversion to discussing or even accepting the possibility of false claims, particularly in feminist circles.

My problem is not with discussing the possibility of false rape allegations but with vastly overstating their prevalence. This constant focus on false allegations makes it seem like they are far more common than they are, which is very damaging to genuine victims who are hesitant to come forward because they fear they will not be believed. And if feminists in particular have a problem with this, it is because there has been an agenda for a long time to portray women who speak out about rape as liars, attention seekers or partly responsible for what happened to them.

I think what I'm seeing is people trying to compensate for victims not being believed because it's happened so many times but it's been taken a step too far, the accused is assumed guilty before they've stepped foot in a court room and that's just as dangerous and wrong as assuming the accuser is a liar with nothing to back it up.

Are you sure about that, given that it's notoriously difficult to convict someone of rape and most reported rapes never even make it to court? The "innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't fly here because, as you said yourself, in many cases it's impossible to prove rape.

Every and any person who makes a claim of rape or other kind of sexual abuse deserves to be taken seriously and there should be thorough investigation into the matter. My position of claims I hear about is that I don't know what the truth is yet and I want as much evidence as I can get before deciding what I think about it. Realistically, much of the time we won't get enough evidence either way and in that case my opinion on it will be that I don't know what happened. I would not treat the accuser as though they are a liar but I also would not treat the accused as though they are guilty. Although that position is fair from a perspective of logic and evidence, it's often met with hostility by victims advocates. Going too far either way on either side of the issue is undesirable and the proof of that is all the hurt rape victims and also all the falsely accused victims who have both had their lives severely impacted by opinions and actions of those taking things too far one way or the other. A genuine rape victim's life can be made hell by people saying they're a liar and Michael's life was made hell by people who assumed he was guilty.

This sounds great in theory but imagine if your best friend, whom you know to be an honest decent person, confides in you and tells you she was raped by her neighbour a year ago. You confront the neighbour and he denies the allegations vociferously. It's her word against his. Would you still believe and comfort your friend or would you say to her what you wrote here, that you just can't be sure she's speaking the truth so she should go to the police and hope her case makes it to court and a jury finds the neighbour guilty, otherwise you can't support her since you don't want to jump to conclusions?

See, I agree with you on principle that the accused deserve a fair hearing and we should not rush to judge them. On the other hand, in the case of rape it's clear that an otherwise admirable position of "innocent until proven guilty" just does not hold and can even be immoral (as I would argue is the case in the scenario above where you would not be there for your friend just because she is not able to prove in a court of law that she was raped). I would hope that you would trust your friend on her word either way and not demand cold hard proof lest you remain undecided. And if your friend makes the courageous decision to go to the police and her story gets picked up by the local media, I assume you would be hurt by suggestions of random strangers that your friend may be making this all up for selfish reasons and we should offer our sympathies to the alleged rapist for possibly being a victim of false allegations.

Given the data we have on the rare instances of false rape allegations, I do not think "guilty before proven innocent" is a radical or undesirable position - provided there are no clear motives or evidence to suggest the allegations are false. In the case of celebrities or wealthy people there is a possible ulterior motive, such as fame or money, which could lead to false allegations so I would withhold my judgment there. If there is evidence to suggest the accuser is not reliable or trustworthy, I would also withhold judgment. But if it's a dear friend accusing her non-wealthy, non-famous neighbour, then no, I'm not going to pressure my friend into going to court before I would offer her my unconditional support.

Try conversing with victim's advocates or others who are passionate about rape victims and you'll have a very difficult time trying to speak with them about Michael. You'll be accused of victims blaming even when that's not what you did and they'll say people like you are the reason victims don't come forward. It doesn't matter that we have decent evidence and reason not to believe the claims against him, many of them simply do not want to hear it.

I understand that but I also think this is why Michael Jackson fans have a particular blind spot when it comes to this because they relate all discussions about false rape accusations back to him, even though his case is in no way representative of rape allegations in general. I have never seen a more obvious example of shady accusers with clear ulteriour motives, impossible allegations that are easy to disprove and a proud bias against the accused on the part of LE, the media and the public at every turn. That said, if you framed your argument the same way you did here I can understand why rape victim advocates would take umbrage.

Finding a middle ground with this whole subject can be extremely difficult. Personally, I think that when an accusation of this nature is reported and taken to trial, the public shouldn't be made aware of it until a verdict has been given, especially in high profile cases. That way, in the case of genuine victims, they don't have to put up with months of hearing about people's opinions or speculation from talking heads in the media and for the falsely accused, they won't have to put up with months of the same with media that is quick to decide their guilt. Without all the opinions flying around during the course of an investigation or trial I think that could make it easier for victims to come forward knowing they won't have to put up with as much from the public.

This is another argument that sounds reasonable at first glance but that also has its problems. For example, what about victims who are afraid to come forward because they fear they will not be believed or who try to minimise what happened to them because they think it was an isolated incident. Do they not have a right to know that there are other potential victims out there who have found the courage to report this crime to police? Do they not have a right to build a stronger case together rather than risk having one accuser going to court and losing because her individual claim did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[HIStory]

Given the data we have on the rare instances of false rape allegations, I do not think "guilty before proven innocent" is a radical or undesirable position - provided there are no clear motives or evidence to suggest the allegations are false. In the case of celebrities or wealthy people there is a possible ulterior motive, such as fame or money, which could lead to false allegations so I would withhold my judgment there. If there is evidence to suggest the accuser is not reliable or trustworthy, I would also withhold judgment. But if it's a dear friend accusing her non-wealthy, non-famous neighbour, then no, I'm not going to pressure my friend into going to court before I would offer her my unconditional support.

I find a "guilty until proven innocent" stance in anything extremely problematic. Not only rape/sexual abuse is difficult to prove but MJResearcher also pointed out that it is next to impossible for an accused to prove a negative - that he did not do it. So how will we treat people automatically guilty without any good evidence? I find that VERY problematic. And if he never 100% manages to prove his innocence - not because he is guilty but because it is not possible to prove a negative?

Also, there can be reasons for people to falsely accuse others other than money or fame. Revenge. Anger over something else. Trying to get custody rights over your kids. To name a few.

You talked about "what if the victim is your friend". In that case I'd be automatically supportive of a person whom I know and trust. That's what friends do and in that case, due to the personal relationship, it's OK to be automatically biased. But you know, I am sure some of Robson's friends believe him too - simply for the reason that they are friends and they trust him. Sometimes we may be mislead by even our friends and sometimes we do not know our friends well enough. But that doesn't mean that as a friend of an alleged victim I would not automatically assume he or she is telling the truth until it is proven otherwise. That's OK in that situation when you are close to that person.

However, I think most of the time we are outside onlookers when we hear about such cases and I agree that in those cases where you don't have any reason to automatically side with either party based on a personal relationship, it is important to keep a distance from both and be level minded and fair and not automatically jump to emotional conclusions. Eventually I think you have to judge each case individually and not based on statistics (whatever those statistics may be). I have often heard MJ haters use the argument "false allegations of sexual abuse are rare therefore it's very unlikely that all these guys in MJ's case are making a false allegation". I am not going to start talking about what's wrong with that fallacy - I am sure you know. So judge each case on its own merit, not based on how likely or unlikely you think false allegations are.

 

[MJresearcher]

My problem is not with discussing the possibility of false rape allegations but with vastly overstating their prevalence. This constant focus on false allegations makes it seem like they are far more common than they are, which is very damaging to genuine victims who are hesitant to come forward because they fear they will not be believed. And if feminists in particular have a problem with this, it is because there has been an agenda for a long time to portray women who speak out about rape as liars, attention seekers or partly responsible for what happened to them.

I haven't overstated the prevalence of false claims, I don't know where you're getting that idea from. I get that people will be more biased because of how victims have been and still are treated but that's not an excuse to be a hypocrite by assuming guilt in every case.

Are you sure about that, given that it's notoriously difficult to convict someone of rape and most reported rapes never even make it to court? The "innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't fly here because, as you said yourself, in many cases it's impossible to prove rape.

Yes, I am sure about that. Being neutral; not reaching a conclusion either way and listening to someone who makes a claim and taking them seriously aren't mutually exclusive.

This sounds great in theory but imagine if your best friend, whom you know to be an honest decent person, confides in you and tells you she was raped by her neighbour a year ago. You confront the neighbour and he denies the allegations vociferously. It's her word against his. Would you still believe and comfort your friend or would you say to her what you wrote here, that you just can't be sure she's speaking the truth so she should go to the police and hope her case makes it to court and a jury finds the neighbour guilty, otherwise you can't support her since you don't want to jump to conclusions?

Having a friend make a claim to you isn't the same as hearing about a claim in the news. I do in fact have a friend who has made claims about her (deceased) father, another man who is currently in prison for rape and even her own husband before he died. She hasn't given me a reason to think she's being dishonest about any of it. If she did I wouldn't ignore that but I may not say anything. Besides that, how does being neutral mean that you can't listen to someone or even go to the authorities with them? Again, these things aren't mutually exclusive. Besides that, believing someone and claiming to know they're telling the truth are two very different things. Belief and knowledge aren't the same. Do you think Safechuck's family and friends believe him? Or Robson's? Do they "know" he was abused or do they believe it? Unless there is video footage of a crime happening or you were there to witness it then you could not factually claim to know something is true or false, we can't even factually claim to know that Michael is innocent because we weren't there when he was alone with any of the accusers and do not have video footage showing their entire time together but that doesn't mean we can't believe he was innocent based on the evidence we have. The same is true for if or when an honest friend claims to us that something has happened to them.

See, I agree with you on principle that the accused deserve a fair hearing and we should not rush to judge them. On the other hand, in the case of rape it's clear that an otherwise admirable position of "innocent until proven guilty" just does not hold and can even be immoral (as I would argue is the case in the scenario above where you would not be there for your friend just because she is not able to prove in a court of law that she was raped). I would hope that you would trust your friend on her word either way and not demand cold hard proof lest you remain undecided. And if your friend makes the courageous decision to go to the police and her story gets picked up by the local media, I assume you would be hurt by suggestions of random strangers that your friend may be making this all up for selfish reasons and we should offer our sympathies to the alleged rapist for possibly being a victim of false allegations.

As I said above, admitting that you don't factually know something for sure doesn't mean you can't be there for a friend, there aren't only two options available in this situation, it's a false dichotomy. People making comments on the internet usually don't know the accuser or the accused, they have a more limited scope there but I also know that there's a big difference between people discussing possibilities and outright claiming someone is a liar too. Unless there's good reason to doubt a claim I agree that people should refrain from claiming that someone is a lair. Wondering about it as a possibility is something I view differently because it's a preponderance of possibility rather than a claim that the person actually is lying.

Given the data we have on the rare instances of false rape allegations, I do not think "guilty before proven innocent" is a radical or undesirable position - provided there are no clear motives or evidence to suggest the allegations are false. In the case of celebrities or wealthy people there is a possible ulterior motive, such as fame or money, which could lead to false allegations so I would withhold my judgment there. If there is evidence to suggest the accuser is not reliable or trustworthy, I would also withhold judgment. But if it's a dear friend accusing her non-wealthy, non-famous neighbour, then no, I'm not going to pressure my friend into going to court before I would offer her my unconditional support.

In the court of public opinion or real court too? I can't agree. We may not get the relevant evidence we need to help us decide what to think about a case before it goes to court (if it goes to court) so does that make it ok then to assert guilt? Again, neutral is where I stay on that.

I understand that but I also think this is why Michael Jackson fans have a particular blind spot when it comes to this because they relate all discussions about false rape accusations back to him, even though his case is in no way representative of rape allegations in general. I have never seen a more obvious example of shady accusers with clear ulteriour motives, impossible allegations that are easy to disprove and a proud bias against the accused on the part of LE, the media and the public at every turn. That said, if you framed your argument the same way you did here I can understand why rape victim advocates would take umbrage.

I was talking about when you give those people the relevant evidence regarding Michael. Due to their biases these people still find a way to believe the claims against him and to argue that he was guilty and you're a horrible person for not believing the claims. If you don't believe that you may want to try it some time.

This is another argument that sounds reasonable at first glance but that also has its problems. For example, what about victims who are afraid to come forward because they fear they will not be believed or who try to minimise what happened to them because they think it was an isolated incident. Do they not have a right to know that there are other potential victims out there who have found the courage to report this crime to police? Do they not have a right to build a stronger case together rather than risk having one accuser going to court and losing because her individual claim did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

You don't have to give out a name for that to happen. If for example the accused works at a school, there could be a press release stating there has been an allegation against a teacher at the school, giving the name of the school but not the person. This significantly narrows down enough that a victim could put two and two together. When my brother was 16 we took him to the police regarding sexually explicit messages he had received from a 28 year old man. The age of consent in my country is 16 so the police couldn't do anything since my brother had been consenting up until that point but they took down the man's name and details about what he had said to my brother so that if someone else made a complaint about him the police would be able to see that a similar incident had taken place before.