DEREK HALE IS GONNA PRETEND TO BREAK YOUR SHIT AND THEN LAUGH ABOUT IT.
DEREK HALE IS GONNA TEASE YOU FOR BEING STRESSED OUT BUT THEN OFFER YOU AN ENCOURAGING SMILE.
DEREK HALE IS GONNA SMIRK LIKE A DOUCHE AND THEN SIT WITH YOU AND TELL YOU HE KNOWS YOU’RE GONNA DO A GOOD JOB.
DEREK HALE, PROFESSIONAL OLDER BROTHER.
Ravenclaws with huge communal bookshelfs that tower to the ceiling. It’s become tradition that when you leave Hogwarts, you leave behind a copy of your favorite book, so they have books dating back centuries.
Every class I’ve taken and textbook I’ve read in relation to this has confirmed the 2% statistic as well. So I’m gonna go with the academic consensus rather than faceless commenters on the internet.
I was VERY surprised to read this, so I did a little digging. The Department of Justice put out a research report that, among other things, goes into the source of that 1 in 4 statistic. Key line is page xxviii, where Neufeld and Scheck (the Innocence Project founders) do claim that “every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained…the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.”
The pair go on to qualify that with some fairly restrictive limitations on which rapes are in consideration here. They also acknowledge a number of reasons DNA tests might result in false negatives, but I’m not concentrating on that here. For that 1 in 4 statistic to carry, all four of the following factors must be true:
1) identity is at issue (no consent defense);
2) non-DNA evidence was an eye-witness identification;
3) the arrest or indictment was based on that non-DNA evidence; and
4) sperm was recovered from a place making identity dispositive.
So, let’s break down what this means. 1 in 4 men will not be falsely accused of rape in their lifetime. That’s a gross misrepresentation of what Neufeld and Scheck wrote. What’s more, the sample explicitly excludes cases where consent is an issue. So, cases where there’s no dispute about whether the two people had sex? Not considered. One of the other statistics that gets thrown out there is that in at least two thirds of all rape cases (sometimes the estimate is higher), the victim knew her rapist. We’re not really dealing with them here.
It’s dealing purely with witness misidentification in cases where they had DNA evidence, and didn’t use it. Notice what I wrote there? Witness misidentification. While that could presumably include these “false rape” accusations, what it’s likely dealing with are women who were actually raped, but were unable to identify their rapist.
That same year, the FBI estimated that 8% of complaints about forcible rape were “unfounded” - this is on the higher end of what you’ll see in studies. Things I can’t stress enough: unfounded does not mean false. If a woman finds herself under pressure by the community and recants? That’s generally considered unfounded.
In short: yes, witness misidentification is a very serious problem — in cases of rape, and in many other crimes. But it feels like when I see people throwing around these particular statistics, it’s not about issues of identification — it’s an attempt to accuse the victims of fabricating the crime. And that’s not what these statistics were addressing.
Thank you for taking the time to clear this up!
Two scientists walk into a bar.
The first scientist says “I’ll have a glass of H2O”
The second scientist says “Who comes into a fucking bar for a drink of water? I’ll have a beer.”
It smells like maple syrup outside and now I want waffles.
The Avengers are every person you see in high school.
The shy nerd
The asshole you just can’t hate
The hot foreign guy
The quiet guy who’s always playing guitar and probably smoking something
His bitchy/bad ass girlfriend (depending on if she likes you or not)
The emo kid that somehow gets all the chicks
And that one cheerleader that EVERYONE knows has a hard-on for the athlete