So, lately, this so-called infographic (which spreads nothing but disinformation) has been circulated on Tumblr:
Since so many people don’t seem to realize the numerous faults in it, I shall attempt to cast light on them and update the above graphic accordingly.
1.) It lists victims of false accusations in the “not reported” group
I wonder if the people at the Enliven Project even know what a false rape accusation IS, seeing as they apparently think it doesn’t involve reporting it. The correct place for them would be in the “reported” group, as follows:
2.) Padding data with “unreported” cases
It’s quite fascinating to see all the supposed statistics on what people never report. Newsflash, everyone: statistics are DIRECTLY BASED ON REPORTS. You can estimate the number of unreported cases, but that’s called GUESSING, and has no place in actual statistics. Thus, the “unreported” block should be removed in its entirety.
(Funnily enough, upon removing the “unreported” group, it comes down to exactly 100 figures, and they represented the 2% of all cases being false with 2 figures… Proof of padding? You be the judge.)
3.) It assumes “guilty unless proven innocent”
Note how before its removal, the “unreported” block actually said “rapists”? Apparently, while false accusation cases should be held to the highest standard of evidence (requiring one not only that they did not commit rape, but that they had absolutely no means to commit it in the first place), rape cases should be held to the lowest, and if someone says they have been raped, we should just take it at face value (unlike ANY OTHER crime) and consider the accused a rapist right away!
Blatantly skewed. Truth is, without decisive evidence, a case cannot be proven, thus it could be one, it could be the other. And since for the purposes of this reasoning, the difference between whether or not a case reaches court doesn’t matter, the two groups will be meshed together here.
And finally…
4.) Calculating with the lowest possible number of false accusations
Even according to the Enliven Project, the reports of (conclusively) false cases range from 2% to 8%. Why, then, did they choose to use the absolute lowest value? To diminish its importance, of course. Unlike them, I will be fair, and instead of using the maximum value, use its median: 5%.
Here’s reality, stripped of propaganda.
10% of cases are conclusively true.
5% of cases are conclusively false.
And any amount of the remaining 85% could be true/false.
And you expect us to believe that even though one-third of the conclusive cases have been proven false, none of the remaining 85% are?
The facts are here. Do what you will with them.
