Thanks

And Wisconsin, Rew made that statement about guilt and innocence because I asked him to approximate how many people in his experience in prison were innocent. There is no way to know or to prove how many factually innocent people there are, I was just asking for someone who would have an interesting take on the situation since he was falsely accused and for one whose opinion I respect.

He wasn't trying to paint everyone with a broad brush, just in his experience, that is what he saw.

Earlier I stated that by helping inmates with their cases and reading the transcripts while in prison, I felt that close to 1 in 20 or 5% of the inmates in prison for sex crimes were stone cold innocent. This was a ball park figure on my part, but I did not think I was far off.

I thought about that and then decided to look at some scientific studies that had been performed dealing with false convictions.

One such study performed by the National Academy of Science in 2014 place the percentage at 4.1%, so I was at least in the ball park. This particular study was not confined to sex offenders, but I think the results for sex offenders would be comparable. In fact, since so little evidence is required for an arrest and conviction on a sex offense, it may be a little more than 4.1%, but I don't think by much.

http://tinyurl.com/mpgtk28

But to be fair, I found another study done by an respected group that placed the rate at anywhere from 8% to 15%. It was not near 15% in my experience with the inmates I worked with. That is almost one in six inmates serving time for a sex crime for which they had no part. I find that hard to believe.

The percentage of false convictions is nothing close to the zero that District Attorneys and victim rights groups would have you believe, but it is also not near the 15% that other groups would have you believe. Fifteen percent is just too high, at least it was to high for the men I helped with their cases.

The majority of men in prison for any crime, including sex crimes, are guilty-------maybe not guilty as charged but complicit in the crime in some way---not stone cold innocent---for which they are serving time; at least that was my observation during the time I worked in the law library.

rewdiazepam

Advocate,

Can you at least see the other side? Do you understand where I'm coming from? The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, perception equals reality. The perception of sex offenders by society as a whole is that we don't take responsibility for our actions. I know you aren't using the statement that people can land on the registry for urinating in public or Romeo and Juliet as a way to minimize sex offenders responsibility in their offense. However, it can be construed that way, and sgsin perception equals reality even though I know you aren't intending it the way if is being perceived.

My problem with the statement is that saying you can get in the registry for benign crimes is only looking at a tiny portion of sex offenses and sex offenders. If I had to guess less than 10% of people on the registry are there for these issues. So while it is true you can get on it for these reasons, it does not speak to the majority of crimes, so it is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I compare it our adversaries argument of stranger danger. I hate it when ignorant people use the idea of stranger danger to limit what sex offenders can do. 9 out of 10 children are abused by someone they know and usually it's by someone they know quite well. So I see similarities in these two situations. Both occur rather infrequently in comparison to the whole, and both can be misconstrued to mean something they are not when they are wrongly applied to the rest of the 90%.

And Echo what is your opinion of this? You dropped the video and we never heard your opinion lol!

Rew, I think overall it maybe 5% but when you break it down into categories certain subsets will be higher, such as those accused in a custody case. I've read false accusations in that group alone can run25-35%...nowas to it actually making it to court or a plea? I don't know but it stands to reason that more people convicted in those cases are probably innocent. And again, there seems to be a growing thing with teenage girls and false accusations... it will be interesting in coming years to see how or if the numbers change

Where are you getting the numbers faery? I have seen academic studies that mentioned 8% of accusations were false but never 35%. I'd be curious to see some differebt research than what I've read.

I'll have to go back on my PC and find that bookmark. The article was talking about ALL accusations in a custody specfic situation, and not just those that proceeded to court. They were including instances where one person (usually female) would make an accusation against their ex, whether or not there was follow-up. The article also mentioned about how allegations or even hints there of, are used as weapons in custody and support cases.

And as for the teenaged girl thing, I admit I have no studies for that, just what I personally have gleaned from discussions with currant and past Children and Youth workers and their personal observations.

I should clarify, I've seen studies that say false accusations are as high as 8%, not that they are 8%. I'd be really curious to see their methodology for the study that was 35% false accusations in custody cases.

Also keep in mind false accusations don't necessarily mean that is the same number of false convictions.

Also, I'm not argueing much about the 5% thing, I think it's probably close. I was more wondering outloud how it would look if we did a further breakdown. Which group or groups would make up the larger portion of that 5%?
I'm pairing that with things I know or, am aware of, like in my town there's a certain group or culture of people who call Children and Youth on each other as payback.
So, I'm just curious is all

I think the article was including any and all instances of person "A" speaks out either publicly or privately against person"B" and of course it was rough study done for that article vs. Something more scientifically proven.
I wonder too if they use unfounded cases with children services or just the ones the police handled.

I totally agree that false ALLEGATIONS are a much larger number than five, eight, or even ten percent. I don't have an idea of the percentage but the false allegations of completely innocent people----not convictions----have to be a much greater percentage.

Many of these never result in charges, but there is an investigation. Most are dropped because the investigators realize that the complainant was not reliable.

When you consider all the custody cases, the divorce cases, and the cases in which young girls just concoct stories, then yeah, the percentage of false allegations increases enormously.

But I dealt with convictions of inmates in prisons. I had no data to work with regarding allegations that never resulted in charges.

rewdiazepam

What about those that didn't come to the law library to try to defend themselves and were just resigned to their fate?

I don't have any scientific proof that the false accusation and conviction rate is higher than 5% or even 15% but I believe it is probably a lot closer to 15% than it is to 5%. Remember there are people that are convicted off the accusation alone pretty much and because there is no DNA but just a one person's word against the other, there is no legal recourse in many of those cases to exonerate anyone.

Then there are the allegations that never result in charges or convictions which I think is probably all of 35% or higher knowing what I know about teen girls and their ability to be vindictive to get what they want or get back at someone. Not considering any of the consequences of their actions. It is one reason why I believe that when they are found false they should be charged with obstruction of justice and the other charge that is about supplying false statements and lying... perjury wouldn't apply as it wasn't in court. But the act of making a false accusation to me is just as much of a crime as what they were accusing someone of... at least in my eyes...

The problem is that could have a chilling effect on real victims coming forward. I wouldn't be opposed to polygraphing, since it works so well -- Har har.

If someone were assaulted they come forward they are supported by the VAW Act. When they are found to have not told the truth or admit later that what they claimed didn't happen, then what? Nothing? They did break the law, where are the consequences for that? That is what they say to offenders, you broke the law, regardless if you knew the consequences for your actions you are still responsible.

If the false accuser is a minor it will remain in juvenile court, the likelihood that they will go to jail is slim, but it will scare the hell out of them and it will probably show them and their friends that false accusations get you no where. You prosecute a vindictive mother in a divorce situation, it will teach other mothers to not make false accusations against the men they are divorcing.

So what I am saying in a nutshell is that VAW Act protects all victims even if they are liars at first. When they are found to be liars they should be prosecuted in the court that is appropriate.

No need for polygraphs, use the same burden of proof that is required in the court, which will vary on the court.

doing this shouldn't put fear in to those that wish to come forward. Because the rules are the same there would just be consequences if you aren't telling the truth. Those that are rich and would have gotten off any way via attorneys and intimidation will still be able to do that as they do now. But for the rest of the population they don't have that kind of cash and the system is set up to protect that fact, it is just not utilized.