Thread

Silicon Valley 'sex assault list' with 'over 100' names circulated

94 points · 122 comments · Anon84

Havoc · 1790342300 · focus · HN ↗
Sad that they feel this is necessary.
Also feels like something that could be life ruining if someone innocent finds themselves on the list by mistake/fluke. This is presumably crowdsourced which is not bulletproof
1. add-sub-mul-div · 1790343177 · focus · HN ↗
  Interesting that every instance of sexual assault is preemptively doubted by default, whereas that's not a primary part of the conversation for accusations of other crimes like arson, theft, embezzlement, etc. False accusations of any crime could hurt the accused, that's more or less an unavoidable tautology of the legal system. There's just one kind of crime where public conversation obsesses about that, though.
  1. Havoc · 1790343921 · focus · HN ↗
    I wouldn't say "every instance" is is preemptively doubted, but there is a wikipedia page on false accusations for a reason. With most studies indicating double digit % of false accusations. (and some numbers far higher than I would have guessed [0])
    I'd say a better phrasing is that innocent until proven guilty applies - just like with other crimes. Crowd sourced lists aren't that so treating them with some caution is warranted.
    I can see how even an unreliable list may be of use practically to women though even if process wise it is quite dubious.
    [0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estimates_of_prevalence" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estim...
    GrinningFool · 1790345075 · focus · HN ↗
    Your source doesn't really say what you're stating though. The ranges seem to be 4-13%, with the majority closer to 8. The one that was highest for the US (10%) was a self-reporting survey that asked people if they had been falsely accused -- surely not the most reliable method.
    Havoc · 1790346348 · focus · HN ↗
    I was looking at the table further down - UK results. Even ignoring the studies marked dubious it's still averaging well into double digits
    GrinningFool · 1790347682 · focus · HN ↗
    The criterion for being considered false accusations in that table seems to be 'no charges filed'. Even in those cases, the disclaimers are pretty strong:
    > The police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounded" criteria.
    > It is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" because many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies.
    roryirvine · 1790356250 · focus · HN ↗
    In the UK, charges can only be brought if there is sufficient admissible, credible, and reliable evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
    It's a fairly high bar - it's not simply a matter of the alleged victim deciding to "press charges" as is sometimes portrayed in the media, and is subject to significant external oversight (it's not just the police who are involved).
    So "no charges filed" is very very different to "unfounded" in the UK, which rather casts doubt on any part of this table which is conflating the two.
    GrinningFool · 1790363570 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair, but isn't that the nature of these accusations? It's almost always one party's word against another's. So insufficient corroborating evidence seems to mean no witnesses or paper trail.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.