[ZeroGravitas]

I think we should take statistics into account.

I think there's a likelihood that someone will lie about being raped, and a likelihood of them identifying a named individual (two numbers that should be considered seperately, since young girls who fall pregnant may lie to avoid blame, while not trying to blame anyone in particular).

I think that similarly, there's a percentage of retractions that will also be false, for various reasons.

This is similar to the statistics question about whether someone has cancer when a test comes back positive. It depends on the accuracy of the test and the base rate.

I could easily believe that there's more false retractions than false accusations (both as a percentage and an absolute number) so I'm not sure a retraction actually increases my belief in their not being a rape, particularly if a specific person is named, without taking into account other specific evidence.

[slimed]

This is exactly the problem. You want to determine guilt based on what you believe is generally true about the world. Not about the facts of the case at hand.

The negative ramifications of this mindset for the accused are hard to overstate.

[ZeroGravitas]

How is that not equally true of anyone who makes the opposite determination?

We have no information besides a third party report of an accusation and a retraction.

My understanding of the world is that false accusations are rarer than many people think and false retractions are more common.

There's negative ramifications that are hard to overstate to that as well.

[slimed]

Have you considered that it is not your job to make a determination?

If someone shares a story like this you politely believe them and move on, comfortable in the knowledge that it may or may not be true.

"Your understanding" is purely anecdotal.

[wnoise]

> you politely believe them and move on, comfortable in the knowledge that it may or may not be true.

You have a very different understanding of the word "believe" than I do.

[slimed]

Someone may be speaking honestly but still be incorrect.

When I believe someone I am making a judgement that they are not deceiving me, not that they are infallible.

[manfredo]

It isn't different from the opposite determination in that sense. But the burden if proof is on the accuser (or at least it was, until recently), as expecting people proving a negative is often not feasible.

[AndrewThrowaway]

I think you must be crazy to mix in statistics.

That's why each individual case is being judged individually according to evidence, facts gathered and etc.

With the same mindset you could say that if a member of some group is accused of murder, he must probably be guilty because this group of people statistically are convicted more that exonerated?