Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the definition of a false report in sexual assault cases?
Executive summary
Definitions vary, but authoritative practice-based definitions converge: a “false report” of sexual assault is one that a thorough investigation shows was deliberately fabricated — i.e., evidence establishes no crime was completed or attempted and the complainant knowingly lied (EVAWI; Crime & Justice Research Alliance) [1] [2]. Methodological differences across studies and police coding practices produce widely different headline rates (commonly cited 2–10% ranges), so prevalence numbers depend on the definition and investigatory rigor used [1] [3].
1. What experts mean by “false report” — intent and investigation
Practitioner guidance and researchers typically require two elements before labeling a report “false”: (a) evidence from a thorough investigation that no sexual assault was completed or attempted, and (b) an affirmative finding that the complainant deliberately fabricated the report. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and EVAWI say a false determination should rest on investigation evidence establishing no crime occurred, not on initial impressions or incomplete inquiries [1] [4].
2. How “baseless,” “unfounded,” and “false” differ in practice
Police and scholars distinguish “false” (deliberately fabricated) from “baseless” or “unfounded” (insufficient evidence to meet legal criteria, recantation, or other reasons). Many reports coded “unfounded” may reflect lack of proof rather than deliberate lying; researchers warn police labeling practices can hide nuance by lumping categories together [5] [6] [7].
3. Why definitions matter for statistics and public debate
Because some agencies count only cases where investigation proved fabrication while others include recantations or “no evidence” decisions, headline rates vary. Methodologically rigorous studies that use strict definitions tend to find lower confirmed false rates (often around 2–8% when stringent criteria are applied), while looser police coding or older studies produce higher figures [1] [3].
4. Representative definitions used in key studies
Academic work that aimed for clarity defined false reports as “reports deliberately fabricated by the victim,” separating them from baseless reports where the complainant did not deliberately lie but evidence was insufficient [2]. EVAWI’s guidance echoes this by saying a report can only be called false if evidence establishes no crime was completed or attempted after thorough investigation [1].
5. Examples of variance: low, mid, and high estimates explained
Meta-analyses and practitioner reviews often place confirmed false reports in the low single digits — e.g., a 5.2% estimate from a meta-analysis cited by Wikipedia and other reviews — while some police studies and older reports have produced much higher percentages when using different coding practices or not distinguishing baseless/unfounded from intentionally false [4] [3] [8].
6. Practical consequences of coding choices
Labeling a report “false” has legal, social, and policy implications: it can lead to charges for filing a false report in some jurisdictions and shapes public perceptions about prevalence. Critics say overbroad “unfounding” discourages victims from reporting and inflates perceived false-claim rates; others highlight that deliberate false reports do occur and waste resources [7] [9] [10].
7. Competing perspectives and methodological critiques
Some researchers and advocates emphasize that false reports are rare and urge strict standards before declaring a report false because misclassification harms victims [3] [7]. Other commentators and some law-enforcement studies have historically reported higher false rates, sometimes without the same investigatory standards; those findings have been critiqued for methodological flaws [11] [4].
8. What sources do not settle (limitations and gaps)
Available sources do not mention a single universally adopted legal definition that applies across all jurisdictions; definitions vary by agency, study, and legal system. They also do not converge on one definitive prevalence number because of inconsistent definitions and investigative rigor [1] [3].
9. How to read future statistics responsibly
When you see a percentage cited, check the source for how “false” was defined and whether the determination followed a “thorough investigation” standard. Prefer studies or agency reports that explicitly separate “false” (deliberate fabrication) from “baseless/unfounded” (insufficient evidence) and that document investigatory steps [1] [2].
If you want, I can summarize specific study definitions and prevalence figures in a table (e.g., EVAWI guidance, LAPD study, meta-analyses) and flag which use strict versus broad definitions.