“ A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.”
Right, that’s what I was saying. In order to just keep adding 1% every year, y…
“ A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.”
Right, that’s what I was saying. In order to just keep adding 1% every year, you first of all need to keep assuming that there are no repeat offenders over the course of 50 years. This is a poor enough assumption over one year (I made it in order to leave no room for quibbles about my final figure), but over 50 years it’s ridiculous.
And the 1%/yr isn’t *likely* dramatically inflated, it’s *deliberately* and clearly inflated, by me, to make a point. You can see the inflations I make at each point in the calculation. So if making a lifetime calculation, you can’t start from that dramatically inflated point (the figures came from Statista.com which seems to estimate above FBI figures based on past years).
But yes, churn comes into this because the category of man isn’t static. So even if you *were* trying to make a lifetime calculation from that inflated point, you couldn’t get there by simply multiplying by the number of years, right? Otherwise, if we found that 2% of men committed rape in a given year, and tried to calculate over 50 years, wed discover a serious problem.
And at the very minimum, you’d need to start with a (still dramatically inflated) figure of 0.27% of men per year.
“ A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.”
Right, that’s what I was saying. In order to just keep adding 1% every year, you first of all need to keep assuming that there are no repeat offenders over the course of 50 years. This is a poor enough assumption over one year (I made it in order to leave no room for quibbles about my final figure), but over 50 years it’s ridiculous.
And the 1%/yr isn’t *likely* dramatically inflated, it’s *deliberately* and clearly inflated, by me, to make a point. You can see the inflations I make at each point in the calculation. So if making a lifetime calculation, you can’t start from that dramatically inflated point (the figures came from Statista.com which seems to estimate above FBI figures based on past years).
But yes, churn comes into this because the category of man isn’t static. So even if you *were* trying to make a lifetime calculation from that inflated point, you couldn’t get there by simply multiplying by the number of years, right? Otherwise, if we found that 2% of men committed rape in a given year, and tried to calculate over 50 years, wed discover a serious problem.
And at the very minimum, you’d need to start with a (still dramatically inflated) figure of 0.27% of men per year.