leff@smu.UUCP (08/25/84)
#R:trwrba:-88700:smu:18900007:000:491 smu!leff Aug 24 17:18:00 1984 The figure is not unreasonable (at least for women in big cities). IN Dallas there are 700 rapes / year (reported). There are 500,000 women. Population divided by two. Performing the indicated operations that means 7 per cent of all women will be raped. (Assuming there is a 50 year window). 700 rapes --------- * --------------- * 50 year = .07 year 500,000 women If one takes estimates that 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 rapes are actually reported, a 1 in 3 figure is reasonable.
bill@apl-uw.UUCP (Bill Hanot) (08/30/84)
Re: 50 year rape record in Texas city
Your method of computing this statistic ignores the fact that over
50 years the population will not be static; many new women will be
born or move into the population, as others will die or move out.
I would suspect for a population of 500,000 women in a city over
50 years, the number of different women living there for some period
would number several million at least, so that really throws your
results out the window, doesn't it?
Note: this is not to deny the seriousness of rape as a societal
problem. Let's just watch carefully how we play with numbers.edhall@randvax.UUCP (09/02/84)
] From: bill@apl-uw.UUCP (Bill Hanot) ] ] Your method of computing this statistic ignores the fact that over ] 50 years the population will not be static; many new women will be ] born or move into the population, as others will die or move out. ] ] I would suspect for a population of 500,000 women in a city over ] 50 years, the number of different women living there for some period ] would number several million at least, so that really throws your ] results out the window, doesn't it? ] ] Note: this is not to deny the seriousness of rape as a societal ] problem. Let's just watch carefully how we play with numbers. Let's watch carefully, indeed. The figures used are rates, and not absolute numbers, so increasing/decreasing population is compensated for. The result is a rate, too, though for emphasis the question ``what are the results of this rate over an average lifetime'' is asked. I think most people are smart enough to realize that this is valid only for someone who actually spends their life there (though, of course, ``you gotta live somewhere''). And there certainly are a lot more assumptions built into an aggregate statistic of this type (such as the assumption that the current rate will remain constant). However, it does give a *feel* for the degree of risk that I don't think is inaccurate. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall