All crimes are underreported. I look at it at it this way. Even if sex crimes are underreported in a huge way at the end of the day the issue we all have with the Registry and not with people being prosecuted with sex crimes. Often the argument about underreporting makes the assumption that someone who committed a sex crime has committed many prior to being caught which were unreported and will commit many more that will go unreported. This is a false assumption. If it were true, then the sex offense rate amongst people who are on the registry would be much higher than it is. Instead, almost everyone convicted of new sex crimes are not on a registry. The logical (and mathematical) conclusion is therefore that the vast majority of unreported sex crimes are also being committed by people not on the registry. So to me I say the fact that there’s so much underreporting is just another example of why the registry is completely useless as a public safety tool and is definitely not a valid argument to be used in favor of having a registry.

I have covered the underreporting myth on my own websuite in detail. The short answer is that underreporting studies like the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS) rely on self-reporting. They ask folks if something happened they think may be a ctime then ask if they reported it, and if not, why they didn’t.

It is unreliable because not every act can be a crime. In the NCVS, they use ‘attempts” which means “any action that makes one think a crime could be imminent.” So if a guy hits on a gal & she’s uncomfortable about it, that could make her say that was an ATTEMPT at sexual assault.

Since most folks are simple minded, however, they need simple answers. That’s why folks like spewing numbers without thinking about where these numbers came from.

Everything that is self-reported in situations like this is always under-reported because there is no such thing as 100%.

Yeah. I recently read an article about the death of Peter Yarrow of Peter Paul and Mary. He’d gotten involved with a 14-year-old girl at one time, years ago. The very first sentence in the article pointed this out. Only after that did it talk of his storied musical career. It is all about eyeballs, and sex sells.

What data is there to show that the crimes are being underreported? Not that people and lawmakers listen to data.

Well said @EdC. After reading this article initially at the CA sibling org website a while back, it has had time to marinate within subconsciously to the point where you’d think those who do this media job for a living could catch a clue about being more truthful in their headlines and reporting.

Sadly, no, just as @Derek says above, they’re up to their usual shock value tricks for clicks.

Only this time, NBC made an even worse stat. They did not even try to take false allegations into account.

Lamestream media is back to their tired old tricks.

While that 96% figure could be accurate for rapes and sexual assaults, I question its validity for child sex abuse cases. We all know that over 90% of child abuse happens within the family or with trusted associates who are known to the victim. In those cases, the perpetrator is easily identified. Even a large number of sexual assaults are committed by someone who is known to the victim; again, easily identified.

The implication that 96% of child sex abuse allegations go unsolved, could easily distort the danger in the minds of those who are not educated as to the real threats. This works to reinforce misconceptions about the registry. If so many cases go unsolved, a casual reader might presume these were perpetrated by unknown strangers, i.e. prior sex offenders, rather than trusted associates.

The data used in the report was collected and analyzed by reporters, who are generally not statisticians that understand pitfalls in data. Add to that the acknowledged inconsistency in data reporting from various jurisdictions, and the uncertainty only increases. Plucking out the 96% figure may produce a great headline, but it sheds little light on the problem.