General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Porn. Rape? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some of the responses in this thread would be appropriate if the OP had said "conclusively refutes" instead of "does seem to counter" -- but that's not a reasonable interpretation of the vague phrase.
As a lawyer, I tend to look at these things from the perspective of a trial. Suppose, somehow, one issue in a trial was whether increased availability of porn causes an increase in the incidence of reported rapes. When you have a fact (e.g., incidence of reported rapes is down 80% from 1973 to 2003, during which time porn became more available) and a proposition (e.g., increased availability of porn does not cause an increase in the incidence of reported rapes), here are some standards that are not the legal standard for admissibility of evidence:
1. The fact conclusively establishes the proposition.
2. The fact establishes the proposition beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The fact makes it more likely than not that the proposition is true.
Here's the actual legal standard of relevance:
4. The fact makes the truth of the proposition more likely than it would be without the fact.
At this hypothetical trial, the chart in the OP would be admissible. (More precisely, an objection of irrelevance would be overruled. I'm not considering whether there are other objections that might be sustained.) Also admissible would be countervailing facts such as the influence of demographics on incidence of major crimes, the decline in other major crimes, the increasing tendency of police departments to distort the statistics to make themselves look good, etc.
If one takes "does seem to counter" in this sense -- treating it as just one piece of evidence -- then the statement is true.