Advocates are correct to note that this "2-10%" includes some mistakes - true rape victims might be very confused in their testimony or might recant because they get frustrated with the justice system - but it still should probably be regarded as a lower bound on the actual number of false accusations, as it's a subset of the full total.
False accusations that wouldn't show up in this measurable "2-10%" include (a) those in which the accusation is plausible, consistent and the accuser does not recant, (b) false accusations that aren't ever brought to the police.
The amount of people who were raped and never went to the police could be much higher than the amount of people who lied to the police about being raped.
Pretty sure. my guess is that the true number is at least 15%, based largely on the sort of accounting found here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-so...
(The lower bound is 2-10%; the upper bound is 20-40%)
> The amount of people who were raped and never went to the police could be much higher than the amount of people who lied to the police about being raped.
This is true, but here is a factor you are overlooking:
"While rape victims have some incentives to report their cases to the police – a desire for justice, a desire for safety, the belief that the evidence will support them – false accusers have very strong incentives not to – too much work, easier revenge through other means, knowledge that the evidence is unlikely to support them, fear of getting in trouble for perjury if their deception gets out. So I consider it a very conservative estimate to say that the ratio of unreported to reported false accusations is 4:1 – the same as it is with rapes. A more realistic estimate might be as high as double or triple that."
The actual figures are an unknown proportion of the vast majority of the middle (further complicated by the large, and variable, proportion of sexual assaults that go unreported) and any study requires a lot of guesswork. The decision to report an assault, accurately or otherwise, is also evidently not an event independent of other reports of similar assaults, especially since many come after the allegations and name of the accused are revealed.
I didn't read the study, but how could anyone know this? I suppose you could assume that a conviction means that the accusation is true, and that exoneration means that accusation is false, but there are a lot of cases where it's not known one way or another. I would be surprised if 90%+ of accusations result in a conviction, so the study must be assuming that any accusation is true if the accused is not exonerated.
There are also other, like if one party believes an assault took place and the other does not, or if the accusation is true but the perpetrator is misidentified.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that the statement above (alone, out of context) is not well supported by evidence.