10 ms·

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

irb 9y ago
That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.
- Vadoff 9y ago
  A false accusation is different from an accusation that wasn't provable. There have been many cases of false accusations in which it was proven that the accuser was intentionally lying in order to get revenge or reap some reward. There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits to having lied, but with zero legal consequences.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits "admits" can be a loaded word. The accuser claims. Hopefully, their accusation was not the only evidence in the first place.
    - tajen 9y ago
      In France the state's prosecutor is the accusation, and cites the victim as a witness. That allows pursuing the trial if the victim is pressured to remove the complaint.
      - tatersolid 9y ago
        The same is true in the USA, the district attorney can and often does prosecute crimes on behalf of the state without any victim "pressing charges".
- jlebrech 9y ago
  i'm sure you can acquit someone based on insufficient evidence and not lock up the accuser. but in some cases when evidence was manufactured the defence can come up with something that implicates the accuser.
- hdhdbebbbdhdvd 9y ago
  > then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted That's not how criminal justice works. That's not even how torts work.
- nopatternhere 9y ago
  > Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that. That's not how it works, is it? it is not a battle where someone has to be guilty - either the accused or the accuser. Someone can be acquitted without anyone lying, or making false statements, or anything else. Just a few examples: insufficient evidence to prosecute, contradictory timelines. It is bizarre that anyone thinks that this could be the system - get a conviction or suffer a conviction yourself. There is a spectrum between provable accusations and demonstrably false claims that includes uncertainty, doubt and poor evidence. It isn't like going all-in in poker!
  - irb 9y ago
    Ok, that's fair, I was being a bit over dramatic. However, I still think that the kind of 'eye for an eye' approach proposed by the comment I was relying to would have a non-trivial, negative impact on the reporting of crimes. Just as guilty people can be acquitted, innocent people can be found guilty (even if it's not automatic), and this means that the accuser is exposing themselves to risk. Fundamentally, no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime.
    - Banthum 9y ago
      >no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime The rub is, they should have to worry about the consequences, if they're making a bad-faith false report. They should have to worry a lot, because they themselves are committing a wrong by reporting a false crime in such a way. It's an incredibly hard problem, though.
      - nopatternhere 9y ago
        > because they themselves are committing a wrong I think you mean crime, not wrong.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  It can be structured so that an accuser does not automatically become guilty of false accusations because the accused was found 'not guilty'. In other words, sexual harassment cases can have 3 verdicts : 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'other'( technicalities, not enough evidence etc). Then, you will still need to prove that the perpetrator knowingly accused someone of sexual harassment for some gain. Looks fairer to me
- ThomPete 9y ago
  No that would mean that it would have to be proven that the claim was false with intent.
- belorn 9y ago
  The idea seems directly connected with an other idea that is sadly fairly common: assumed guilt. If we assumes that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, then the power imbalance is so great that we need to increase the counter weight by increasing the cost of false accusations. Personally I prefer the old system of innocent until proven guilty. You loose the mob justice, and you can't demand a lower standard of evidence, but in return people can report crimes without fear of repercussions. It is a fair trade, with the only drawback that a guilty person will have their punishment delayed until the justice system concludes with a guilty verdict.
  - amag 9y ago
    In Sweden we had a minister of justice a couple of years ago who thought it would be a good idea that persons suspected of buying sexual services (which is illegal in Sweden) got their court order sent in a special large purple envelope. The purpose was that they would then be both publicly shamed (by the mailman, neighbors and what not) as well as would be less able to conceal it from their spouse.
    - 77pt77 9y ago
      Kind of like your voting system? I hear it has effectively no privacy. See for example https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6130994 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar...
      - amag 9y ago
        Hehe, yeah, voting is a joke. First take the ballot of your preferred choice in clear view of everybody (unless you care enough about your voting privacy to take one ballot of each choice) then go behind a screen to put that one ballot everyone has already seen and put in a fully opaque (as in black inside) envelope.
        77pt77 9y ago
        > unless you care enough about your voting privacy to take one ballot of each choice And then you have just singled yourself out as someone with something to hide and in small towns that is usually a problem.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  If you apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, it's not a bad idea. It should be proven that the accuser lied to get condemned. I would expect this to happen not that often - basically never when it's just "my word against your word" - but it would create a big risk for those who are rationally plotting to launch a false accuse - in the unlikely but possible case that evidence is found that they willfully lied, eg if there was a witness they didn't know about, if there was a recording of what happened, etc.
peteretep 9y ago
This has the side-effect that real victims are put off from filing charges, which is generally thought to be not a good thing.
- notgood 9y ago
  False accusations are the ones proven to be false; and not every single one that couldn't be confirmed by court or by a jury.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Which suggests an obvious course of action: - true accusation - punish the perpetrator - false accusation - punish the accuser - unable to confirm either way - nothing happens I still don't understand why some people have so much trouble with this concept and want to bias towards "guilty until proven innocent" thinking. And yes, I know that in civil cases in the US, it's "preponderance of the evidence" and not "presumption of innocence". It still means you should get punished only if your deed is proven (in Bayesian sense) more likely to be true than false.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - adekok 9y ago
      > I still don't understand why some people have so much trouble with this concept and want to bias towards "guilty until proven innocent" thinking. Witch hunts are exciting. It's also empowering to believe that you're one of the "good guys", going after those dastardly "bad guys". TBH, it's the same thinking behind any pogrom. "Those people" are rich, so breaking in and stealing everything is on the side of justice. "Those people" have secret cabals which rule the world, so it's OK to abuse and attack any individual you see. The people with that attitude aren't aware of history. That attitude has been tried before in many countries. The end result is genocide. It doesn't start out that way. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    - peteretep 9y ago
matt4077 9y ago
Do you believe that the harm of being raped is about equal to the harm of a false conviction for rape? I'd actually tend to "yes", but it's probably impossible to answer. People react very different, and the prevalence of suicide is actually higher among rape victims than for people sentenced to long prison sentences. But the real problem is: The penalty in your comparison would be for rape, whereas the accusation was just a failed attempt. Yes, that is usually harmful as well, but it's no longer comparable.
- olegkikin 9y ago
  I'd rather be raped than spend years in prison. Time is more precious than momentary pain/shame. Plus I hear rapists (real or falsely accused) are treated extra badly in prisons.
  - Anthony-G 9y ago
    It shouldn’t take a great deal of imagination or empathy to realise that the pain, shame and the psychological consequences of rape can last a very long time. Self-worth, esteem, confidence, and trust in others can be destroyed resulting in depression, anxiety disorders and other debilitating conditions such as social withdrawal. Depending on the trauma of the experience and the resilience of the individual, it can take years to rebuild their life.
    - olegkikin 9y ago
      I agree. But I think all of the issues you listed would be much worse by being in prison for a few years, especially as a rapist (real or falsely accused).
- freeflight 9y ago
  Without belittling the severity of rape, yes I believe it can actually be quite more harmful/destructive. Falsely accused rarely get rehabilitated even when it turns out they had been innocent, their career, their reputation, their social circles, it will be all ruined and with that comes distress of the mind. People are quick to throw around guilt, once that's in the room your reputation will be sullied forever as everybody still has this nagging "Well, he could still have done it" thought. Case in point: The German teacher Horst Arnold. In 2001 a female coworker accused him of having raped her during a break at school. He denied the charges and in 2002 he was sentenced to 5 years in jail. He served his time and, due to a series of random events, in 2008 it came to light that the female coworker, who got him into jail, has a rather long history of lying and misrepresenting facts. In 2011 he was declared innocent, but he was denied rehabilitation into his job as a teacher and any monetary compensation for the time spent in jail. He fought for this until 2012, when he was found dead on the street due to cardiac arrest.
michaelt 9y ago
If someone is already in jail because of a false rape allegation, is their situation improved if the only person who can get them released would be jailed for doing so?
- talmand 9y ago
  If they are removed from prison, then yes, their situation improves.
  - michaelt 9y ago
    Perhaps I was too succinct in the point I was trying to make. The reason we don't punish people for retracting wrongful allegations is because we want people to retract wrongful allegations. If you're in jail on a false rape claim, you'd rather the accuser went free and you were released; than that you stayed in jail because the accuser didn't want to take your place.
    - qb45 9y ago
      Of course this needs to be done with care because retraction shouldn't be a reliable get-out-of-jail card if you use false accusations as a normal way of conducting business ;)
Grustaf 9y ago
This has been a feature of several legal systems, at least since Hammurabi. Another interesting concept during the inquisition was that the accused, before he knew who accused him, had the opportunity to list all his mortal enemies, and if the accuser was among them he was set free.

irb 9y ago

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

Vadoff 9y ago
A false accusation is different from an accusation that wasn't provable. There have been many cases of false accusations in which it was proven that the accuser was intentionally lying in order to get revenge or reap some reward. There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits to having lied, but with zero legal consequences.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits "admits" can be a loaded word. The accuser claims. Hopefully, their accusation was not the only evidence in the first place.
  - tajen 9y ago
    In France the state's prosecutor is the accusation, and cites the victim as a witness. That allows pursuing the trial if the victim is pressured to remove the complaint.
    - tatersolid 9y ago
      The same is true in the USA, the district attorney can and often does prosecute crimes on behalf of the state without any victim "pressing charges".
jlebrech 9y ago
i'm sure you can acquit someone based on insufficient evidence and not lock up the accuser. but in some cases when evidence was manufactured the defence can come up with something that implicates the accuser.
hdhdbebbbdhdvd 9y ago
> then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted That's not how criminal justice works. That's not even how torts work.
nopatternhere 9y ago
> Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that. That's not how it works, is it? it is not a battle where someone has to be guilty - either the accused or the accuser. Someone can be acquitted without anyone lying, or making false statements, or anything else. Just a few examples: insufficient evidence to prosecute, contradictory timelines. It is bizarre that anyone thinks that this could be the system - get a conviction or suffer a conviction yourself. There is a spectrum between provable accusations and demonstrably false claims that includes uncertainty, doubt and poor evidence. It isn't like going all-in in poker!
- irb 9y ago
  Ok, that's fair, I was being a bit over dramatic. However, I still think that the kind of 'eye for an eye' approach proposed by the comment I was relying to would have a non-trivial, negative impact on the reporting of crimes. Just as guilty people can be acquitted, innocent people can be found guilty (even if it's not automatic), and this means that the accuser is exposing themselves to risk. Fundamentally, no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    >no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime The rub is, they should have to worry about the consequences, if they're making a bad-faith false report. They should have to worry a lot, because they themselves are committing a wrong by reporting a false crime in such a way. It's an incredibly hard problem, though.
    - nopatternhere 9y ago
      > because they themselves are committing a wrong I think you mean crime, not wrong.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
supremesaboteur 9y ago
It can be structured so that an accuser does not automatically become guilty of false accusations because the accused was found 'not guilty'. In other words, sexual harassment cases can have 3 verdicts : 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'other'( technicalities, not enough evidence etc). Then, you will still need to prove that the perpetrator knowingly accused someone of sexual harassment for some gain. Looks fairer to me
ThomPete 9y ago
No that would mean that it would have to be proven that the claim was false with intent.
belorn 9y ago
The idea seems directly connected with an other idea that is sadly fairly common: assumed guilt. If we assumes that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, then the power imbalance is so great that we need to increase the counter weight by increasing the cost of false accusations. Personally I prefer the old system of innocent until proven guilty. You loose the mob justice, and you can't demand a lower standard of evidence, but in return people can report crimes without fear of repercussions. It is a fair trade, with the only drawback that a guilty person will have their punishment delayed until the justice system concludes with a guilty verdict.
- amag 9y ago
  In Sweden we had a minister of justice a couple of years ago who thought it would be a good idea that persons suspected of buying sexual services (which is illegal in Sweden) got their court order sent in a special large purple envelope. The purpose was that they would then be both publicly shamed (by the mailman, neighbors and what not) as well as would be less able to conceal it from their spouse.
  - 77pt77 9y ago
    Kind of like your voting system? I hear it has effectively no privacy. See for example https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6130994 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar...
    - amag 9y ago
      Hehe, yeah, voting is a joke. First take the ballot of your preferred choice in clear view of everybody (unless you care enough about your voting privacy to take one ballot of each choice) then go behind a screen to put that one ballot everyone has already seen and put in a fully opaque (as in black inside) envelope.
      - 77pt77 9y ago
        > unless you care enough about your voting privacy to take one ballot of each choice And then you have just singled yourself out as someone with something to hide and in small towns that is usually a problem.
danmaz74 9y ago
If you apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, it's not a bad idea. It should be proven that the accuser lied to get condemned. I would expect this to happen not that often - basically never when it's just "my word against your word" - but it would create a big risk for those who are rationally plotting to launch a false accuse - in the unlikely but possible case that evidence is found that they willfully lied, eg if there was a witness they didn't know about, if there was a recording of what happened, etc.

peteretep 9y ago

This has the side-effect that real victims are put off from filing charges, which is generally thought to be not a good thing.

notgood 9y ago
False accusations are the ones proven to be false; and not every single one that couldn't be confirmed by court or by a jury.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Which suggests an obvious course of action: - true accusation - punish the perpetrator - false accusation - punish the accuser - unable to confirm either way - nothing happens I still don't understand why some people have so much trouble with this concept and want to bias towards "guilty until proven innocent" thinking. And yes, I know that in civil cases in the US, it's "preponderance of the evidence" and not "presumption of innocence". It still means you should get punished only if your deed is proven (in Bayesian sense) more likely to be true than false.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adekok 9y ago
    > I still don't understand why some people have so much trouble with this concept and want to bias towards "guilty until proven innocent" thinking. Witch hunts are exciting. It's also empowering to believe that you're one of the "good guys", going after those dastardly "bad guys". TBH, it's the same thinking behind any pogrom. "Those people" are rich, so breaking in and stealing everything is on the side of justice. "Those people" have secret cabals which rule the world, so it's OK to abuse and attack any individual you see. The people with that attitude aren't aware of history. That attitude has been tried before in many countries. The end result is genocide. It doesn't start out that way. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - peteretep 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

Do you believe that the harm of being raped is about equal to the harm of a false conviction for rape? I'd actually tend to "yes", but it's probably impossible to answer. People react very different, and the prevalence of suicide is actually higher among rape victims than for people sentenced to long prison sentences. But the real problem is: The penalty in your comparison would be for rape, whereas the accusation was just a failed attempt. Yes, that is usually harmful as well, but it's no longer comparable.

olegkikin 9y ago
I'd rather be raped than spend years in prison. Time is more precious than momentary pain/shame. Plus I hear rapists (real or falsely accused) are treated extra badly in prisons.
- Anthony-G 9y ago
  It shouldn’t take a great deal of imagination or empathy to realise that the pain, shame and the psychological consequences of rape can last a very long time. Self-worth, esteem, confidence, and trust in others can be destroyed resulting in depression, anxiety disorders and other debilitating conditions such as social withdrawal. Depending on the trauma of the experience and the resilience of the individual, it can take years to rebuild their life.
  - olegkikin 9y ago
    I agree. But I think all of the issues you listed would be much worse by being in prison for a few years, especially as a rapist (real or falsely accused).
freeflight 9y ago
Without belittling the severity of rape, yes I believe it can actually be quite more harmful/destructive. Falsely accused rarely get rehabilitated even when it turns out they had been innocent, their career, their reputation, their social circles, it will be all ruined and with that comes distress of the mind. People are quick to throw around guilt, once that's in the room your reputation will be sullied forever as everybody still has this nagging "Well, he could still have done it" thought. Case in point: The German teacher Horst Arnold. In 2001 a female coworker accused him of having raped her during a break at school. He denied the charges and in 2002 he was sentenced to 5 years in jail. He served his time and, due to a series of random events, in 2008 it came to light that the female coworker, who got him into jail, has a rather long history of lying and misrepresenting facts. In 2011 he was declared innocent, but he was denied rehabilitation into his job as a teacher and any monetary compensation for the time spent in jail. He fought for this until 2012, when he was found dead on the street due to cardiac arrest.

michaelt 9y ago

If someone is already in jail because of a false rape allegation, is their situation improved if the only person who can get them released would be jailed for doing so?

talmand 9y ago
If they are removed from prison, then yes, their situation improves.
- michaelt 9y ago
  Perhaps I was too succinct in the point I was trying to make. The reason we don't punish people for retracting wrongful allegations is because we want people to retract wrongful allegations. If you're in jail on a false rape claim, you'd rather the accuser went free and you were released; than that you stayed in jail because the accuser didn't want to take your place.
  - qb45 9y ago
    Of course this needs to be done with care because retraction shouldn't be a reliable get-out-of-jail card if you use false accusations as a normal way of conducting business ;)

Grustaf 9y ago

This has been a feature of several legal systems, at least since Hammurabi. Another interesting concept during the inquisition was that the accused, before he knew who accused him, had the opportunity to list all his mortal enemies, and if the accuser was among them he was set free.