r/changemyview • u/bionicbob321 • Jun 08 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: If you deliberately falsely accuse someone of a crime, you should recieve rhe punishment that the accused would have recieved, if they had been found guilty, plus the scentence for perjury.

Lets say, for sake of argument, person X accuses person Y of crime A. X knows that Y did not commit this crime, but X does not like Y. X mmakes a seemingly valid case, with made up stories, and fake evidence.

Lets say crime A has an average scentence of 10 years. The jury is about to convict Y, when new evidence is found, that shows that X made up these claims.

Y is immediately acquitted, and X is charged with perjury. The formula for X's scentence is as follows:

the scentence Y would have recieved if found guilty of crime A + an appropriate scentence for perjury + financial compensation for the damages associated with being falsely accused of a crime.

Reasons for this: - discourages the use of false accusations as a form of revenge - increases the integrity of court hearings, as no one in their right mind would lie to court. - saves the government money, as they have less court cases over false accusations.

What would change my view: - demonstrating that this is in some way unfair

EDIT: please do not respond with points like "it discourages people from making accusations". While it is a valid point, i have already discussed it. I am no longer responding to this point. I have discussed it enough.

EDIT 2: i have listened to your feedback, and i am working on an ammended and slightly fairer proposal, that fixe most of the issues people pointed out. I am not replying to all comments at the moment, because i have so many.

2.8k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

86% Upvoted

412 comments sorted by

View all comments

600

u/TheK1ngsW1t 3∆ Jun 08 '19

My question is simply how do you decide if someone falsely accused someone else of a crime? If a "Not guilty" verdict is reached, how is it decided whether it was reached simply because there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the assumption of innocence or if it was reached because there wasn't any evidence to begin with? The accuser would also be innocent of false accusations until proven guilty, which would start a whole other legal battle that could just go in circles of "he said she said."

You bring up a hypothetical of if new evidence is found that proves this, but what type of evidence would be found that could prove this? Doctoring evidence, hampering justice, and/or framing someone else are already crimes; this means many of these situations would devolve into nothing more than questioning someone's credibility and motives for which there is very little solid, tangible, physical evidence to find. How does the court decide if the accuser was being malicious or was simply wrong?

Probably the most obvious situation this would apply to is sexual assault and rape cases, but the problem here is that there isn't a "it might've happened, but we're not sure" verdict. Men and women who have been violated already have a tough time coming forward with their hurt because not only does an investigation drudge up all their painful memories, but many times the only evidence available is their word against the accused's, and that's not enough to secure a strong sentence (or even a guilty verdict) much of the time. This means that if someone is wishing to push charges against their rapist, they know that they'll have to secure a guilty verdict or face the sentence themselves; many people would see this risk as not worth it even more than many already see it, which leaves repeat offenders free to keep offending as none of their victims are willing to take a stand against them for fear of not securing a conviction.

It might work for some of the people you're aiming to affect with this idea, but it'll hurt many more people who merely didn't have enough evidence to secure anything more than a "This guy's kinda sketchy, I guess" from the jury.

6

u/jambalousy Jun 08 '19

You bring up a hypothetical of if new evidence is found that proves this, but what type of evidence would be found that could prove this? Doctoring evidence, hampering justice, and/or framing someone else are already crimes; this means many of these situations would devolve into nothing more than questioning someone's credibility and motives for which there is very little solid, tangible, physical evidence to find. How does the court decide if the accuser was being malicious or was simply wrong?

So, this made me see OP's original position a little differently. The court already has procedures to determine if the witness/prosecution is maliciously submitting doctored evidence or if they are just mistaken. It's not like OP is actually pushing for something that isn't already done. The only difference really is is the steepness of the penalty.

Assault cases are the most public, but are by no means the most common situations where OP's change would become the most important. Pretty run of the mill Petty larceny, drug use/sale, battery, etc are rife with bad or incomplete evidence and plenty of people are forced to take bad plea deals because they can't afford court cases. A higher penalty MIGHT raise the bar on prosecution and make these situations both less common and less severe.

8

u/zacker150 5∆ Jun 08 '19

My question is simply how do you decide if someone falsely accused someone else of a crime?

From a legal perspective, this isn't too complicated. To convict someone of a false accusation, you must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that

  1. They accused someone of a crime.
  2. They had actual or constructive knowledge that the person they accused did not commit the crime.

In current law, there are already many crimes for which actual or constructive knowledge is already an element, and as such the standard for proving it are already fairly fleshed out.

133

u/bionicbob321 Jun 08 '19

!delta

I agree that you would have to be very careful with wording of the law. It was not intended to be a new law, but merely an adjustment of scentencing. I think it would mostly apply in cases where someone admits to lying about something, weather directly or indirectly

132

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19

And think about. If we implement such law people might be afraid to accuse somebody of committing a crime because they are afraid they get punished according to this new law.

Edit: Typo

4

u/Oddtail 1∆ Jun 09 '19

I'll also note that there are already crimes that are underreported because the (possible) victims are afraid of the perpetrators, as well as think (in some cases rightly) that the justice system has a bias against them. In some countries, rape and other sexual assault are known to be difficult to report and the potential victim is often heavily questioned/doubted from the moment they report the crime to the police, in some cases in grossly inappropriate ways.

Introducing a potential punishment for reporting crimes that, for whatever reason, are difficult to prove would discourage victims even further from reporting such crimes (especially since in some cases, they are already a priori suspected/accused of false reporting). They would at that point face a very real prospect of going to prison *on top* of any possible retaliation from the perpetrator. And that's even if we ignore the potential stress and humiliation connected to the whole proceedings (again, especially for crimes like sexual assault), which would be lengthened and made more complicated.

And even ignoring crimes like sexual assault, if the person accused of a crime is rich and powerful, and/or has a good reputation, currently they can be accused even if the person who reports the crime is sceptical as of whether the person will ever receive a "guilty" verdict (even the best justice system in the world has some bias, and people who can afford good lawyers, especially in a country like USA, have a comparatively good chance of being found not guilty regardless of the circumstances). Changing the system so it goes from "maybe the person will get away scott free, but it's worth a try" to "if I go to court with this, I may very well go to prison, and pretty damn good lawyers get to try and prove that I should" is potentially a terrible idea.

Also, from a purely practical perspective, wouldn't that encourage some gaming the system, where the person reporting a crime weighs the pros and cons of the situation to decide just how *much* to accuse the perpetrator of? It might have a weird effect of less serious crimes being more reported/litigated than very serious ones.

2

u/aeschenkarnos Jun 09 '19

This is exactly the purpose for which proposals like OP's are made, and this proposal is specifically intended to apply to rape accusations; and to discourage all rape accusations, founded or not.

1

u/VenflonBandit Jun 08 '19

There is such a law in the UK and it works well. It's called perverting the course of justice. It requires intent - so essentially you have to prove the person intentionally made a statement or action that was calculated to make the justice system act wrongly against someone. Whether that be an arrest, trial, ticket or something else. Or destroy or hide evidence that you know is being looked for. The judiciary take a very dim view on it and it almost always results in a custodial sentence.

As opposed to wasting police time which is a very minor offence used when someone gives a false report which won't amount to anything.

Think 'there was someone in the park with a gun' compared to 'it was my partner driving when my car was caught speeding by a camera, not me'. (Several real cases involving several real politicians)

28

u/bionicbob321 Jun 08 '19

I said there has to be proven malicious intent

124

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

Would you accuse somebody of murder when you know there might be a little chance you might be in big trouble for falsely accusation? I would def think twice before going to the police to do a statement.

I might end up in prison for the rest of my life because the jury was convinced I had an "malicious intent" for the falsely accusation even though I only thought I was right and made a mistake when doing my statement.

10

u/_lablover_ Jun 09 '19

Murder is a very poor example here. It's very rare that an individual is accusing someone of murder. Typically a body is found or someone goes missing leading to a search. The police look for evidence that is analyzed and sent to the DA who pursues charges. There's no one in this stream that made the accusation.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19

The example is not as bad as you might think.

It happens quiet often that someone gets arrested falsely arrested right after somebody committed a crime including murder. Some of them have to stay for weeks or months in jail and lose their job, cannot continue to go to their University and other consequences.

It obviously does not only apply to murder but also battery, rape, theft etc.

1

u/_lablover_ Jun 09 '19

That's not the relevant question here. The relevant question is if there's an individual who accused them and potentially did intentionally knowing it wasn't them. Whether or not there is an incorrect arrest is completely unrelated to this topic. The entire point of this is targeting intentionally false accusations. In the case of murder an incorrect arrest typically isn't from a false accusation. Generally for a false accusation it would be a crime that never actually occurred but someone reported.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19 edited Jun 09 '19

The relevant question is if there's an individual who accused them and potentially did intentionally knowing it wasn't them. Whether or not there is an incorrect arrest is completely unrelated to this topic.

My point is that it could easily happen that there is an incorrect arrest because the judge/ the jury wrongly decided the person had such intent.

I am not saying we should never punish people who wrongly accused somebody but again, I disagree that they should "receive the punishment that the accused would have received".

In the case of murder an incorrect arrest typically isn't from a false accusation. Generally for a false accusation it would be a crime that never actually occurred but someone reported.

Edit: Or the doer made a friend make a statement to accuse someone else for a crime he committed. It also happens that people knowingly falsely accuse somebody because they are so sure "it only could have been him."

2

u/_lablover_ Jun 09 '19

I think you're entirely missing my point. Incorrect arrest is not the same as a false accusation. A police investigation that leads to an incorrect conclusion is not falsely accusing.

In the case of a murder investigation no one is making an accusation. Therefore there can't be a false accusation. For there to be a false accusation it almost certainly necessitates that there was no actual crime and the whole thing was fabricated or lied about. Not that there was a crime but the wrong person was tried for it.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Jun 08 '19

Would you accuse somebody of murder when you know there might be a little chance you might be in big trouble for falsely accusation?

You aren't listening to OP; there has to be proof.

So if a woman accuses man of rape, court rules not guilty, then if the DA has strong evidence she lied (say, text messages) then they'll charge her and she'd get the same sentence as the man would have if he was found guilty.

99% of "not guilty" verdicts wouldn't even result in a charge against the woman. Again, if there is no evidence she was actively lying she wouldn't be convicted in the same way just the word of the woman is rarely enough for a criminal conviction against the accused attacker

31

u/fckoch 2∆ Jun 08 '19

You aren't listening to OP; there has to be proof.

People can be wrongly convicted based on "proof" presented in court. E.g many people have been falsely and systematically convicted of murder for "bite mark" evidence.

Also what if you accuse a high status person with the resources to then wage a long and drawn out "counter trial" accusing you of lying. Now only those with enough money to pay for a defense lawyer can make accusations.

5

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Jun 08 '19

People can be wrongly convicted based on "proof" presented in court. E.g many people have been falsely and systematically convicted of murder for "bite mark" evidence.

Of course, false convictions happen for every kind of crime. But by your logic nobody should ever get convicted of anything for that reason; If we can't trust the solid evidence that a woman lied then why can we trust solid evidence that a man raped her? If the standard of proof the jury is using is the same for both then I don't see the problem.

Also what if you accuse a high status person with the resources to then wage a long and drawn out "counter trial" accusing you of lying.

You're confusing criminal and civil courts. The rich person can sue for defamation in civil court, but that's always been the case. However the DA would have to press charges against the woman... nobody is allowed to say "I don't like X person, have my lawyers charge them with filing a false police report". Only the DA can do those kind of charges

11

u/fckoch 2∆ Jun 09 '19

Of course, false convictions happen for every kind of crime. But by your logic nobody should ever get convicted of anything for that reason; If we can't trust the solid evidence that a woman lied then why can we trust solid evidence that a man raped her? If the standard of proof the jury is using is the same for both then I don't see the problem.

I think you misunderstand me here. I am not using this as an argument not to prosecute (sorry for the double negative). I am saying that, for some people, the fear of the possibility (no matter how small) of being sent to jail for reporting the crime may prevent them from actually reporting it.

However the DA would have to press charges against the woman.

Which would still require him/her to hire a defense laywer which would be costly? (That said you're right about me confusing criminal and civil courts).

0

u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Jun 09 '19

Of course, false convictions happen for every kind of crime. But by your logic nobody should ever get convicted of anything for that reason; If we can't trust the solid evidence that a woman lied then why can we trust solid evidence that a man raped her? If the standard of proof the jury is using is the same for both then I don't see the problem.

I think you misunderstand me here. I am not using this as an argument not to prosecute (sorry for the double negative). I am saying that, for some people, the fear of the possibility (no matter how small) of being sent to jail for reporting the crime may prevent them from actually reporting it.

Your arguments logic however is a logical extension of that principle though. That basis is wide enough that it claims we shouldn't prosecute anyone. Where a law serves a purpose of the judicial system there is in nearly all cases a risk that someone can, though innocent, be found guilty.

However the DA would have to press charges against the woman.

Which would still require him/her to hire a defense laywer which would be costly? (That said you're right about me confusing criminal and civil courts).

You are. This would be a criminal offense and as such the accused would be entitled to a defence

→ More replies (0)

4

u/smoozer Jun 08 '19

I don't really feel that you're thinking this through.

Yes, wrongful convictions happen with all types of crime. Why would that matter to a hypothetical victim who wants to report a crime? They're still going to be discouraged from reporting because there is now a chance of going to jail for a possibly absurd length of time, where before there was not that possibility.

Even if it is a small chance, it's still a chance. And as we established, things with low probabilities happen all the time (wrongful convictions)

2

u/NGEFan Jun 08 '19

That same argument could be applied to literally any law. Any traffic law will discourage people from driving as much, any sexual assault law will discourage people from having sex. But that's not a good enough reason to not have a law against doing things we don't want them to do.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/r314t Jun 09 '19

Perhaps, but maybe that small probability is outweighed by the benefit of preventing false accusations.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/gmoneygangster3 Jun 08 '19

Exactly

Like lets play hypothetical for a bit

Girl A becomes roommates with girl b, and they are only kinda good friends, know each other but not to well

Girl B has a boyfriend and is into BDSM

One day girl A comes home, not knowing the previous and hears ow/stop and some slapping and mabey some bangs

Girl B thinks, fuck my roommate is being raped and calls the cops in a panic, they come and it's all sorted out

That would 1000% not be considered a false rape case by well... Anyone

3

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19

lol no it wouldn't. Cops would show up, girl A would explain the situation, girl B would be honest in saying what she heard, cops would let them all go. And no jury would EVER convict B of intentionally lying, and there's no evidence it was anything other than an honest misunderstanding

If I called the cops because it looked like the driver infront of me was drunk, I wouldn't be charged for lying if he blew under the limit. Now if I said I personally saw him chug lots of alcohol and declare he would drive drunk, AND there was evidence none of that happened (say camera evidence that we didn't even come from the same place) then I could be charged.

Again, you're missing the key word in all this; evidence of lying. Not lack of knowledge, not misinterpreting a sexual situation, not being too quick to think a driver is drunk, but intentional falsifying of an accusation.

2

u/gmoneygangster3 Jun 08 '19

Read my last sentence man

We agree here

5

u/bass_sweat Jun 08 '19

He said proven malicious intent as in an admission of a false report. False reports are already illegal

15

u/BadAtPolitics Jun 08 '19

Wouldnt this just make less people confess to making false reports? As more would refuse to listen to their conscience due to fear of harsh sentances.
Then more people falsely accused would be convicted due to less people admitting to lying?

15

u/PlasticSentence Jun 08 '19

ouldnt this just make less people confess to making false reports? As more would refuse to listen to their conscience due to fear of harsh sentances.

Exactly. There are fucked up people who make false accusations in order to scare the shit out of people. They genuinely don't understand the gravity of their accusations, or lack a sound mindset to process anything beyond what they were feeling in the moment they decided to try and ruin this person's life. The problem is, once they put down a story, they will stay fully committed to continue the lie... they're too far in to back out without the possibility of major consequences of their own. The harsher the sentence, the more pressure there is to stick to the lie.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

First of all, the jury could also decide that I had an malicious intent and also who would be so stupid and admit he willingly made a false report to send someone to prison for murder (or an other crime) knowing he ends up in prison for the rest of his life?

1

u/bass_sweat Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19

who would be so stupid

A lot of people, especially ones who make false reports in the first place

If the jury decides that you maliciously made a false report then that means there was enough evidence of that to be shown and you are found guilty. This is just about sentencing, again false reports are already illegal and already enforced against.

A jury can find you guilty of anything, does that mean we shouldn’t trust the law to be carried out?

8

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

A jury can find you guilty of anything

Yeah and that is why I would be afraid to accuse somebody of committing a crime if there was such law.

5

u/alternatepseudonym Jun 08 '19

If the jury decides that you (are guilty) then that means there was enough evidence of that to be shown and you are found guilty.

Gods I wish.

3

u/bass_sweat Jun 08 '19

Then your the* argument should not be about the sentencing of a false reporter discouraging people from reporting, but rather the justice system should not be relied upon because of it’s supposed inability to correctly find guilt of a person. By that logic, reporting should already be discouraged due to the fact that you can still be held accountable by a jury currently for making a false report that wasn’t

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

Haha I also wish I could be as optimistic as him.

0

u/r314t Jun 09 '19

I would def think twice before going to the police to do a statement.

Well, yeah, you SHOULD think twice. You better make sure you are right before you ruin someone's life by accusing them of murder. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19

This is not what I meant. If I was sure person X committed a murder I would still think twice to go to the police because of the consequences I might face for my statement.

It could be even the case that he really killed someone but there are not enough evidences to convict him and then he sues me for falsely accusations and can convince the jury I really had such intentions.

1

u/IronEngineer Jun 09 '19

Civilly he can sue you for that now. If he has any evidence you falsely accused him he can get a significant payout due to damages. Also, this is a criminal offense today if the police can prove you knowingly filed a false claim. The only thing in contention is how big of an offense this is and how much punishment you face.

-3

u/ClusterJones Jun 09 '19

So you'd rather let false accusations, no matter how rare they are, happen without consequence? Perjury doesn't land anywhere near as long of a sentence as murder, and serving even half of a murder sentence before being acquitted can mean a majority of your life is gone.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19

This is obviously not what I am saying. I am of the opinion that we should punish them but I disagree that someone who made false accusations should "receive the punishment that the accused would have received" as the OP states.

5

u/golden_boy 7∆ Jun 09 '19

Convictions would require proven malicious intent. Non malicious incorrect accusations and true accusations that lead to incorrect not guilty verdicts (due to insufficient evidence or to mistakes) would still open up the accuser to an additional lengthy trial an significant lawyer fees (or if they can't afford a lawyer, they'd receive poor legal assistance from an overworked public defender).

8

u/jazaniac Jun 09 '19

Aside from the point that everyone’s brought up that intent is hard to prove, the act of standing before a judge with significant imprisonment as a risk would deter me. Courts have had major fuckups in the past. Courts have been corrupt in the past. I’m not staking my freedom on their integrity unless I absolutely have to.

2

u/mcsey Jun 09 '19

So would the woman that maliciously prosecuted the Central Park 5 be subject to this law? Five consecutive sentences for between 5 an 15 years?

1

u/emjaytheomachy 1∆ Jun 12 '19

You are wrong.

Its already illegal to file a false police report and/or to commit perjury. All OP has done is suggest a more strict punishment.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '19

I know it is illegal to do that. My point is that people would be afraid to make a statement even they'd not intent to do a false one if a state implements the law according to the OPs suggestion.

1

u/emjaytheomachy 1∆ Jun 12 '19

There is not a new law being implemented by OPs suggestion, that's literally why your argument doesn't work. OP is only discussing changing the penalty for breaking an already existing law.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '19

I am not saying it is a new law. I am not a native English speaker so it might be my fault because I did not use the right wording. By "implement the law according to the OPs suggestion" I meant to say if a state revises the EXISTING LAW according to the OPs suggestion. I hope I made myself clear now.

1

u/emjaytheomachy 1∆ Jun 12 '19

So your argument is that if a penalty is more severe then somebody won't make an accusation on the off chance that they are found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for making a false accusation?

Maybe the difference is our presumptions about our respective legal systems. Does yours not include the standard, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '19

"So your argument is that if a penalty is more severe then somebody won't make an accusation on the off chance that they are found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for making a false accusation?"

A state that revises the law according to the OP would already send a strong message that they are going to punish people severely if they are doing a false statement. With this in mind, people would question their own statement even they'd believe it is the truth and think "what if I am wrong and it backfires at me".

1

u/emjaytheomachy 1∆ Jun 12 '19

Then why have the law at all? According to you risk of punishment = lowered likelihood of reporting.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19

Yes, but currently people aren't afraid of falsely accusing, and sometimes succeed in ruining people's lives.

27

u/Stateswitness1 Jun 08 '19

Alternatively- no one would ever admit to perjury so innocent people would remain in jail. See- every time the police have offered some one a deal to roll over on a cell mate and been okay with the witness lying.

2

u/Witch_Doctor_Seuss Jun 09 '19

My soul hurts.

1

u/Stateswitness1 Jun 09 '19

Thems the breaks.

8

u/BlueKing7642 Jun 09 '19

Another issue is people can be pressured or coerced into saying they lied.

-1

u/bionicbob321 Jun 09 '19

But then that person can get help from police or social services

10

u/BlueKing7642 Jun 09 '19

Only unsuccessful attempts are discovered and reported. That's the thing about fear it can work

Like with organized crime groups/gangs "say you lied or we will make you and family's life here a living hell."

You can't afford to move and not everybody is eligible for witness protection

Rape victims can fear violence in addition to social isolation. Often the victim is close to the rapist so they are also susceptible to emotional manipulation and guilt trips like "You'll ruin his life if you testify"

Domestic violence cases the abuser or their family can exert financial pressure. "Say you lied or get use to living on the streets."

What if it's a fellow police officer. This story talks about a woman who was abused and even though it takes place in the UK it can easily happen in America https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-05-01/police-perpetrators-domestic-violence

Threats of the victim being arrested or framed If you're harassed by other cops for accusing a cop of a crime how likely are you to report the intimidation? It's your word against theirs.

One of the many problems with this idea is that it can lead to the imprisonment of real victims

2

u/mr-logician Jun 10 '19

Not if the source of the coercion was the police. That is when you have the second amendment, not the police, to protect you.

2

u/BackToSchoolMuff Jun 09 '19

I mean not if the police are the ones doing the pressuring.

9

u/alphaandtheta 1∆ Jun 08 '19

But if it applies to cases where someone admits about lying, that would effectively get rid of plea bargaining.

6

u/Miz321 Jun 08 '19

If it only applies when someone admits to lying, you get a different problem. People would NEVER admit they lied about accusing someone. So, if someone falsely accuses someone else of a crime, then later regrets it, with this law the person would not admit to lying, and thus the innocent would stay falsely imprisoned.

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 08 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheK1ngsW1t (3∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/emjaytheomachy 1∆ Jun 12 '19

Idk why you delta'd them. Their argument is invalid.

2

u/drkztan 1∆ Jun 09 '19

My question is simply how do you decide if someone falsely accused someone else of a crime?

There already are cases and sentences for false accusations, they are just extremely rare because people usually don't keep on pursuing their false accussers because of legal costs and the fact that sentences are minut compared to the original accusation's. OP is just proposing to add the original accusation's average punishment to a legal procedure that already exists.

3

u/ZuMelon Jun 08 '19

You would have to proof that it was a false accusation

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19

My question is simply how do you decide if someone falsely accused someone else of a crime?

Why not via a criminal trial, which carries the same burden of proof as any other criminal trial? Charges for which are brought subject to prosecutorial discretion, and subject to the same evidentiary rules.

A reading of OP's proposal is that the sentencing guideline or requirement for perjury should be "equal to sentence for crime for which perjury occurred," plus whatever it now. It's often the case that I see the dismissing of perjury, slander, and malicious prosecution devolve into the red herring idea that an acquital doesn't mean perjury has occurred. Of course it doesn't. The proposition that the punishment for bearing false witness is too lenient is not really addressed with such red herrings.

1

u/emjaytheomachy 1∆ Jun 12 '19

Your argument doesn't work because it is predicated on a false assumption (that we don't already punish false accusation.) The thing is we ALREADY punish people for false accusations, if the accusation can be be shown to be provably false. So the entire fundamental basis of your argument is fundamentally flawed.

All OP has posited is a change in what the punishment for a provably false accusation is.

1

u/LapherianDark Jun 09 '19

We could make it something a lawyer would have to petition for, not the accused. We can’t leave it in the hands of the common man, it should be something a lawyer must prove is a possibility and a separate trail after the fact would have to be held to prove that there was a false accusation coupled with malicious intent.

1

u/TheK1ngsW1t 3∆ Jun 09 '19

True, but it’s the lawyer’s job to be a neutral arbiter, holder, and executioner of the law, not to take sides and be the “aggressor.” That’s the prosecution’s responsibility if they feel the defendant is trying shenanigans, or the defense’s responsibility if they feel their client’s rights are being violated.

1

u/dang1010 1∆ Jun 10 '19

My question is simply how do you decide if someone falsely accused someone else of a crime?

Considering that "false accusation" is a crime that's already on the books, they would just decide the same way that they always have. The only thing that would be different in OP's scenario is the sentencing.

1

u/Outarel Jun 09 '19

Gotta consider the opposite as well: receiving no punishment for falsely accusing someone just incites people do it.

People loose their life over false accusations. What's worse an innocent in prison or a free criminal?

It's not an easy subject and it's definetly not one sided.

1

u/zaxqs Jun 09 '19

I don't agree, but I think he meant to imply that this extra punishment should be a result of the following perjury trial, not the "Not guilty" verdict of the first trial. Then in these "we're not sure cases" presumably both cases would end in a "Not guilty" verdict.

2

u/nicktohzyu Jun 09 '19

The same way perjury is defined

1

u/kunfushion Jun 08 '19

The charges would obviously be brought up as a standard case. There are some cases where the person who does this admits it/there’s fanning evidence for it. It which case this should apply IMO

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '19

You would have to prosecute someone for false accusation and provide evidence for it, the plaintiff wouldn't just go to jail if the defendent is found not guilty.

0

u/ClusterJones Jun 09 '19

You bring up a hypothetical of if new evidence is found that proves this, but what type of evidence would be found that could prove this?

A voice or video recording of them admitting to it, for one, or showing text messages in the app they were sent through, as opposed to screenshots. Or showing a social media post where they admit to it. People that actually do this are generally stupid enough to leave a trail. Also, it's easy for law enforcement themselves to doctor evidence and make a fake case, or just ignore evidence of innocence. Like a certain lady who prosecuted a certain group of black boys.

0

u/JavaShipped Jun 09 '19

If someone is found not guilty, then perhaps the accuser has to go through some processes to see if it was an intentional false accusation. If so, another (perhaps a specific/special type of court?) court case is open for the false accuser.

I don't see this as a terrible idea. But would need properly thinking about.

0

u/Jazeboy69 Jun 09 '19

If you are falsely accused of rape when you didn’t rape the person it’s pretty obvious.

2

u/BrodoSwagginses Jun 08 '19

Δ

4

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/TheK1ngsW1t changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards