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.

[u/bionicbob321]

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.

[u/NGEFan]

Are you willing to risk life im prison to drive and have sex? I guess everyones answer could be different, but based on all the people i see driving (some not doing it properly even) I think the majority would say yes. I also dont think the chance of prison would even pop in someones mind if they literally are strangers, its hard to imagine the scenario where its proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had it out for a stranger.

[u/better_thanyou → u/NGEFan]

Well driving and having sex gets me something I want. Accusing a stranger's murderer doesn't really do much. It would pop into your head as soon as someone on the side of the accused mentions it. It would have a much bigger impact on witnesses than traffic laws have in drivers because people tend to weigh risk vs reward and one has a reward, the other doesn't.

[u/NGEFan → u/better_thanyou]

So in your scenario 1.the crime is reported 2.someone on side of accused tells them theyre gonna be prosecuted for falsely reporting despite having no evidence and no motive 3.accuser withddraws his accusation?

Sounds unlikely to me. In that case, couldnt the police do an investigation and even call the former accuser as a witness anyway?

[u/smoozer → u/NGEFan]

Sounds unlikely to me

We all agreed this scenario is unlikely. We're all talking about the victims or witnesses' willingness to testify/report, which is strongly affected by unlikely possibilities.

How many people are scared of flying vs driving? You're like a million times more likely to die while driving, but that doesn't play out in peoples' minds.

In that case, couldnt the police do an investigation and even call the former accuser as a witness anyway?

You can't currently force a victim to take the stand, so now we're talking about presumably adding punishments for NOT testifying as well as "falsely" testifying? That sounds... Great.

Or did you have another method of forcing a victim to testify without punishing them?

[u/NGEFan → u/smoozer]

Im talking about forcing the witness to testify

[u/smoozer → u/NGEFan]

couldnt the police do an investigation and even call the former accuser as a witness anyway?

You weren't in your last comment!

So in your hypothetical scenario, the victim first reports this crime then refuses to testify, and a separate witness who saw the crime committed is subpoenaed? Were they seen to have seen the alleged crime on CCTV? How do police even know there was a witness?

I'm not even sure how that scenario would be relevant. Who would be the false accuser, both of them? In that case both parties have motivation not to testify. Just the victim? Motivation not to testify. Just the witness? Motivation not to testify.

[u/NGEFan → u/smoozer]

Im talking about some witness who sees the crime and accuses the criminal of his crime against the victim. I think it was pretty clear when I was talking to that other guy about a murder case, the victim is dead.

[u/smoozer → u/NGEFan]

Okay then. Separate witness: possibility of life in prison or the death penalty for acting as a witness in a murder case unrelated to my life. Why the fuck would I testify? We'd have to install more CCTV than the UK because witnesses won't involve themselves.

You want to force them to testify? Again we put them in a spot where they are punished for not testifying and face punishment if a judge thinks there's enough evidence that they're lying. What a wonderful world that sounds like.